a comparative study of a Roman frontier province. - Historia Antigua

TRIP0LITANIA:a comparative study of a Roman frontierprovince.D. J. MATTINGLYA thesis submitted to the University of Manchesterfor the degree of PhD in the Faculty of Arts.Departmentof Archaeology1984

TRIP0LITANIA:a comparative study of a Roman frontier provinceVOLUIIIE I: TEXTfrontisp-'ece: T'he north gate at Bu Njem(from Lycn 182.1)

(iii)TABLE OF CONTENTSVolume I Text pageAbstractviList of figures and sources vii-ixList of plates X-XiiiPreface and acknowledgements xiv-xvChapter 1. Introduction 1 191: 1 Previous work1: 2 Conceptual frameworks 31: 3 Historical framework 7Chapter 2. Geography and*climate 20 - 532: 1 Introduction 202: 2 Physical geography 212: 3 Climate 282: 4 Flora and fauna 352: 5 The ancient evidence for geography, climate, floraand fauna 382: 6 Climatic change452: 7 The Roman geography of Tripolitania 47Chapter 3. The Tribal Background X 54 - 973: 1 Introduction 543: 2 Tribal hierarchy : general discussion 593: 3 Tribal hierarchy : Tripolitania 68Chapter 4. The Tribal'Background 11 98 - 1414: 1 Nomads and farmers 984: 2 Tribal centres 1104: 3 Culture and religion 125

(iv)4: 4 Warfare4: 5 Warfare in the later Roman period: the myth of the camel 136Chapter S. Frontier theory and practice142-2045: 1 Introduction 1425: 2 Warfare and revolts: problems, patterns and perspective 1605: 3 Roman diplomacy: suasion, organisation and conciliation 1755: 4 The military garrison: patterns of deployment 1845: 5 Conclusions and some models194Chapter 6. Tripolitania and the Roman azmy205-2556: 1 Warfare and revolts2056: 2 Diplomacy, tribal control and tribal development inTripolitania 2216: 3 The frontier and its garrison2306: 4 Conclusions: the work of the garrison252Chapter 7. Me Archaeology of the fzontier 256-3107: 1 Forts 2567: 2 Fortlets and outposts2727: 3 Clausurae2907: 4 vici302Chapter S. The frontier economy311-3398: 1 The development of agriculture3118: 2 The army and the economy3228: 3 The decline of Tripolitanian economy3278: 4 Trade 332Chapter 9. Romanisation and de-Romanisation 340-3669: 1 The cultural character of Tripolitania 3409: 2 The tribal resurgence3549: 3 Post-script - the sub-Roman period363

(v)TABLE OF CONTENTSVolume II : Notes, appendices, bibliography, illustrationsFootnotes367-472Notes on Chapter 1367-370Notes on Chapter 2371-381Notes on Chapter 3382-389Notes on Chapter 4390-400Notes on Chapter 5401-416Notes on Chapter 6417-429Notes on Chapter 7430-442Notes on Chapter 8443-452Notes on Chapter 9453-462Appendix I: Ancient roads and itineraries463-471Appendix 2: Tribal centres in Tripolitania and rezzan472-477APPendix 3 Hilitary epigraphy from Tripolitania478-492Bibliog.raphy493-526Figures527-577Plates 578-608

(vi)ABSTRACTThis thesis concerns Roman Tripolitania in its entirety, reunitingevidence from parts-of southern Tunisia and northwestern Libya. Theintroduction highlights problems with the traditional views of the limesTripolitanus, many of which rest ultimately on conceptual precepts whichare no longer entirely acceptable. The first section of the thesis, therefore,is an attempt to reformulate the conceptual background of the frontierthrough the examination of aspects of the geography, climate and nativesociety of the zone. An entire chapter is also devoted to an analysis ofRoman frontier strategy in its wider ramifications, with particular reference:to the other African provinces. From this broad, comparative study,conceptual models are produced which are of relevance to the subsequentanalysis of the Tripolitanian frontier.The detailed information about the limes Tripolitanus is presentedin two chapters. In the light of both the new conceptual framework and ofthe results of recent fieldwork, many new theories are advanced. Theorigins of the frontier are traced to the first century A. D. and theevidence for its demise in the later fourth and fifth century is reassessed.Attention is drawn to the varied and changing functions of the frontier andits garrison. In particular, considerable emphasis is placed on the political/diplomaticand policing aspects as essential adjuncts of the basicdefensive/military capability. The development of linear earthworks(clausurae) seems to have been linked, in the first instance, with thecontrol (and perhaps customs regulation) of traditional transhumance andpopulation movements rather than with provincial defence.The final sections deal with some of the evidence for the economic andsocial effects of the frontier on the region.DECLARATION: No portion of. the work referred to in this thesis has beensubmitted in support of an applicationfor another degree or qualificationof this or any other University or other institution of learning.

(vii)List of figuresand'their'sourcesAll figures were drawn by the author unless otherwise stated. Main sourcesof information or comparable studies are Indicated in brackets.Fig 1: Physical geography - map.Fig. 2: Oases and major routes of the northern Sahara - map.Fig 3: Rainfall isohyets - map. (Fantoli 1952; Despois 1962; Polservice1980).Fig 4: Traditional economies - map. (Willimot and Clarke 19604Unesco 1963; Penrose et al 1970: Louis 1975).Fig 5: Roads, towns and villages - map. (Tissot 1888; Miller 1916;Goodchild 1948; 1954b, c; Salama 1951; Rebuffat 1973c).Fig 6: Tripolitania in the Tabula Peutingeriana. From Miller 1887.Fig 7: Settlement distribution - map. (Cagnat and Merlin 1914/1932;Goodchild 1954b, c; Barker and Jones 1981; 1982; Rebuffat 1982c;AMS 1: 50,000 and 1: 250,000 series (Libya); French 1: 200,000series(Tunisia)).Fig 8: Tribal confederations - map. (Bates 1914; Desanges 1962;Rachet 1970).Fig 9: Sub-tribal groups - map. (As Fig 8).Fig 10: Fezzan and the Garamantes - map. (Daniels 1970a; RSGI 1937).Fig 11: The late Roman tribal pattern and the rise of the Laguatan - map(Mattingly 1983).Fig 12: Tripolitania hiliforts I. (ULVP surveys as indicated in App. 2).Fig 13: Tripolitanian hillforts II. (ULVP surveys as indicated in App. 2).Fig 14: Zinchecra. (Daniels 1968; 1970b).Fig 15: Tribal centres - map,Fig 16: The Roman frontieýrs of North Africa c. A. D. 201: territorial andhegemoniccontrol- map,Fig 17: The Tripolitanian(Goodchild 1954b,Jones 1981; 1982;frontier : sites of all periods - map.c; di Vita 1964a; Trousset 1974; Barker andRebuffat 1975c; 1977,1980,1982c).Fig 18: The Severan limesin Tripolitania - map. (As Fig 17).Fig 19: Temitoria and boundaries - map. (Trousset 1978; di Vita-Evrard 1979).

(Viii)Fig 20: Remada fort and vicus (Trousset 1974; Euzennat and Trousset1975; 1978).Fig 21: Remada fort. Detail of Donau's excavations (Euzennat andTrousset 1975; 1978).Fig 22: Bu Njem, Cheriat, el-Carbia and their vici. (Goodchild 1952b;1976a; Rebuffat 1975b; Jones et al 1983).Fig 23: cheriat el-Garbia. (ULvp survey by D. Welsby and D. J. Mattingly.cf Jones et al 1983).Fig 24: Cates and towers at Cheriat. (As Fig 23. cf Welsby 1983).Fig 25: Bu Njem fort - detail plan. (Rebuffat 1975b; ULVP verticalkite air-photographs and Goodchild 1954a).Fig 26: Ras el-Ain fort. (Lecoy de la Marche 1894; Toutain 1903a;Trousset 1974). North gate (Lecoy de la Marche 1894).Fig 27: Ras el-Ain fort and vicus. (Lecoy de la Marche 1894; Boizot 1913and sketch plan (1982) by C. D. B. Jones, D. J. Mattingly andP. Reynolds).Fig 28: Late Roman fortlets. Benia Guedah Ceder, Benia bel Recheb;Hr el-Hadjar; Hr Temassine, Hr Rjijila (Donau 1904a; Cagnat 1913;Euzennat 1972; Trousset 1974); Mselliten/Gasr Bularkan (Good-child 1950a); Sdada East (ULVP survey by J. R. Burns andD. J. Mattingly).Fig 29: Fortlets, I. Hr Mgarine, Hr Medeina, Bir Rhezene, Ksar Rhilane,Ksar Tabria (Euzennat 1972; Trousset 1974); El-Medina Ragda,(ULVP surveyby D. J. Buck and D. J. Mattingly).Fig 30: Fortlets II. Detail plans of Ksar Rhilane (Tisavar) (Gombeaud1901; Cagnat 1913) and Hr Medeina (1, ecoy de la Marche 1894).Fig 31: Ain Wif (Thenadassa). (Previously published in Mattingly 1982).Fig 32: a. Gasr Isawi (Banat). (Previously published in Barker andJones 1981 - ULVP survey by H. Coddington and I.Skirton,publicationdrawing D. J. Mattingly).b. Cheriat esh-Shergia. (ULVP survey by J. R. Burns andD. J. Mattingly).Fig 33: Elevation of doorway, Gasr Isawi. (uLvp survey I. Ezzabi andD. J. Mattingly. Final drawing J. M. and D. J. Mattingly).Fig 34: Military outposts* Cheriat esh-Shergia and Gasr Isawi (as Fig32); Hr Krannfir (Cagnat 1913); el-Faschia (uLvp survey byG. D. B. Jones et al); Ksar Tarcine (Gauckler 1902; Cagnat 1913);Casr Duib and Gasr Wames (de Mathuisieulx 1905; Ward-Perkins andGoodchild 1949; Smith 1971 and ULVP survey by D. J, Mattingly,P. Moffat and D. Welsby); Zella II (Rebuffat 1970c); Zerzi(Rebuffat 1970b).

(ix)Fig 35: Clausurae in Tripolitania. and the major transhuming routes -map. Location plan for detailed maps, figs 36,38-40. (Unesco1963; Trousset 1974; 1978; Euzennat and Trousset 1975).Fig 36: The Cherb and Tebaga clausurae - map. (Trousset 1978).Fig 37: Bir Oum Ali clausura. Location (Euzennat 1972); plan of gate(sketch survey by G. D. B. Jones, D, J. Mattingly and P. Reynolds);elevation of wall (sketch by D. J. Mattingly and P. Reynolds).Fig 38: The Tebaga clausura and environs - map. (Cagnat and Merlin1914/1932; Trousset 1974 ; French 1: 200,000 series).Fig 39: The Skiffa group of clausurae, and environs - map. (Trousset1974; French 1: 200,000 series).Fig 40: Hadd Hajar and environs - map. (Goodchild 1954b; Brogan 1980;ANS 1: 50,000series).Fig 41: The Tebaga gate. (Blanchet 1898; 1899; Trousset 1974;sketch survey by G. D, B, Jones, D, J. Mattinglyand P. Reynolds).Fig 42: Hadd Hajar gate (Brogan 1980), Skiffa gate and sketch map(Blanchet 1898; 1899; survey by C. D. B. Jones, D. J. Mattinglyand P. Reynolds).Fig 43: Gemellae fort and vicus (S. Algeria). (Baradez 1949a; 1966a;Trousset1977a).Fig 44: Ad Haiores (Hr Besseriani) fort and vicus (S. Algeria).(Baradez 1949a).Fig 45: Rapidum (Sour Djoub, Algeria), (Seston 1928; Christofle 1938with corrections based on pers. obs. 1981 - with J. R. Burns,C. M. Daniels and G. D. B. Jones); el-Ghara (Algeria).(Sketch survey by J. R, Burns, C. M. Daniels, G. D. B. Jonesand D. J.Mattingly).Fig 46: Senam Howod Njem - olive farm in the Fergian region of theGebel Tarhtma. (Survey by D. J. Mattingly, J. R. Burns andJ. N.Dore).Fig 47: Senam Rubdir - olive farm in the Fergian region of the GebelTarhuna. (Survey by D. J. Mattingly, J. R. Burns and J. N. Dore).Fig 48: a. Detailed survey of wadi farming in the wadi Mimoun.(ULVP survey by various people including D. J. Mattingly.Publication drawing by G. D. B. Jones and previously publishedin Barker and Jones 1982).b. Detailed survey of wadi agriculture in the wadi Lamout(el-Amud). (ULVP survey by D. J. Mattingly, J. R. Bums andS. Moha=pd. Previously published in Barker and Jones 1982).Fig 49: Bir ed-Dreder. Romano-Libyan cemetery. (ULVP survey by D. J. Mattingly,J. R. Burns and M. Mushai. Previously published in Jones etal 1983).Fig 50: Snemat, an opus Africanum olive farm on the wadi Merdum. (LILVPsurvey by D. J. Mattingly and I, Ezzabi. Previously published inBarker and Jones 1981).

(x)LIST OF PLATES(All photos were taken by the author unless stated otherwise).Frontispiece (p. ii) The Bu Njem north gate, From Lyon 1821.P1.1(a) Denuded landscape near Gasr Doga in the Gebel Tarhuna.There is an ancient olive farm on the skyline in thecentre,(b) Fertile uplands of the Gebel Garian. Note traces ofagriculturalterraces.Pl. 2(a) Modem olive orchard near Tarhuna.(b) Denudation and refoliation in the Gebel Tebaga. Modemolive orchards (L) adjacent to defoliated hillsides (r. ).In the foreground, Roman period olive press.Pl. 3(a) The cliff-like escarpment of the Gebel Tarhuna from thenorth. In the foreground, modern agriculture usingtraditional run-off technology.(b) The Gefara plain south of Tripoli. In the distance theGebel escarpment.Pl. 4(a)Remains of major Roman period barrage in the wadi ed-Datm,Cebel Tarhuna.(b) Ruins of a gasr with its associated wadi field systemsin the wadi Migdal.Pl. 5(a) Surviving wadi agriculture in the wadi Beni Mid. Note inparticular the magnificent mature olive trees and tracesof wadi walls.(b) Toyotallandcruiser'lost in sudden flash flood - wadi Scetaf,late Septecber 1979.Pl. 6(a) The approach track and gateway of the Banat hilltop village.(b) 7he main rarpart and interior of the Banat village. Notethe lean-to huts against the rampart.Pl. 7(a) Cheriat el-Garbia fort - kite air-photograph looking northeast.The northeast gate and the outline of the fort are apparent beneaththe later village (ULVP archive).(b) Bu Njem fort - kite air-photograph looking west (ULVP archive).

(xi)Pl. 8(a) Cheriat el-Carbia - northeast gate.(b) Cheriat el-Carbia - interior of the north comer tower. Thedomed structure is modern, but note the widened platform andtraces of two original windows.Pl. 9(a) Cheriat, el-Garbia - northwest defences looking northwestshowing preserved interval towers.(b) The circular tower (buzgus) north of the fort. (It is alsovisible on Pl. 8b). An inscription was in situ above thedoor in the 1850's.Pi. 10(a) Cheriat el-Carbia - interval tower no. 2. Note the tilestring-course at second-storey height.(b) Cheriat el-Carbia - interval tower no. 4.Pl. 11(a) Cheriat el-Carbia, - surviving fragment of semi-circular frontof southwestgate.(b) Cheriat el-Carbia. - Bath-house in course of excavation 1981.1.12(a) Bu Njem fort - vertical kite air-photograph of baths (L)and principia (r. ). (ULVP archive).(b) Bu Njem - surviving masonry of the north gate. Compare thefrontispiece(ULVP archive).P 1.13(a) Ras el-Ain - Fort (centre). Note the rampart of the vicusin the foreground.(b) Ras el-Ain - baths to north of fort (excavated by Boizot 1913).Pl. 14(a) Ain Wif (Thenadassa)- the robbed-out wall of the fortlet with,to the left, the possible traces of an earlier enceinte.The ruinfield extends as far as the modem building.(b) Ain Wif - military bath-house. The stoking area seen in theside of a gulley. Traces of masonry can be seen extendingas far as the oasis.P 1.15(a) Medina Ragda - main wall and interior building.(b)Medina Ragda - double cistern.P 1.16(a) Cheriat esh-Shergia - ashlar masonry of fortlet, wall. Notethe treatmentof the corner.(b) Cheriat esh-Shergia - interior of enceinte wall.

(xii)Pl. 17(a) A typical gasr (fortified farm) in the wadi Migdal.(b) The well preserved interior of one of the Bir Scedua gsur (B. S. 5)oNote the distinctivearched niches.1.18(a) Funerary stele from Bir ed-Dreder in Latino-Punic, script.(b) Funerary stele from Bir ed-Dreder. Note the guide lines. Boththese stele were discovered by DJH for the UZVP in 1981 andare unpublished.p 1.19(a) Bir Oum Ali clausura from the west.(b) Bir Oum Ali clausura - in the foreground the area of thedemolished gate. Note ashlar blocks.Pl. 20(a) Bir Oum Ali - the wall. Note the pitched"roof"to left.(b) Bir O= Ali - the "parapet" walkway looking east.Pl. 21(a) Bir Oum Ali - the gate area (top) and (below), visible in theside of the modern road cutting, the circular construction.(b) The Tebaga clausura with the bank to the left. The car isparked on the outer lip of the ditch.Pl. 22(a) The Tebaga gate looking east. The corridor runs away from thecamera to the left of the figure. In the foreground is thesouth tower.(b) The Tebaga gate looking southeast. In the foreground thenorthtower.Pl. 23(a) The Tebaga gate. Blocking of doorway in north tower. Note theclausura crossing the plain below.(b) The Skiffa clausura looking south from gate. Note the largecircular tumulus to the east.Pl. 24(a) The Skiffa clausura looking north. Note the modemfarm cutting across it in the foreground.(b) The Skiffa clausura - detail of gate and northern end.Pl. 25(a) Skiffa clausura - southern end an escarpment.(b) Skiffs. south - new clausura. The wall is best preserved onthe sides of the valley (top 1. hand corner and centre ofphoto). Cf. Pls. 26 a, b.

(Xiii)Pl. 26(a) Skiffa south clausura - southern end.(b) Skiffa south clausura from north.Pl. 27(a) Skiffa clausura - wall/bank and gate tower from north.(b) Hadd Hajar - wall and gate tower from west.Pl. 28(a) Hadd Hajar - watch tower on Ras al Tays al Abyad. Note theclausura crossing the plain towards the southwest,(b) Hadd Hajar gate - gasr Saqifah, looking north.Pl. 29(a) Hadd Hajar clausura- looking southwest.(b) Hadd Hajar clausura - the gate and wall in the Saqifah defile.Pl. 30(a) Olive press at Snemat on the wadi Herdum (cf Fig 50).(DJH forULVP archive).(b) An obelisk tomb preserved to its full height at el-Amudin the wadi N'fId.

(Xiv)Preface and acknowledgementsThis thesis originated through my involvement in the UNESCO LibyanValleys' Project (hereafter ULVP). The British side of this survey projectis directed by Professor G. D. B, Jones and Dr. G. W. W. Barker and at thetime of writing three seasons of fieldwork have been completed. I amextremely grateful to Professor Jones-. (who was also my research supervisor)and to Dr Barker for their encouragement and advice and for allowing meto make considerable use of unpublished or partly published material. Theextent of my debt is, I hope, made clear by detailed references in thefootnotes and in my lists of illustrations and plates. I have inevitablydrawn on the commnn stock of ideas evolved by myself and other members ofthe ULVP team, but I would like to thank in particular J. R. Bums andJ. N. Dore of Newcastle University and D. J. Buck of Cambridge Universitywho have freely shared information and references with me.Professor A. R. Birley, C. M. Daniels and my father have helped clearup a number of historical points and other matters of detail. Frenchscholars have also been extremely helpful, notably Professors M. Euzennatand P. Trousset (Aix) and R. Rebuffat (Paris) who have answered queries andsent me offprints and the texts of articles in advance of publication.However, full responsibility for the validity of the facts and interpretationofferedhere is mine alone.I must also record my thanks to the Libyan Department of Antiquitieswho have been most helpful to me throughout the last three years. InManchester, Sylvia Hazlehurst and Keith Maude helped in innumerable smallWays* The onerous task of typing this manuscript was undertaken by JanetBailey, who has worked well beyond the call of duty to meet my deadlines.In the final "proof" reading I have received considerable assistance frommy father and my wife, Jenny. This thesis is dedicated to the latter inrecognition of all it owes to her support and encouragement.

(XV)Jvote on transliteration :I have made no attempt to standardise the Arabic names under a singlesystem of transliteration. In the last hundred years or so at least halfa dozen entirely different systems have been used in various parts ofTripolitania. To some extent I have favoured the British/Italian conven-tions over the French or American. Thus "Cebel" and not "djebel" C'moun-tain") and "gasr" not "ksar" or 11qasr" ("castle"). But when dealing withthe names of sites I have tried where possible to respect the best knownusage. Thus Bu Njem and Cheriat esh-Shergia and not Bu Ngem and Qaryahash Sharqihah. Consistency has therefore been sacrificed for the sake ofclarity.

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1: 1 Previous workMe area of Roman Tripolitania is today split into two by the politi-cal division between northwest Libya and southern Tunisia. This haspresented an obstacle to most previous researchers and antiquarians, sincemost of them have been unable to work on both sides of the modern frontier.The first aim of this thesis is to reunite Tripolitania as an entity andto study it as a single unit.The first modern Europeans to pass through Tripolitania were mostlyexplorers heading for the Fezzan and beyond, into the Sudan. Setting offon their expeditions, their observations of the countryside and of archae-ological features often were precise and enthusiastic (in contrast to thecondensed accounts they gave of their return journeys when their senseshad been dulled by malaria).1 Lyon (1818-1820)2, Denham, Clapperton andOudney (1822-1824)3, Richardson (1845-1846)4, Barth (1849-1855)5, Duveyrier(1860)6, Nachtigal (1869)7 and others have left a rich archive of descrip-tion and drawings, notably of sites close to the main caravan routes ofeasternTripolitania.An exception to this group was Commander Smythe who, in 1817, made ajourney into the interior to discover the "lost city" of Chirza. 8 He was,,however, profoundly disappointed and set the pattern for later archaeologi-cal work in the area by subsequently concentrating on exposing (andpilfering) colums and decorated marble at the coastal site of LepcisMagna. 9 Another early expedition was that of the Beechey brothers (1821-1822), who followed the Syrtic coastal route from Tripoli to CyrenaicaeloThe French conquest of southern Tunisia in the 1880's had inportantrepercussions for the study of that region. The cartographers of the"Brigades Topographiques" and off-duty officers, aided by French1: 1

-2-antiquarians, began the first systematic mapping and study of ancientruins, as well as carrying out excavations." Although some of the work,notably the excavation, was of poor quality, it constitutes a large andinvaluable data-base. 12 At the same period in Libya, access was stillmade extremely difficult by the Turkish government of the region. Cowper(1895-1896)13 and the ]Frenchman de Hathuisieulx (1901,1902,1904)14were exceptions in being granted permission to explore the Gebel regions.Cowper's methodical study of the remains of olive presses is still ofgreat value, despite the fact that he wrongly identified them asprehistoricmegaliths!"The seizure of Libya by the Italians in 1911, was followed by thefirst systematic archaeological excavations, though mainly concentratedon the coastal cities of Lepcis Nagna and sabratha and on rich villas,such as Zliten. 16 Because of the unsettled nature of the Gebel and pre-desert hinterland, little work was carried out there.17 Following thefinal conquest of the Fezzan in the early 1930's major scientific andarchaeological expeditions were sent there.18 Paradoxically, work insouthern Tunisia had tailed off and comparatively little that was new wasrecorded between the 1930's and the 1960's. 19 But in Libya, following theSecond World War, the interim British Military Administration inaugurateda major programme of work on the interior of eastern Tripolitania underthe direction of J. B. Ward-Perkins and R. G. Goodchild. 20 Italian andBritish teams also continued to work on the major coastal sites.21 Sincethe independence of Libya in 1951, British, Italian and French teams havecontinued to work with the Libyan Department of Antiquities on a varietyof projects. Apart from Goodchild himself22' the most important contribu-tions for the purposes bf-this study have been those of Brogan 23, di Vita24Reynolds25, Daniels26 and Rebuffat (notably for his excavations of theRoman fort at Bu Njem). 271: 1

-3-In 1964 a small British expedition attempted to follow the Roman limesroad through both Tunisia and Libya. Unfortunately the necessary follow-up28work has never been undertaken. The abeyance in activity in southernTunisia was ended in 1968 when a joint Tunisian and French team inauguratedthree short seasons of fieldwork. 29 Since then Euzennat and Trousset havemaintained the momentum with numerous publications, including Trousset'sinportant thesis on the western limes Tripolitanus.30 The latest work inLibya has been that of the UMSCO Libyan Valleys Project, a joint Anglo-Libyan and Franco-Libyan venture. This has involved the detailed study ofa considerable area of the pre-desert hinterland of eastern Tripolitania. 31The quality of the data collected since 1817 varies enormously andthere are problems in trying to imagine away the modern frontier eventhough it is irrelevant to ancient history. Involvement in the LibyanValleys Project and visits to the Tunisian sector of the Roman frontierhave made the task of integrating the information feasible, though noteasy. The "comparative" nature of this thesis would not have beenpossible were it not for the recent theses of Lawless on MauretaniaCaesariensis32, Trousset on western Tripolitania33, Fentress on Numidia34and a nunber of other, excellent provincial or frontier "case-studies". 35It has also benefitted from my own travels and fieldwork in a number ofRoman frontier zones. 361: 2 Cbnceptual frameworksThe introductory sections on geography and climate, the tribal back-ground and approaches to Roman frontiers(Chapters 2-5, below) form adetailed and integral part of this thesis. This is not intended to be asocio-economic or theoretical study per se but conclusions drawn in theserespects by earlier historians have drastically affected their approach toRoman frontiers. In establishing a new conceptual framework it will benecessary to refer back to the following approaches or methodologies1: 1/1: 2

-4-(a) The conflict theoryA great deal has been written on Roman North Africa which isconceptually subjective, since it is based on the assumption that there wasalways conflict between "the desert and the sown", that is, between nomadsand sedentarypeople.1 Such theories assert that the Romans expellednomadic tribes from the cultivated Tell and pteppe-lands, forcing themback into the northern Sahara and constructing frontiers to prevent theirre-entry into what rapidly became a zone of sedentary agriculture andcivilization. The nomads, however, established their dominance in theoases of the northern Sahara and, with the diffusion of the camel in theLate Roman Empire, were increasingly able to attack the Roman limiteswith inpunity. 2 Or so the theory asserts. Variants on this conflict theoryhave been applied to the study of mountain enclaves within the Romanprovinces, such as the Creat Kabylie range. Unsubdued nomadic tribes wereallegedly, sometimes penned up in such mountain "reservations", from wherethey would break out periodically to pillage sedentary agricultural settle-3ments, In spite of the questionable assumption that nomadic and sedentarypeople are necessarily antipathetic towards each other, such theories havedominated the mainly French literature for over fifty years.4 one of themost extreme exponents of this approach is Rachet who started out with thepremise that the interaction between Rome and non-sedentary native-communi-ties-was always in terms of confrontation and conflict.5 For the Berbersit was an unremitting struggle for liberty and ascendancy, brought aboutby a presumed antipathy between nomadic and sedentary people. Rachet'sbook is certainly fascinating, but it is also largely misguided becauseof its limited perspective,6(b) The limitanei theoryThis theory arose in response to the need for an explanation for theapparent growth in agricultural settlements at various points along theRoman frontiers in Africa. Carcopino first suggested that some of the new1: 2

-5-settlement might have been that of army veterans, designed to firm up thefrontier zone. 7 The whole case rests upon a possibly spurious reference toland allocation to frontier guards in the Life of Severus Alexander8 andan entry in the Theodosian Code referring to lands held by border militia.9In consequence there has been a tendency to identify almost all betterquality construction work in the frontier zone as being military or para-military in origin. The issue became much more complex when Goodchildadapted the idea and applied it to the evidence he had discovered in Libyain the 1940ts. 10 There, most of the fortifiedfarms or gsur seemed tobe of third century or later date. He argued that this was a clearvindication of the passage relating to Severus Alexander, and that themen who garrisoned these farms were border militia or limitanei. 11 Theuse of the term limitanel was unfortunate as it is, in fact, incorrect inthiscontext.12 Goodchild's theory has been further undermined by morerecent work which has shown that there was extensive settlement in theregion of earlier date. 13Nonetheless it is still an influential hypothesisand one cannot disregard his evidence that some of the frontier settlementsdo appear to have had official connections just as some individuals boreofficial military titles.(c) The Minimalist approachIf Goodchild represents'the maximalist point of view of Romaninvolvement in the frontier zones, then the opposite approach also hasattracted interest. 14 This argues for minimal Roman influence on orinvolvement in the socio-economic development of the frontier zones. Themajority of the 9sur are to be interpreted as indigenous dwellings whichhad nothingto do with organised militia.15 The main problem with thisapproach,, however, is one of terminology. How to define, for instance,what "Roman influence" constituted in a region such as Tripolitania. andhow such influence was exerted both actively and passively? Only bystudying the Roman and native interaction in the fullest possible detail1: 2

-6-can we strike a balance between these two opposed viewpoints. Althoughthere is a great deal that should be described as "Libyan" or "African"rather than as "Roman" in the frontier lands, these regions did not existin a vacuum and were profoundly affected by irported political, social andeconomic developments.(d) Roman frontiers: Crand strategy or local response?In terms of the wider issues of Roulan frontiers, there is currentlya debate on the question of whether Rome had an articulated frontierstrategy which was employed empire-wide, allowing for some adaptation tosuit local conditions. A remarkable book by Edward Luttwak, a modernstrategic analyst, sparked off the controversy.16 In brief, he identifiedthree main phases: a Julio-Claudian policy based on mobile armies andclient states; a Flavian/Antonine strategy of fixed frontiers and forwarddefence; finally, a system of defence-in-depth which emerged out of thechaos and anarchy of the third century.17 Others have argued that hisidea of a consistent strategy is contradicted by the variety of regionalresponse to the problem of establishing frontiers. 18 There is some truthin this and Luttwak is far from infallible in his detailed knowledge. Butindividual frontiers should not be studied in isolation.19Because of thepaucity of information on Tripolitania, its frontier is best understood throughcomparative material, and Chapter 5 is devoted to an inductive analysisof the wider issues of Roman strategy in relation to the other African limites.Whilst many historians and archaeologists of Roman North Africa havemodified some of their views, away from the extreme positions of, forexample, Csell2O or Goodchil(121, the legacy of the earlier conceptualframeworks lingers on. In assembling the detailed evidence for thecontext and development of the limes Tripolitanus, some new approacheshave emerged which, it is hoped, provide a valid and coherent newperspective. Nevertheless, a considerable debt is owed to the ideas of1: 2

-7-some earlier scholars, who may be out of fashion now, but who were neverentirely wrong. 221: 3 The Historical frameworkThe chronological limits of this study are, at one extreme, Caesar'svictory at napsus which ended the Civil War in Africa (46 B, C. ) and atthe other, the conquest of North Africa by the Vandals (which was completedby A. D. 455). These are no more than convenient termini for the study ofthe Roman frontier and there is, of course, much valuable information onsocio-economic matters in sources relating to earlier and later periods. -Sometimes information on political or military affairs has a bearing onthe study of the frontier zone of the Principate, notably those relatingto the Byzantine reconquest of the region.1 In the main though, the dis-cussion centres on the 500 years when the region known as the Emporia andlater as Tripolitania was part of the Roman provinces of Africa*2The history of Tripolitania was closely linked to that of its maincity, Lepcis Magna. 3 Lepcis, rather than Leptis, is derived from the Neo-Punic name Lpqy, indicating the Phoenician origin of the settlement.4At its apogee Lepcis Magna was probably second only to Carthage among thecities of Roman Africa in terms of its size, wealth and munificence.5Though originally Phoenician settlements, the three towns, which wereknown corporately as the Etporla and later as the Tripolis (Lepcis, Oeaand Sabratha), came under the controlling influence of Carthage in herheyday. The integration of Phoenician and Libyan ethnic groups probablybegan at an early date and was accompanied by agricultural development.By the third century B. C. Lepcis was wealthy enough for her to shouldera Carthaginian tribute levy of one talent per day. 6 Similarly Caesar'sfine of 3 million pounds of olive oil annually indicates the scale of theagricultural expansion of the region by that early date. 71: 2/1: 3

-8-It is little wonder, therefore, that Massinissa coveted the anporiaand repeatedly tried to annex them for his Numidian Kingdom in the periodbetween the second and third Punic wars. 8 Following the destruction ofCarthage in 146 B. C. the area was confirmed as being under Numidian suzer-ainty, but in 111 B. C., soon after the start of the Jugurthan War, an enbassyfrom Lepcis bound the town to Rome as a civitas foederata and the Mzporiaprobably remained semi-independent of Numidia from that date. 9 At the startof the Civil War in 49 B. C., Lepcis was initially harassed by the raids ofJuba I of Numidia, but then seems to have thrown in her lot with Juba andthe Pompeians. 10 Cato wintered in Lepcis after his epic march round theSyrtic coast and Caesar duly punished the town. 11 Temporarily disgracedand reduced in status, Lepcis was included within Africa Nova, created byCaesar mainly from the Numidian heartlands.During the Principate of Augustus there was a spate of minor wars andrevolts and the Tripolitanian hinterland was certainly involved on a numberof occasions.12 Nonetheless, in 8 B. C. a remarkable building programme hadbeen initiated in Lepcis and produced one of the earliest and most complete"Romanised" towns in North Africa. 13 The impetus and money behind thedevelopment, however, was provided not by outsiders but by wealthy Lepcit-14anians. Presumably the fine and the reduced status imposed by Caesar hadbeen lifted fairly quickly and, as an independent civitas, Lepcis possesseda mint in the late first century B. C. and early first century A. D. 15During the revolt of Tacfarinas (A. D. 17-24) Tripolitania. was again oneof the theatres of warfare. In A. D. 22 the Legio XX Hispana was based ator near Lepcist specifically to guard the route "by which the enemy raidedthe Lepcitanians and then fell back on the Garamantes. ioI6 Following thefinal victory of Dolabella in A. D. 249 comemorative inscriptions wereerected at Lepcis and Oea. 17 Civic and agricultural activity once more

-9-increased and in A. D. 33 the streets of Lepcis were paved on account of therevenues of lands returned to the town, presumably following the war. 18In the confused years of a further Civil War (A. D. 68-69), a quarrelbetween lepcis and Oea flared up into open warfare between the two towns.At issue was the boundary between their lands, but the conflict became moreserious when the weaker side, Oea, enlisted the help of the Garamantestribe. 19 The consequences were a major Roman expedition to the Garamantianheartlands in Fezzan in A. D. 70 and the resurvey of the territoria of thetowns by a special imperial legate, C. Rutilius Gallicus in A. D. 74,20Shortly afterwards Upcis received municipium status; Oea's fate is unknown.Upcis seems to have been granted special privileges for, in spite of herelevation, the chief magistrates continued to be known by their Punic titleof Sufetes up to the moment when Trajan promoted her to colonia statusc. A. D. 109,21 Coupled with the continuing practice of erecting bilingualpublic inscriptions in Latin and Neo-Punic, this is a clear indication ofthe unabated strength of the Libyphoenician aristocracy of the town. 22Even the Romanised names of the aristocracy during the second century A. D.cannot disguise the fact that upcis was first and foremost an African cityrather than an Italian one. Italian settlers seem to have made littlesocial or political headway in local society.23The second century was a time of peace and booming prosperity forUpcis. Another Civil War, in A. D. 193-197, resulted in victory for thecity's most famous son, Septimius Severus. The "African Emperor", havingsecured the frontier of the region, gave his birthplace the largesse forfurther magnificent embellishment of its centre and the coveted zus Italicum24status. In return the people of Lepcis offered to provide an olive oildole for the city of Rome; later emperors up to Constantine continued tolevy this as a tax. 25 But at the moment when the city became most closely1: 3

-10-identified with Rome, the erpire entered a period of crisis and decline.Whatever the reasons, there was a Mediterranean recession and lepcisnever fully recovered. Even when the province of Tripolitania was createdby Diocletian, there was corparatively little building work and someprojects were never even completed.26lapelley in a recent series of books and articles has suggested thatagriculture and municipal life in North Africa continued to thrive in theLate Roman Empire. 27 The information for Tripolitania alone, however,,supports the older view that there was a significant, qualitative shift inwhat constituted prosperity. Nor are some of the reasons for this hard tofind. From the later third century onwards the security of the frontierwas disturbed by the emergence of a new tribal confederation, known undertwo main names as Laguatan and Austuriani. 28 Their destructive raidsextended to besieging the cities themselves." By the time the Vandalsoccupied the coastal region of Tripolitania in A. D. 455, the cities haddeclined both in size and importance and the interior had become a centrefor the revived tribalism of the Laguatan confederation.30 This slideinto obscurity continued and, according to Procopius, Upcis itself wasabandoned by the Vandals prior to the Byzantine reconquest.31 TheByzantine reoccupation of the city covered only a fraction of the formercity and when the Arab conquest came in the 640's A. D., it was Oea (Tripoli)not Lepcis which was the final Byzantine stronghold and which was later tobe the Arab capital for the region.32The history of repcis offers some valuable pointers towards the historyof the region under Roman authority. Precocious development was followed bypremature decline. It would be wrong to speak of a sudden collapse in thefortunes of the region, but there was an overall and gradual decline whichin the course of the years produced profound, material changes. Courtois1: 3

-11-was certainly wrong to suppose that Roman rule of a substantial portion ofTripolitania had been renounced before the end of the third century A. D. 33Nevertheless, there were changes in frontier policy which partly influenced,partly reflected changing socio-economic conditions in the frontier zone.The study of a Roman frontier is unavoidably a study of history, aswell as of geography, tribal society, cultural and economic development.The broad perspective aimed at here incorporates all these aspects in anattempt to find explanations for this extraordinary history of expansionand slump. To this extent, then, the "comparative" nature of the thesisis concerned not only with seeking parallels, but also with defining whatwas particular and unique to Tripolitania.Table I: A below, presents in summary form some of the major historicalevents of Roman Africa and a chronological framework for the Tripolitanianregion.Table 1: Ac. 650- Earliest evidence for original Phoenician settlement at600 B. C. Lepcis. (Carter 1965,130-32. cf. Sallust, BJ, IX, l;LXXX91).c. 520- Doreius establishes Creek settlement on Cinyps (wadi Caam)517 B. C. before being expelled by Carthaginians (including Lepcitanians? )and Macae (Herodotus, V. 43).3rd cent. Lepcis pays Carthace 1 Talent per day in tribute (Livy =V,B. C, 62,3-5)204 B. C. Massinissa defeated by Vermina-flees to region between"Emporia and the Garamantes" (Livy XXIX, 33,8-9)203 B. C. Massinissa defeats Syphax with Roman aid andregains his Kingdom. Start of Numidian Kingdom(Livy XXX, 110 1-22).201 B. C. End of Second Punic War.1: 3

-12-190's - Massinissa repeatedly atteopts to gain control of mrporia160's'B. C. - eventual success despite Carthaginian protests to theSenate (Livy XXXIV, 62,1-18; Appian, Af. Wars, 69).149-146 B. C. lbird Punic War. Carthage destroyed.146 B. C. Creation of Africa Vetus - demarcated by FossaRegla.112 B. C. Start of war between Rome and Jugurtha111 B. C. Agrarian law relating to Africa (CU 1.585,FXR, 7, p. 83, sec. 60).111 B. C. Lepcis sends embassy to Rome seeking alliance and becomescivitas foederata (Sallust,, BJ, LXXVII, 2-3).109 B. C. Garrison sent to Lepcis at the request of the town to counterpolitical in-fighting there (Sallust, BJ, LXXVII91).105 B. C. Capture of Jugurtha and end of war49 B. C. Defeat of Curio by Porpeians and Juba(Caesar, B. Cive11,23-44).48 - Cato at Lepcis for winter after crossing Syrtic desert with47 B. C. army of 10,000 (Plutarch, cato Y., 56; Lucan IX, 375-949).46 B. C. Caesar victorious at 7hapsus and creates Africa, Novafrom heartlands of Numidian kingdom (Caesar, BAft 79.1-88;Dio XLIII, 9,4-5).46 B. C. Caesar fines Uptis (- Lepcis) 3,000,000 pounds of olive oilannually for aiding Juba and Pompeians (Caesar, BAf, 97.3).34,33,28,21 and 19 B. C. Triurphs ex Africa celebrated(CZL 2, p. 50)33 B. C. Bocchus of Mauretania dies and leaves kingdom to Rome.27 B. C. Reunion of Africa Vetus and Nova to form Proconsularis(Dio LIII, 12; Strabo XVII, 3.25; Suetonius, Aug., 47).25 B. C. Mauretania given to Juba II as client kingdom.c. 20 B. C. Cornelius Balbus campaigns against Garama tes and Gaetuli(a subsidiary campaign) and reaches Fezzan (Pliny, NH# V,35-37; Desanges 1957).19 B, C, 27th Yarch, Balbus celebrates Triumph in Rome (Fasti Triumph-ales Inscript. Ital., XIII9 19 p. 571).8 B. C. Market constructed at Lepcis (. rRT 319).3 B. C. L. Cornelius Lentulus dies in North Africa (as Procos? ).Possibly murdered by ivasamones (Desanges 1969; Justinian,Inst., 11,25; Eustathius, Co=. V, 209-210).1: 3

-13-Late B. C. Campaign of Quirinius from Cyrenaica(? ) against Karmaridae- early A. D. and Garama tes (Florus 11,31).it Sabratha, Oea and Lepcis mint own coins (Jenkins 1974).A. D. 1-2 Theatre at Lepcis dedicated (IRT 321-322).c. A. D. 3 Passienus and Cossus win Triumphal honours in Africa (CrL 8.-6 16456 - XIS 120; Velleius Paterculus 11,16)Cossus Untulus wins "Gaetulian War" against Musulames,Cinithl etc., having been specially appointed by Augustus(Florus 11,31; Dio LV, 28,1-4; Orosius VI, 21,18;Desanges 1969).Dedication set up in Lepcis recording victory: Provinciabello, getullco liberata CTR7 301)A. D. 11-12 ! Chalchidicum" at Lepcis dedicated URT 324).pre-A. D. 14 First milestones on the coast road (near Sabratha) (di. Vita-Evrard 1979,91)A. D. 14 Road built from Tacape (Gabes) to cast. hibeznis byNonius Asprenas (CZL 8.10018,10023; XLAf 654; xZS 151)Legio, XXX Augusta with H. Q. at Ammaedara - not full-sizedlegionary fortress? (de Pachtere 1916; XLAg I, p. 286).A. D. 15/16 Road directed 44 m. p. into interior from Lepcis. Demarcationof terrltorl= of lepcis? (XRT 954; di Vita-Evrard 1979).A. D. 17-24 Revolt of Tacfarinas - tribal support over widearea (Tacitus, Ann. 11.52; 74; 111,20-21; 32; 73-74;IV, 23-25; Velleius Paterculus, 11,1309 5; AureliusVictor, de Caes, 2,3).A. D. 20 legio XX Hispana withdrawn from Pannonia for servicein Africa (Tacitus, Ann, 111.20).A. D. 22 XX Hispana based at Lepcis under cornand of its Legate,Cornelius Scipio as part of tri-partite division of army byBlaesus (Tacitus, 111,74).A. D. 23 Juba of Mauretania dies, succeeded by son Ptolemy.XX Hispana returned to Pannonia (Tacitus, IV9 23).A. D. 24 Garamantes specified as allies of Tacfarinas (Tacitus, IV, 23)A. D. 24 Death of Tacfarinas and end of war (Tacitus, IV, 23-25)A. D. 24 Cormemorative inscriptions erected to victorious Procos.Dolabella at Lepcis and oea (Epigraphica 209 19581,1-13AE 1961,107-108).A. D. 29 Vibius Harsus carried out great survey (MmItatio) of- 3o southern Tunisia (CrL 8.22786,22789; Trousset 1978).of Vibius Marsus in repcis Magna (. rR7 308)A. D. 36 - Tiberian arch in Lepcis records paving of town streets from36 revenues of land restored to city (after war? ). H. EtriliusLupercus, legate of the Proconsul, involved. (IRT 330-331:ex zedit&# agror= quos Lepcitanis rest-ftuit).1: 3

-14-A. D. 40 Division of responsibility between Legate (military)and Proconsul (civil affairs) within Africa Proconsularis(Tacitus, Hist., IV, 48,3-6; Dio LIX, 20,7).Ptolemy of Mauretania put to death by Gaius and his kingdomannexed (Dio LIX, 25,1; Suetonius, Calig, 35).Revolt of Aedemon and Moors continues until A. D. 42.Eventual formation of two provinces, Tingitana andCaesariensis (Dio LX, 9,1-6).A. D. 44-45 Calba sees military action as Procos. - extraordinarycommand and clearly trouble in Numidia (Dio, LX#9#6;Plutarch, Galba, 111,2; Suetonius, Galba, 7-8).A. D. 52-57 War or policing actions? ; region of Chemtou(Simitthu) (CrL 8.14603).A. D. 56 Dedication of Lepcis amphitheatre (di Vita - Evrard 1965).c. A. D. 60-63 Vespasian, Procos Africa (Suetonius, Vesp, 40;Tacitus, Hist., 111,971,2).A. D. 68-69 Civil War between Nero, Calbag Otho, Vitellius andVespasian.A. D. 69 - Civil strife between Upcis and Oea. Oea aided by Garamantes70 who lay siege to Upcis before defeated on arrival of Romanauxiliaries. Subsequently the Legate Festus campaigns tothe Fezzan (Tacitus, Hist. IV. 50; Pliny V. 38).A. D. 73-74 C. Rutilius Gallicus, special Legate, in Africa.Resurvey of Fossa Regia under his auspices (crL 8.308,11543,25967,23084).A. D. 74 Territoria of lepcis and Oea redefined by Callicus (di Vita-Evrard 1979).A. D. 74 Lepcis elevated to status of municipiunt (IRT 3421,346) but- 77 retains sufetal magistrates (. rRr 347-349).c. A. D. 75 Legionary H. Q. noved from Ammaedara (Haidra) toTheveste (Tebessa) (CrL 8.1846-1847)A. D. 77 - Flavian arch at Lepcis dedicated - possibly in recognition78 of town's promotion URT 342).A. D. 81 Cohort-sized fort built by Legio IITZ Augusta atLambaesis (AS 1954,137).A. D. 80-81 Tribal delimitation in vicinity of Cirta (Constantine)under Tullius Poaponianus Capito (AS 1942/19431,35; 19571,175; 1969/19709 669).A. D. 83 Javolenus Priscus (Legate) active in Djerid (CIL 8.23165)and in Nefzaoua (road between there and Aquae' Tacapitanle(el Hamma) (ILAf 656; Donau 1907).A. D. 85 - Revolt of the Nasamones over taxation. Repressed by86 Suellius Flaccus (Loeb Epitome of Dio LXVII, 3,5 - ZonarasXI, 19; Eusebius, Chron, 1,10).A. D. 86 - Delimitation of lands of minor Syrtic sub-tribes near87 Marccoades (Sirte) (IRT 854).A. D. 877 Campaign against Garamantes by Septimius; (- Suellius? )Flaccus (Ptolemy 1.8- 19 10).1: 3

-15-c. A. D. 89- Expedition of Julius Maternus from Lepcis to Agisymba91 with aid of a Garamantian king -a civilian sequel to themilitary campaign of Flaccus? (Ptolemy 1,8 10;Desanges 1964).A. D. 92 Last dated bilingual (Latin/Neo-Punic) inscription fromLepcis(IR! r 318, theatre).A. D. 97 Nervan milestone on the coast road between ! racapae and Gigthis(CIL 8.10016)A. D. 97 Castellus (sic) Miges constructed on road linkingCapsa with Djerid oases (CIL 8.23166).A. D. 105 Minucius Natalis (Legate) constructs limes roadsouth of Aures mountains and fort of Ad Maiores (Besseriani)etc. (CIL 8.2478 - 17969,2479 -. 17971,22348).A. D. 105 Gebel Asker road between Capsa (Gafsa) and Nefzaoua.Lands of Capsitan! and Nybgenii delimited. Clausurae built?(CXL 8.22796; rLAf 655; Donau 1904b; 1909b; Toutain 1906).c. A. D. 105? Delimitation of lands of Nybgenii tribe from those of Tacapaefollowing scheme of Harsus (see A. D. 29-30) (CIL 8.22786m,22787-22788; zL7,69-70; Trousset 1978).Cf. Bir Soltane delimitation stone between two minor tribalunits (CIL 8.22763 - xLAf 30).A. D. 103-105 Lands of Musulamii delimited (. rLAIg 1,2828,2939,2978,2988, AE 1923,26).A. D. 109 Lepcis Magna promoted to rank of colonia - arch erected incity in honour of Trajan (. rRT 2849 353).A. D. 116 Redelimitation of lands of Musulamii (. TLA2g 1,2829,2839 bis; AE 1907,20).A. D. 118-122 Disturbances in Mauretanian provinces (SHA,Had, 5,2; 12-, 7) First visit to Africa (Mauretania) by Hadrian?A. D. 128 Second visit to Africa by Hadrian (Proconsularis).Made speech at Lambaesis where legionaryH. Q. now permanentlyestablished (CIL 8.18042).A. D. 131-132 Gemellae fort completed by Legio III Augusta (As1950,60,64; Libyca 1,1953,155-56).Hadrian grants municipium. status to Turris Tamalleyii (Telmine)previously known as civitas Nybgenior= (CIL 8.83).? Establishment of fort at V. Ilibari (Remada) (Euzennat andTrousset 1975).A. D. 145-150 Major Moorish rebellion(s) affects Mauretanianprovinces and Numidia (Benabou 1976,135-144)o? Antoninus Pius makes Gigthis a municipium with Latium maiusstatus at third request (earlier requests to Hadrian? )(CIL 8.22207; 22737; xLT 41).c. A. D. 157 Trial of Apuleius at Sabratha (Apologia).A. D. 161 Dedication of circus at Lepcis (di Vita - Evrard 1965).-1621: 3

-16-A. D. 172-174 Campaign into the Saharan Atlas: the Aguenebinscription (C-rL8.21567).A. D. 185-193 Establishment-of Tisavar (CrL 8.11048) and Bezereos (. rLAf 26;.rL! r 58) .A. D. 191-192 Co dus planning to visit Africa at time of hisassassination.A. D. 193-197 Civil War. Septimius Severus defeats rivals.? Reign of Severus - barbarian invasions of Tripolitania.Frontiers made secure. (SHA, Severus 18,3; Aurelius VictorXX, 19).A. D. 197 Repairs to temple (aedes) at Tillibari (Remada) (Euzennat andTrousset 1975,45-47).A. D. 197-201 Q. Anicius Faustus, Legate of III Augusta.A. D. 198 Si Aoun fortlet constructed CmAf 9) castellum Di=idiand fortlets in Saharan Atlas at same time (Picard 1944).A. D. 198- Gheriat el Charbia constructed (Sqppj. L. A. X1,107-11)201 Bu Njem founded (XRT 914-916; Rebuffat 1973b); Bezereosrefurbished ULAf 26 - ILT 56 and 58).A. D. 201- Holding garrison left at Bu Njem whilst rest of vexillation265 away (on campaign? ) (Rebuffat 1973b).c. A. D. 201- Garrisons established at fortlets of Ain Wif URT 868) and210 Gasr Zerzi (L. A-. 1,1964,43-44). Ghadames oasis garrisoned(IRT 907-909; CIL 8.1 - 10990; PBSR 1958,134).Provincis Numidia formally created with the Legionary Legateas governor (ILS 9488; Speidel 1973).A. D. 203 Severus returns to Lepcis, his birthplace. Quadriform archerected to mark visit (IRT 292).c. A. D. 203 Lepcis receives lus Italicum (Digest, L. 15,8,11)LePcisoffers oil dole to people of Rome in gratitude(SHA,Severus, 18,3).? Early third century - first references to "regione Tripolitanaeif(= 8,16542-16543,11105,22765) and "limes ! rripolitanus"(A. 1.73j4) .A. D. 216 Severan basilica and forum complex at Lepcis completedURT 4279 428).A. D. 216 Massive propaganda exercise by Caracalla - marking Roman roadsin Africa, Tripolitania and elsewhere with milestones(Goodchild 1971; e. g. IRT 941).A, D. 230- Reign of Severus Alexander. Construction of burgus,235 (circular tower) at Cheriat (IRT 895).A. D. 238 Revolt of Gordians versus Maximinus started atThysdrus - put down by Leglo XXX Augusta (Herodian VII, 4;SHA, Gord, 7).Dissolution of leg. XXX Augusta after elevation of Gordian III(Picard 1944,118-119).Reign of Gordian. Gheriat still occupied (by auxiliary unit)Reference to damage caused in a war (Loriot 1971 - AR 19739573IRT 896).1: 3

-17-A. D. 244- Gasr Duib built (Novum centenarium) on Limes Tentheitanus246 sector by praepositus limitis URT 880).A. D. 248 First reference to a praepositus limit; r Tripolitani.. (at BuNjem). Military zone of future provinces well defined(Rebuffat 1977,406).c. A. D. 250-260 Revolt of Faraxen with other tribal chiefs -affects eastern Mauretania and Numidia (cxL 8.2615 - xLs 1194;CXL 8,9047 - xLs2767).A. D. 253 Recreation of Legio III Augusta and redeployment(czL 8.2482 - 17976, Gemellae. ). The Respubl. MunicGemellensium recorded their thanks for the return of thetroops (AE 1946,39).A. D. 259 Last dated dociment from Bu Njem (Marichal 1979,436).By A. D. 263 Bu Njem abandoned? (Marichal 1979,450-51).A. D. 263 Ras el Ain fort constructed (CrL 8.22765 - ILT 3).A. D. 275 Last dated milestone on central road between Tripoli and Mizda,Geriat still occupied at this time? (. rRT 943).A. D. 289 Rebellion of tribes in North Africa - outbreaks from298 Mauretania to Tripolitania (CIL 8.89249 90419 9324;Aurelius Victor, de Caes. XXXIX,, 22). Maximian campaignsin North Africa and in Tripolitania (Syrtic region) againstthe Laguatan (Corippus, loh., I, 480-83; V. 178-80;VII, 530-33).c. A. D. Creation of provinces of Tripolitania and Byzacena with praeses294-305 as governors,A. D. 297 - Construction of centenarium Tibubuci (Ksar Tarcine) (cn 8.303 22763 - ns 9352).c. A. D. 305- Latest coins from Tisavar fortlet (Maximin Daia) (Trousset,313 1974,93).c. A. D. 355 Flavius Archontius Nilus comes et praeses pxvv. Trip (IRT 562,563), also active in refurbishment of fort at Ras el Ain'%'CIL 89 22766-68).c. A. D. 355 Flavius Nepotianus comes et praeses (IRT 565)-378c. A. D. 363- Repeated raids by Austuriani (- Laguatan) against territoria377 of coastal cities, siege of Lepcis itself. RoManusp comesAfricae, fails to take military action against the raiders(A=. Marcellinus XXVII,, 9,1; XXVIII, 6,, 1-14).Sabratha sacked (or damaged by earthquake? ) (IRT 57,58,103,111).A. D. 373-375 Revolt of Firmus and tribes of eastern Mauretania(Amm.. Marcellinus XXIX, 5,1-56).A. D. 375- Flavius Victorianus, comes Africae in Tripolitania (Lepcis)378 defesso territorio nimia incursatione barbarorum (IRT 5701: 3PBSR 1955,130).

-18-A. D. 378 Reconstruction continuing in Sabratha (IRT 103,111)A. D. 393 Silvanus described as dux et corrector limitis Tripolitani(but still subordinate to Comes Africae) (Cod. 2heod. XII. 1.133).A. D. 397-398 Revolt of Gildo, Comes Africae and brother ofFirmus (Claudianus, de bell. Gild. )A. D. 406 Nestorius v. sp. comes et dux provinciae Tripolitanae '(Cod.Theod. XI. 36.33).c. 401-412 Repeated raids of Ausuriani (=Laguatan) against theCyrenaican Pentapolis (Synesius, Letters).c. A. D. 408- Further Austurian raids against Tripolitania - Fl Ortygius,423 comes et dux provinciae Tripolitanae opposes incursions(IRT 480 - Reynolds 1977).A. D. 409 Limites et fossata pronouncement by Honorius andTheodosius (Cod. Theod. VII, 15,1).c. A. D. 429 Boniface invites Vandals into North Africa duringquarrel with Galla Placidia. Subsequently defeated byVandals (Romanelli 1959,639-647).A. D. 439 Fall of Carthage to Vandals (Romanelli 1959,657-660).A. D. 455 Death of Valentinian III - Tripolitanian coastal region cededto Vandals.A. D. 470 Byzantine army sent by Leo against Vandals - lands inTripolitania but eventually withdrawn without fight (Procopius111,6,9).Sixth cen- Defeat of Vandal army by Laguatan confederacy led by Cabaontury (Procopius 111,89 15-19).pre A. D. 523A. D. 529- Defeat of Vandal army by tribal confederation led by Antalas.530 Led to deposition of Vandal king Hilderic and Byzantinereconquest* (Procopius 111,9,1-26; Corippus 111,171-261).A. D. 533 Revolt of Pudentius from 7andal rule in Tripolitania, -ahead of main Byzantine landing (Procopius 111,10,22-24).A. D. 533 Byzantine army under Belisarius-defeats Vandalsunder Gelimer and recaptures Carthage and Africa (Procopius III).A. D. 534-535. Sporadic warfare with Moorish tribes and army mutinies(Procopius IV, 11,1-56; IV, 13,18-39; IV, 15 - IV9 19).A. D. 544 Sergius appointed as new dux Tripolitanae. Massacre of eightyLaguatan chiefs at Lepcis provokes major revolt of Libyantribes, including those of Antalas (Procopius IV, 21,1-16;Corippus 111,397-400).Praetorian Prefect Solomon killed in battle against allianceof Laguatan and tribes of Antalas (Corippus 11,28-40;111,384-85; Procopius IV, 21,17-18).Laguatan advance as far north as Laribus (Corippus 111,444-579Procopius IV, 229 12-20).A. D. 544- Years of crisis for Byzantine rule in Africa - tribal war and546 mutinies.1: 3

-19-A. D. 546- Carpaigns of John Troglodita. Defeated confederation of548 Layuatan led by Ierna and tribes led by Antalas (CorippusIV, 472 - V, 527) and anotherled by Carcasan and Antalas(Corippus VI, 285 - VIII, 656; Procopius IV, 28,50-51).7 Reign of Justinian. Treaties with Augilae and Cidamensi(Procopius, de aed, VI, 2,14-20; VI, 3,9-12).c. A. D. 568 Byzantine treaty with Garamantes made and Garamantes toaccept Christianity (John of Biclar 569,1).Late sixth Tripolitania attached to Diocese of Egypt (George of Cyprus,century 795-798). (during Arab invasions reverted to AfricanDiocese).A. D. 643- Start of Arab invasions led by Amr Ibn el Aasi against644 Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Giofra (Waddan).A. D. 647 Defeat of Gregory by Arabs at Sufetula (Sbeitla)and destruction of Byzantine field army.A. D. 666- Ocba campaigns against Ghadames, Fezzan and Giofra and667 strengthens Arab control.A. D. 670 Foundation of Kairouan.A. D. 697-698 Arabs capture Carthage (twice). No furtherByzantine attempts to recapture thereafter.1: 3

-2o-CHAPTER 2 GEOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE2: 1 IntroductionAlthough Tripolitania was administered as part of Africa proconsularisuntil the third century A. D. 9there were sound geographical reasons foreventually differentiating it as a separate territory. The physical reliefand climate of the region distinguish Tripolitania from Rome's other terri-tories in North Afri-ca. It stands apart as a hybrid between Mediterraneanand Saharan zones, ' and may even be considered to lie outside the Maghrebproper, which is characterised by the Atlas mountains (Tell) and highplains (steppe). 2 In terms of structure and climate Tripolitania is moreimmediately Saharan, although the long littoral imposes certain Mediterraneanclimaticnuances.3 The main ecological zones are well defined and haveconstituted the essential conditions and limitations of settlement in theregion.Early modern explorers noted with astonishment the extensive remains PI laof ancient settlement in zones then almost devoid of population.4 Similarobservations were made in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco and, perhapsinevitably, there was speculation that major climatic change had occurredin the post-Classical period. Modern research, however, suggests that theancient conditions were much the same as those of today and a good deal ofinformation on the ancient environment can be assembled from a combinationof ancient and modern sources. 5In relation to the study of the Roman frontiers, detailed topographicknowledge is essential to understand differences in their tactical deploy-ment. One must appreciate, for instance, that Tripolitania, Numidia andCyrenaica faced the Sahara proper, whilst the Mauretanian provinces wereconfronted by the massifs and high plateaux of the Atlas ranges. At thetactical level, each frontier was conditioned by the local geography andthe natureof the indigenouspopulation.6 A further crucial point is that2: 1

-21-there are no convenient geographical or social barriers between "thedesert and the sowniv. 7 There is, of course, a gradual increase in ariditybetween the zones, but there is not a fixed line which the Romans, or any-one else, could recognise as a natural frontier between a desert pastoralzone 8and cultivated regions. A recurring theme of this thesis will bethe question of whether the relationship between nomads and sedentaristswas essentially one of symbiosis or of conflict (see Chapter 4: 1). But inany case the Roman frontier did not separate nomads from farmers as hassometimes been claimed. 9 Pastoralists extended into the settled zone,whilst agriculture spread well beyond what are considered the modern limitsinto the pre-desert. A more important question, therefore, is to assesshow far the frontier came into being in order to regulate existing pastoraland agricultural communities, and how far these communities developed as aresult of the frontier being created.10 The physical and social geographyof the Mediterranean and Saharan zones of Tripolitania are interconnectedand the Roman frontier, far from being an inpenetrable line, was a seriesof garrison points which looked inward as well as outward. "2: 2 Physical GeographyBecause of the accident of modern political geography, recent workstend to deal either with southern Tunisia alone or with northwest LibyaolThe region which is more properly defined as Tripolitania in the ancientsense extended from Tacapae (Gabes) to Arae Philaenorum (Ras el-Aali) andcovered 2approximately 175,000 square kilometres. The greater part of thisis technically pre-desert (true desert lands were excluded from the calcula-tion) and in its wider context Tripolitania may be considered as essentiallySaharan. 3 Figures for modern Libya as a whole show that only 9% of the landmass is not desert'4 and only 3% is used for agriculture.5 Broadly speaking,the same pattern is true for Roman Tripolitania; there was a restricted,fertile margin near the coast and a vast desert hinterland. If this Saharan2: 1/2: 2

-22-hinterland, including the Fezzan, is added to the calculation of size, oneis dealing with an area in the order of 610,000 square kilometres. Tripoli-tania is far more closely linked to the Sahara by climate, relief and physicalproximity than most regions of the Maghreb. In order to set the physicalgeography in context, therefore, one must compare and contrast both theAtlasian and the Saharan landforms. 6At its simplest level, the geography of Tripolitania consists of threemain zones (Fig. 1)7. A broad coastal plain (the Gefara) runs from east ofTripoli (Oea) to the gulf of Bou-Ghara (Gigthis), where it merges with thecoastal plain of the Gabes region (the Arad). To the south of the Gefaraand curving in a great arc towards Roms (Lepcis Magna), at one extreme, andGabes, at the other, is the mountainous escarpment of the Gebel. To thesouth, the Gebel merges gradually into the Saharan plateau (the Dahar). Aswe shall see, however, there are important local variations even within thesebroad categories and a number of other quite distinct physical zones mustalsobe considered.8(a) The Gebel Together, the Gebel, Gefara and Dahar once constituted a"dome" of Jurassic and Cretaceous strata (limestones, dolomites, marls andclays).9 The collapse of the central region created the Gefara basin andthe cliff-like face of much of the Gebel along the faulting-10 Latererosion of the uplifted Gebel has created several contiguous hill-groupswhich are often separately referred to as the Gebel Matmata and GebelDemmer (Tunisia)11, the Gebel Nefusa, Gebel Garian'29 Gebel Tarhuna andMsellata (Libya). 13 From a minimum width of c. 10 km., the Gebel is normallya band of hills c. 20 14-25 km. wide* To the south it merges with the Dahar,which emphasises the essentially Saharan nature of the formation. 15 Itsphysical characteristics vary considerably between sectors. The highestportion is the Gebel Nefusa/Garian region which attains 800 m. plusl whilstthose of Tarhuna, Matmata, and Demmer rarely reach 500 m.16 Thenorthern cliff escarpment is also most pronounced in the central section from2: 2

-23-Nalut to Garian, with access onto the plateau limited to a few routes,17following deeply incised wadi beds. In the Libyan sectors generally,it is possible to move perpendicularly to the scarp along the undulatingplateau.But in the Gebel Demmer the eroded scarp edge is so broken upthat lateral movement is restricted either to the foothills or to the Dahar. 18In some areas movement from the Dahar through the Gebel and into the Gefarais limited to certain "passages oblige's. "19South of Garian the limestone plateau is overlain by extensive basaltflows, which are probably late Pliocene or Pleistocene in date. 20 Apartfrom in the region of these flows, soils are normally wind-deposited andloess-likeg deriving from the limestone plateau.21 On Garian the soilPI lbcover is up to 10 m thick in places.22 Angular quartz grains, coated witha thin film of iron oxide give these soils a characteristic red colour.23(b) The Gefara As already stated, the Gefara is the collapsed centre ofa 116sozoic anticline. Erosion of the Gebel in the Miocene and later hasproduced considerable aggradation of parts of the Gefara plain.24 MorerecentQuaternaryerosion and deposition has been concentrated in the wadibeds which cross the Gefara plain to the sea. 25 Even today, alluvium is26being redeposited in places. At the apex of its arc the Gefara isc. 150 km wide and east to west along the coast is extends for over 350 km.The character of this relatively flat plain varies markedly between itsPI 3bextremities and its centre and between the coast and the interior. A largeportion of it is technically desert. Setting out for Chadames in 1848,Richardson was surprised to find that "the desert reaches to the walls ofthe city of Tripoli. es27 Although some of the dune fields are of relativelyrecent origin, wind blown sand was also a problem in the coastal plain inantiquity (see below 2: 6). The eastern Cefara south of Tripoli and thePI 2bwestern Gefara south of Bou-Ghara (Gigthis)are comparatively well-wateredzones, however, as is a narrow strip at the foot of the Gebel. A band ofoases along the coast have helped make that a preferred zone of settlement2: 2

-24-as well. It is incorrect, therefore, to describe the Cefara as entirely aridsteppe-lands28, but neither should it be assum d to have once all been fertile39The coastal region is the most densely settled region on account of itssubterranean aquifers and oases. 30 The chain of oases from Tagiura to Gabesis only broken up by some extensiveareas of sebkha near the Tuniso/Libyanborder.W The Dahar The Saharan plateau or Dahar extends up to the Gebelescarpment and it is primarily climatic differences that demarcate them asseparate zones. 31 To the southwest the Dahar slopes off into the GreatEastern Erg (see d below), to the south it runs into the foot of the Hamadael Hamra and to the southeast it is dissected by the great wadi basins ofSofeggin, Zem-Zem and Bei el-Kebir. This latter zone is marginally lessarid than the two former, though none of them is as well-watered as theGebel (2: 3 below). 32This Mesozoic plateau formation has been deeply eroded at its easternextremity by substantial water courses during the Quaternary Age,33Following initial down-cutting into the limestone strata, soil depositionhas occurred and, in spite of the low rainfall, cultivation is. possible in34the Sofeggin and Zeur-Zem systems. But elsewhere the desert character ofthe Dahar is much more strongly pronounced. The major limiting factor tomovement in the Dahar has nothing to do with relief, though; it is theavailability of water which dictates settlement and land use in thistransitional, pre-desert zone.(d) Chotts, Erg and Hamada The northwestern limits of Tripolitania aresharply defined by the Chott Djerid and its eastward continuation ChottFedjedj. These chotts (more correctly sebkhas3S) are vast inland drainagebasins formed by the Tertiary faulting of the Atlas formation. The cliff-like Gebel Tebaga and the Cherb ranges were the uplifted results of th $13a36same incident. The presence of the seasonal lakes and these abrupt2: 2

-25-mountain barriers imposes limitations on movement between Tripolitania and37the rest of Northwest Africa. South and southwest of the Chott Djeridextends the Great Eastern Erg or sand sea which was practicallyimpassableuntil modem times. Movement east to west, therefore, is restricted to thefar south (Tibesti and Hoggar) or the "passages obliggs" of the Djerid andArad. For precisely this reason, the Axis powers chose the Gabes coastalplain as their main line of defence against the advancing British. 38 Thisstrategic bottleneck between Tripolitania and the rest of Roman Africa wasmade doubly important by the existence around the Chott Djerid of two majorgroups of oases, the Nefzaoua and the Djerid.Only those of the Nefzaouafall within the geographical zone of Tripolitania, but their links withthose of the Djerid (on the northwest side of the Chott) were probably close.39The Saharan character of the Dahar is also reinforced by the imposingform of the Hamada el-Hamra, which separates Tripolitania from Fezzan- ThisPalaeocenelimestonecap, on cretaceous limestone strata, has a reddish-browntint from which its Arabic name is derived. 40 Approached from the north itpresents an 80-100m scarp and in places attains over 900 m in height.Although there are some fine, red soils in depressions, the Hamada is a rockdesert feature and is almost entirely waterless and barren. 41 To the eastof the Hamada lies the basalt extrusion known as the Gebel es-Soda (BlackMotmtain), which is interposed between the oases of Giofra and Fezzan.(e) Syrtica and the Hun graben The Sofeggin, Zem-Zem and Kebir wadisystems, descending from the Dahar, enter the Syrtic coastal plain whichextends from Misurata to Arae Philaenorum (Ras el-Aali). The geology ismainly Tertiary (Palaeocene and Miocene) with extensive faulting alignednorthwest to southeast. The most important of these fault lines is theHun-Waddan graben (210 km long,c. 25 km wide) which runs from the Bei el-Kebir to the oases of the Giofra (Hun, Waddan and Socna). 42 This naturalcorridoris one of the most importantroutesbetween the coast and Fezzan.2: 2

-26-Further east the interior consists of a limestone plateau of Tertiarydate, whilst the coastal formations are of the Quaternary Age. 43 The areais almost entirely desert in character but the wadi beds contain limitedareas of fertile alluvia. The western Syrtic coast is notable for theSebkha Tauorgha, a seasonal lake (110 by 30 km) into which the wadisSofeggin and Zenr-Zem empty. In antiquity, there was apparently an unsiltedexit from the lake into the sea.44W The Sahara Some of the Saharan landforms have already been alludedto. The northern limit of the Sahara is normally defined as the zone ofextension of date palm cultivation producing dates for consumption. Underthis definition the whole of Tripolitania. lies within the Sahara since datesare grown for food in the coastal oases from Misurata to Gabes, thoughthey are not of high quality because of the relative humidity. 45 It issometimes forgotten that only one fifth of the Sahara is sand desert and46only one fifteenth covered by dune-fields. The stone plateaux of Dahar,Syrtica and the Hamada are structually typical of much of the Sahara. Thelifting and faulting of the region, in part relating to the period of theAtlas formation, brought artesian nappes to the surface and permitted thedevelopment of the characteristic oases of the zone. Between the Hamadael-Hamra and the Great Erg, barren sand and stone desert are alleviatedby the few oases of Ghadames, Derj and Sinawen (the latter described byRichardson as "but a handful of date trees thrown upon the wide waste ofthe Sahara"). 47 To the east of the Hamada, the Giofra oases, Zella andAugila are links in a chain of oases stretching to the Nile (Fig. 2). 48North to south routes from coast to Fezzan incorporate the oases of Mizda,Bu Njem and Gheriat el Garbia inter alia. Whilst the oases of the Nefzaouaoccupy the key strategic position defining the western and northwesternlimits of Tripolitania, the southern and eastern limits defy precision. Themarginal desert character of much of Tripolitania involves it physicallyand demographically with a vast Saharan hinterland. Although the region2: 2

-27-could be separated out with justification from the rest of Roman Africaon topographic grounds, it was the relationship with the desert that hadthe most important implications for the Roman frontier.(g) Fezzan South of the Hamada el-Hamra and sandwiched between the Edriand Murzuk sand seas there are three roughly parallel bands of oases, knowncollectively as Fezzan. 49 These oases formed the heartlands for one of themost formidable Libyan tribes, the Garazwntes, and are thus of particularrelevance to the military history of Tripolitania (see below, Chapters 3 and4). 50(h) Land co=zunications It is apparent that the physical relief and theexistence of artesian springs at certain points have conditioned settlementwithin, and movement into/out of, Tripolitania. The Hamada el-Hamra and theGreat Eastern Erg represent waterless obstacles to commLmication and havebeen skirted by most routes. Desert tracks running north to south and westto east were known and utilisedby the Garamantes and others.51 With onlyminor variations, the main routes are defined by nature (Fig. 2). Thethree main routes to the Fezzan skirt along the edges of the Hamada el-Hamra; via Ghadames to the west, via Cheriat to the east and via Bu Njemand the Hun graben still further east. The siting of Roman forts at thesethree locations can be no coincidence.52In addition there are the routes leading east and west through thenorthern Sahara. 53 As already noted, the Fezzan, the Giofra and theNefzaoua were pivotal points in the network of routes.54 The eastwardroute to Augila/Gialo and Siwa. was particularly important and has abearing on the cultural and ethnographical background of the Libyans. 55The main Roman contribution to the development of communications wason the important coastal route linking Carthage with Alexandria. Thesection crossing the Syrtic desert was always difficult and this tended to2: 2

-28-reinforce Tripolitania's connection with Africa, as opposed to neighbouringCyrenaica. Most of the official roads in the interior were military inorigin (see 2: 7 below). 56M Sea communications The two Gulfs of Syrtes are noted for theirshortage of good harbours and their treacherous shallows. The Lesser Syrtes(Gulfof Cabes) is only 50 m deep at its maximum and there are many sandbanksof under 20 m clearance. Fishermen can set nets and traps for fish by57standing in the shallows on top of these banks. Small wonder then thatthe 1000 km coastline of this and the equally treacherous Greater Syrtes(Gulf of Sidra) proved the downfall of many ancient mariners.S8Offshorereefs at Lepcis, 0ea and Sabratha aided the construction of harbours there,,whilst Tacapae (Gabes) and Gigthis (Bou Chara) are in naturally moresheltered locations. Little work has yet been done on other minor anchoragesand there are no doubt some as yet unlocated.592: 3 ClimateAccording to Jean Despois, climate is the most important geographicalfactor in North Africa. 1 Rainfall is the most important of the climaticvariables and the isohyet map is useful as an indicator of where the desertbegins (Fig. 3), 2 The differences between the North African frontierenvironments is nowhere clearer, In Mauretania Tingitana, the most southerlyRoman forts lay in a region receiving 400-600 mm per year. In Caesariensis,the Severan limes also followed this high rainfall band. The Legio IIIAugusta was located at Larbaesis in Numidia in a 400 MM Plus zone. Only inthe vicinity of the wadi Djedi and in the Ad MaioreslCapsalncapae sectorwas the Numidian lizws in a region receiving under 200 = per year. Instark contrast the Severan frontier zone in Tripolitania lay almost entirelysouth of the 100 mm isohyet (with the exception of a few Gebel road-stations(Fig. 16).2: 2/2: 3

-29-Apart from a small section of the eastern Cebel and the coast betweenTripoli and Homs which receive an annual average over 300 =, Tripolitaniais poorly served by its rainfall (Fig. 3). In agricultural terms, thereare no locations suitable for large scale corm-ercial cereal production(requiring 400 mm per year or more) and about half the Gebel does not evenreceive the 200 3mm. necessary for dry cultivation of cereals. Figures foreastern Tripolitania alone, the most fertile region, show that only 3.6%of the total landmass receives over 250 mm, rainfall and only 7.8% over200 mm annual average. Over 67% receives less than 50 = per year andover 80% under 100 mm (Table 2A). 4Table 2: A. From Polservice 1980, B-6Eastern Tripolitania (Libya). Total land mass 225,300 sq. kmTotal Annual Rainfall (mm) Area (sq. km) Z of total land mass50 or less 151,700 67.3%51 100 30,000 13.3%101 150 17,000 7.6%151 200 99000 4.0%201 250 9,400 4.2%250 and above 8,200 3.6%225,300 100%Dry cultivation of olives is reckoned to require a minimum of-150 mmrainfall per year, so according to these figures 88.2% of eastern Tripoli-tania lies outside of this limit. 5 The rainfall figures support the viewthat, except for a few more favoured areas of coast and Gebel, Tripolitaniais an and zone of marginal agriculture.Table 2: B below and Figure 3 contain the basic information on thedistributionof rainfall.6 The eastern Gebel from Garian to Cussabat(Msellata) and the coastal region between Tripoli and Homs (Oea and repcis)are the most favoured regions. In the Dahar rainfall falls away rapidly tothe south and the Sofeggin and Zem-Zem basins lie in a zone with a range fromonly 50-100 mm. annually. 72: 3.

-3o-Table 2: B Annual average rainfall figures for Tripolitania andnei ghbouring locations Un. mm). ,.Number on Fig. 3 Annual max. (mm) Min (mm) LocationAverage(Mm)1. Zuara 214 - - coast2. Tripoli 340 750 160 coast3. Homs 294.9 - - coast4. Misurata 253 432.9 77 coast5. Sirte 179.5 - Syrtic coast6. Azizia 210.5 469 83.4 E. Gefara7. Tigi 140.4 - - S. Gefara8. Cussabat 324.5 E. Gebel9. Tarhuna 272.5 - - E, Gebel1O. Garian 335.7 510 63.5 Central Gebelll. Jefren 240.5 449 50.3 Central Gebel12. Zentan 170 - - Central Gebel13. Nalut 129.3 568 41.4 Central Gebel14. Mizda 62.9 234 11 Upper Sofeggin15. Beni Ulid 61.3 200 92 Middle Sofeggin16. Shwerif 45 145.6 12.5 Upper Bei el Kebir17. Geriat eshShergia 49 133 6.7 Upper Zem-Zem.18. Gerba 207 - - Lesser Syrtes19. Gabes 137.5 - - coast,. 20. Medenine 141 - - W. Gefara21. Ben Gardane 181 - - W. Gefara22. Tatahouine 123 - - W. Gebel23. Matmata 243 - - W. Gebel24. Kebili 86 - - Nefzaoua25. Tozeur 99 - - Djerid26. Gafsa 179 - - N. of Chott Djerid27. Hun 31.75 - - Giofra oases- Sebha 10.1 30.3 0 Fezzan- Murzuk 8.4 30.9 0 Fezzan- Brak 10.4 19 0 Fezzan- Gat 13.1 37.5 0.1 S. W. of Fezzan- Augila 11.4 42 o. 2 S. of Syrtica- Kufra 1.3 - S. of Libyandesert2: 3

-31-The western Gebel (with the exception of the Hatmata region) lies ina rain-shadow area and receives under 150 mm, per year,as does a vast areaof the Gefara plain. Only at the western and eastern extremities do thewadis carry flood water to the sea following rains. South of Chadames andthe oases of the Giofra, rainfall drops rapidly below the 25 mm, mark and inthe Fezzan is under 10 mm.These annual averages, however, mask two critical variables. Thechief problem with the rainfall in North Africa is that it is extremelyerratic in its distribution from year to year and within any one year.8The maximum and minimum values indicate massive deviation from the "nord'between years of dearth and years of plenty, as in the extreme case ofNalut: annual average 129.33 mm, maximum recorded 568 mm, minimum 41.4 mm.Even the better watered areas reveal the same wild fluctuation, as, forinstance, Tripoli (340 mm, 750 mm, 160 mm) and Carian (336 mm, 510 mm and63.5 mm. )9The risk of drought is further increased by the distribution ofrainfall through the seasons. There is little or no rain in the summermonths (May to August) and most rainfall occurs in the period October toMarch. The agricultural year starts in September and rains in both autumnand spring are necessary for a successful harvest. 10 Where more detailedfigures are available, giving a month by month breakdown, the true extentof the unpredictability becomes apparent (Table 2: C). 11 The figures forGarian, with one of the highest average rainfalls, indicate that precipita-tion is very unevenly distributed within any one year and from one year tothe next. Indeed, this pattern of erratic variation is the norm and yearswhen the total approximates with the annual average are the exception.In the period 1926-1947 (21 agricultural years), autumn rains were late orinadequate on no less than 13 occasions. Spring rains also failed or werepoor on 5 occasions and 5 years were subject to the sort of drought which2: 3

-32-Table 2: C Rainfall at Carian 1926-1947 (in mm) - figuresfrom BMA 1947,73 (Low numbers in italics indicateperiodsof drought).Year Jan Feb Mar Sep Oct Nov Dec Total(excl.summer)*1926 175.8 132.5 65.1 10.4 0.1 9.4 44.3 437.61927 70.9 25.9 78.6 9.9 2.6 0 0 187.91928 146 103.2 34.7 3.7 3.2 26.3 130 447.11929 97.2 80.1 93.1 28.5 16.3 86.3 55.8 457.31930 28.8 43.5 33.8 0 35.3 35.8 43.6 220.81931 62.6 54.4 0 29.7 18.0 8.6 74.5 247.81932 183.3 33.6 61.0 18.2 57.8 91.1 57.9 502.91933 60.5 152.7 100.9 0 0 32 110 456.11934 164.9 71.6 19.3 11.9 52 31.2 45.7 396.61935 48.8 15.5 71.6 29.1 5.7 18.8 2.2 191.71936 49.2 3.2 3.1 0 9 28.2 109.5 202.21937 59.7 63.6 7.0 15.2 42.5 20.4 16.8 225.21938 133.4 80.3 100.9 0.2 8.3 69.2 81.2 473.51939 81.3 74.3 28.9 29.4 0.8 23.1 30.4 268.21940 15 0.5 14.9 64.2 10.8 4.5 ? -1941 0 12.4 20.9 0 0 0 28.4 61.71942 28.5 7.7 22.1 ? ? ? 7 -1943 ? ? 7 ? 4.4 86.6 8.0 -1944 148.8 31.4 46.7 11.7 4.9 76.6 22.8 342.91945 21.2 127 33 0 83 18 99.5 381.71946 86 79 17.9 23.5 4.5 14 22.2 247.11947 24.3 2.7 18.2 ? 17 ? ?-Maximum 183.3 155 100.9 64.2 83 91.1 130 502.9Minimum 0 o. 5 0 0 0 0 0 61.7Averageý 80.3 56.9 41.5 15.0 17.7 34.0 51.7 319.0Summer rainfall in this period was on average 29.8 mm/year.Average amual rainfall for 1926-1947 was, therefore, 349.2 mm -though this does not include several drought years for which therecords are incomplete.2: 3

-33-leads to large scale crop failure (1935-1936,1939-40,1940-41,1941-42,1946-47). Only 6 or 7 years show the distribution of rainfall needed toproduce bumper harvests. Only one year (1944) deviated by less than 10%from the annual average.Brehony has shown that in the Gebel Tarhuna also, 2 in every 7 yearsare seriously affected by drought. 12 For the more marginal zones, such asthe Sofeggin and Zem-Zem valleys, this kind of variation is even morecritical and droughts of 4,5 and 7 years have been reported at Beni UlidS13In Tripolitania then, annual precipitation is not only low but it isalso capricious and unpredictable. The proximity of the Sahara outweighsthe Mediterranean climatic influences, which can benefit only a small partof the coastal plain and Cebel. 14 In many areas the year's rainfall fallsall at once in the space of a few hours and much of the expected benefitcan be lost in the subsequent floods. 15 Special agricultural technologyP1 5bis necessary to cope with the problems of run-off water in order thatthese areas can be brought under cultivation.16 But the agriculturalachievenents of the past cannot mask the fundamental reality of Tripolitania;it is a marginal and a desert zone. 17As with rainfall, the temperature figures for Tripolitania reflectthe combination of Saharan and Mediterranean influences. 18 The longlittoral and the Gebel are subject to a varying degree of Mediterraneanand Tell climates. To the south the climate becomes first "continentalsteppe" and then "pre-desert" in character. In Syrtica, the desertclimate encroaches very close to the coast.19Generally, the coastalregions have higher minimum temperatures and lower maximums than theinland area (Table 2: D) .2-02: 3

-34-ýTable 2: D Temperature range (after Polservice 1980,.....RSGI. 1937;.. Despois. and. Raynal 1967) ........ Data. collected..0... Max.. C Min 0 CTripoli 1919 - 1978 46 -o. 6Misurata 1945 - 78 50.6 +1.1Azizia 1919 - 78 57.3 -3.2Jefren 1925 - 76 48.6 -1.5Nalut 1944 - 78 44.4 -3.9Beni Mid 1925 - 71 56.8 -1Mizda 1958 - 78 49.7 -5Geriat (esh S) 1968 - 78 45.9 -4.2Ghadames 1944 - 78 50.6 -5.8Kebili - 55 -Sebha 1931 - 34 45.8 +0.1Murzuk 1931 - 34 49 +o. 3Gat 1931 - 34 51.5 +1.1Because of the much lower relative humidity in inland areas there isgenerally a greater range of temperature there than for the coastal sites.The relative humidity is 51.3% at Remada, for instance, but 68% at Gabes. 21The aridity of the interior is thus aggravated by greater daytime tempera-tures and much colder nights. The danger to olive trees in arid lands cancome from frost as much as from drought. 22 Another associated climaticfeature is the high potential evaporation factor, which affects man,23vegetation and soils alike. Once again the modifying climatic influencesof the Mediterranean only benefit a limited area of coast and Gebel andin the vicinity of the Greater Syrtes the desert advances right up to thecoas t.The lower humidity of the interior is an important factor in theformation of dew24 and frost. 25 The cold winter temperatures can evenlead to snow in the higherreaches of the Cebel, as in 1980 when severalthousand sheep were lost as a result. -26The effects of scorching winds blowing off the Sahara (the ghibli)have often been remarked on. The ghibli can ruin crops, kill young plants2: 3

-35-and livestock and increases evaporation. It is essentially adesert feature,but its influence is felt in the Gebel and on the coast.2-7 The ghibli oftencarries sand with it and such sandstorms also affect the northern zone. DeMathuisieulx lost one of his horses in a six hour storm near the Zenr-Zem28and the Libyan Valleys team have lost tents. Further into the Sahara theresults can be more devastating, as at el Colea in 1947 when 2,000 sheep and1,500 goats were killed,292: 4 Flora and faunaThe catalogue of the modern flora and fauna of Tripolitania comparesunfavourably with that of antiquity (see 2: 5 below). The complex issue ofclimatic change is discussed in section 2: 6 below and the intention here issimply to establish what the surviving environments and wildlife areO as anessentialpreliminary.1(a) Natural vegetation There are several different types of surviving,natural vegetation, but almost all represent types of steppe rather thanFzditerranean maquis. The Gefara is a mixture of alpha steppe (in Tunisia),of sandy bush and dwarf-shrub steppe and of sterile gravels (in its centralP1 3b .regions). 2- The Gebel is characterised as denuded high plains steppe with PI Ibsome potential for tree cover and there has been progress towards reaffores-PI 2a, btation, 3 Further south into the Dahar, the natural vegetation diminishesboth in size and in concentration and becomes a bush and dwarf-shrub steppeagain. The same applies to the Syrtic hinterland, except in the vicinityof the Sebkha Taourgha where the vegetation comprises mainly salt-resistantshrubs (as around the Gefara Sebkhas and the TunisianChotts),4 Thevegetation is concentrated in the wadi valleys in the Sofeggin and Zeur-ZemPI 0basins.Although mainly bush and dune shrub today, occasional trees havesurvived the attentions of nineteenth and early twentieth century charcoalburners. 5 These are, notably, acacia and tamarisk but batoom trees are alsopresent; cypress, myrtle, lotus and juniper still existed 150 years ago.62: 3/2: 4

-36-After rains many of the wadi beds are "green with herbage and adornedwith flowers. it7 Perhaps surprisingly, the same is true of the normallylifeless and forbidding Hamada el Hamra. 8In summary, the surviving vegetation cover is generally sparse andsteppe-like. The more Yediterranean steppe cover such as alpha, espartoand jujube is limited in extent by the climate, but much of the degenera-tion of the natural habitat must be viewed as degradation by man. Therehas undoubtedly been considerable northward encroachment of the pre-desertsteppe because of deforestation and defoliation of the Gebel. 9 P1 la(b) Cultivated plants (Fig. 4) Along the coastal strip, at the foot ofthe Gebel and in sand-free strips at either end, the Gefara is cultivated*'OIn modern times the erratic rainfall has been supplemented by deep-boreartesian wells, with potentially disastrous effects on groundwater reserves.11Cereals and fruit trees, notably the olive, are the main cultivars. In themany coastal oases, date palms, olives, figs and other fruits, cereals andvegetables are grown in traditional irrigated gardens. 12 The most importantareas of the coastal plains are in the vicinity of Medenine in the westernGefara and in the Msellata foothills, where dry cultivation of cereals andolives has proved possible.13The Gebel regions of Msellata, Tarhuna andGarian are the best watered upland areas and the original sitings of Lepcisand Oea exploited this. Cultivation is concentrated on the more temperate,northern edge of the plateau and consists principally of arboriculture(olives, figs, vines, pomegranates, pistachios, almonds, carobs, peaches ý1 2aapples,pears).14 Cereals are also grown (wheat and barley), but yieldsare very low in comparison with other Mediterranean comtries.15 A widerange of vegetables and herbs is grown in small, irrigated gardens. 16Palms are grown in a number of small oases on the Garian and Nefusa plateau.17Economically, olive cultivation is the most important activity, followedby figs and date palms. 182: 4

-37-In the pre-desert zone, agriculture is now limited mainly to thescratch cultivation of cereals in the wadis.19 At Beni Mid, a consider-able stretch of the valley bottom is still covered by an orchard of olives,palms, figs, plum and almonds, whilst cereals, vegetables and pulses areP1 5agrown in plots between the trees. 20A similar range of flora is cultivated in the oases of the NefzaouaqChadames, Giofra and Fezzan. Date palms are the principal economic resource,other fruit trees do not always mature properly. The larger oases containhundreds of thousands of palms. 21 Cereals are also grown, but in too smalla quantity to replace dates as the dietary staple of the inhabitants. 22Host other trees, vegetables and herbs are grown in small, intensivelyirrigatedplots.23(c) Wild animals In 1947, the wild animals of the region included wildboar, hyena, fox, jackal, oryx, mouflon, gazelle, hare and marmot. 24 Someof these are now extinct and others, such as the gazelle, are seriouslyendangered. Leopards may have survived as late as 1930, but ostricheswere extinctmuch earlier.25 The surviving fauna represent an everdiminishing proportion of the species present in antiquity, with man thechief culprit in the regrettable record of extinction.26(d) Domesticated animals In 1960 there were 860,000 sheep, 950,000goats, 153,000 camels, 80,000 cattle, 92,000 donkeys and 782,000 chickensin Libyan Tripolitania. 27 Along with horses, these are the principallivestock of the Tunisian territory also. 28 An important aspect of thesespecies, especially horses, camels, sheep, goats and donkeys, is thatthey have undergone adaptation to arid zone conditions," The main breedof sheep is the fat-tailed Libyan Barbary and, along with goats, they arenow the chief resource of the pastoralists.30The Tripolitanian camel is the single-humped dromedary and is theanimal best adapted to an arid zone environment. It can go for 15 days2: 4

-38-without water, being extremely resistant to fluid loss and able toreplenish its fluid levels within minutes, when water becomes available.31The numbers of camels, horses and donkeys have declined in recent yearswith the ever-increasing availability of motorised transport, but in thepast these three animals were bred on a much greater scale. Sheep andgoat herding has been by no means always the dominant form of pastoralismin the region.322: 5 Ancient evidence for geography, climate, flora and faunaGsell dealt at length with the ancient sources relating to thegeography and climate of North Africa and is the starting point for thisbriefsurvey.1 It is important to establish to what extent the ancientenvironment of Tripolitania was similar and to what extent different fromthatof today.The tripartite division of the territory between the two Syrtes(coastal plain, Gebel, Dahar) is echoed in a number of sources. Strabodescribes mountains and plains lying between the coast and the Garamantestand also mentions large lakes (Chotts? ) and "rivers which sink beneath theearth and become invisible" (wadis). 2 Pliny described the Gefara as adesert separating the Emporia from Africa Proconsularis, which it certainlyis in itscentral sector where movable sand dunes extend right up to thecoast. South of. there, he mentioned forests full of wild beasts, presumablya reference to the then wooded Gebel. Beyond was a desert and then came theland of the Garamantes. 3 The sixth century African poet, Corippus gavevividdescriptionsof a relatively arid Gefara, a wooded and populous Gebeland desolate desert lands of Dahar and Syrtica. 4More co nly-Latin and Greek authors only had detailed information oncoastal features and described desert lands of the interior without referenceto the wooded and fertile Cebel. 5 There are ample references to show thatthe desert regions had much the same character then as now. 6 The calidas2: 412: 5

-39-terrae sitientis harenas of CorippuS7 and the Syrtes.-. aestuoses ofHoraceB are not the products of poetic exaggeration, as the number of otherexamples shows. Cato's celebrated crossing of the Syrtic desert with anarmy of 10,000, was difficult to emulate as late as 1930, prior to theconstruction of the "Littorea" road, even with the aid of a motor car. 9The oases of the Sahara are vividly described, in Herodotus as springmounds10 and in Lucan as isolated, spring-fed "woods" within the desert. 11Of the coastal features which are described, Strabo's account of thelake of Zuchis, Sebkha Taourgha and the wooded Cephalae promontory(RasHisurata) are of particular interest. 12 The wind blown sand which buriedLepcis Ragna was not a modem phenomenon alone; Procopius revealed thatmost of the city was abandoned to shifting sand dunes prior to theByzantine reconquest and this is supported by archaeological evidence.13Several sources referred to the perils of navigation along the Syrticcoasts. The lack of good anchorages, the unpredictable shallows and thewrecking activities of the coastal-dwelling Nasamones tribes all contri-buted to the number of wrecks and the bad reputation of the inshore waters.14As Strabo observed, however, the wrecks were mainly the result of sailorsbeing loath to lose touch with the shoreline in spite of the perilsinvolved."The difficulty with this Syrtis and the Little Syrtis is thatin many places their deep waters contain shallows and the resultis, at the ebb and flow of the tides, that sailors sometimesfall into the shallows and stick there, and that the safe escapeof a boat is rare. On this account. sailors keep at a distance whenvoyaging along the coast, taking precautions not to be caught offguard and driven by winds into these gulfs. Howeverg thedisposition of man to take risks causes him to try 1anythinginthe world and particularly voyaging along coasts. " 5Clearly sea traffic between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania was notentirely discouraged, but the greater volume of trade and shippingundoubtedly moved north and west of Lepcis to Carthage and Rome as aconsequence. 16,2: 5

-4o-In spite of its reputation as one of the granaries of Rome, Africawas always a country of low rainfall and of few perennial springs, streamsor rivers; a situation neatly summed up in Sallust's phrase "caelo terraquepenuria aquarum. "17 Periods of drought and crop failures are attested inthe sources and Hadrian's visit to Africa in A. D. 128 coincided with theend of a five year drought. Consequently he was highly esteemed in Africaafterwards.18Literary and archaeological evidence show that the rain which did fallwas carefully utilised by the construction of control walls, dams, terracesand cisterns. Strabo described a "Carthaginian Wall" built in a wadi nearLepcis, 19 and Frontinus described dam building as an "African habit". 20I In another'revealing passage, he contrasted Italian and African attitudesto floodwater:"In Italy a pretty big dispute may flare up in order to keep offflood water. But in Africa the same issue is handled quitedifferently. Since that is a very dry area, they have no disputeon this score unless someone has stopped rain water flowing ontheir land. They make erbankments and catch and retain therain water, so that it may be used on the spot rather than flowaway. 1121The remarkable Lamasba inscription, which gives details of thedistribution of irrigation water to landholders, comes from a region ofover 400 mm, rainfall (annual average), 22 The fact that such measureswere necessary because of a dispute between landholders over irrigationwater and in an area where commercial dry cultivation of cereals shouldhave been possible in any case, implies that the pattern of rainfall wasas unpredictable in the past as it is today. The archaeological remainsOf ancient hydraulic works are extensive, but nuch more detailed study isneeded for us to understand all the different systems of water management*23The evidence seems, nevertheless, to suggest that Roman Africa developedagriculturally not as a result of higher rainfall, but through the careful2: 5

-41-control and management of the available water resources. Some regionswere clearly worse off than others. Strabo described the Greater Syrtescoastline as "destitute of water". whilst Sallust's description of a semi-arid zone around capsa (Gafsa) also rings true today. 24 An inscriptionfrom Bu Njem, exhorted the soldiers to relax in the baths away from the"heat beating on these endless sands"and to enjoy a respite from "the sunand fitful wind's scorching".25 The latter remark is evidently a reference26to the ghibli, which also appeared in other sources. In conclusion then,the available evidence supports the view that rainfall in antiquity wasneither significantly higher or more reliable, nor was the pre-desert zonenecessarilymore temperate,Referring to Africa Vetus and the Numidian Kingdom, Sallust describedthe land as fertile and good for crops and pasture but with relatively fewtrees. 27 It is likely that the eastern Maghreb was never as well afforestedas the Great Atlas ranges further west. 28 But Pliny and Strabo both attestwoods and forest on the coast and in the Gebel in Tripolitania. 29 Thecultivation of extensive "forests" of olive trees began at an early dateand Pliny was referring snobbishly to quality and not to quantity when hesaid that Africa was not noted for its wine and oil, but only its grain*30As noted already, Tripolitania is not suited for co rcial cereal cultiva-tion and it is significant that the cash crop par excellence in antiquity,as today,was the olive.31 Although olive cultivation extended well beyondthe region now considered economically viable, the evidence again indicatesbetter water management rather than climatic change as the main factor. 32There is evidence for a wide variety of other fruit trees in Africa andTripolitania in the Roman period: peaches, pomegranates,, nectarines, plums,apples, jujubes, pears, figs (highly rated by Pliny), vines, almonds,pistachios, carobs. 33 The once celebrated lotus tree diminished inimportancewith the spread of arboriculture in the favoured areas of thecoastal plain and Arab folk-lore remembered a time when Tripoli's orchards2: 5

-42-("forest")extended to the Cebel. 34Relief carvings from mausolea in Tunisia and Libya and mosaics fromLepcis and Zliten illustrate agricultural activities in the region.35Inspite of the low rainfall, cereals were cultivated as a dietary staple.There were, no doubt, years of dearth as well as years when two harvestswere possible.36 The fort at Bu Njem was supplied with grain and olive oilby small scale cultivators of the pre-desert.37Current research in the Sofeggin and Zem-Zem has produced a wealth ofnew environmental evidence from ancient middens, from which a detailedpicture of the flora will emerge. Preliminary results show a remarkablerange of crops and plants for such a marginal zone (Table 2E), although itis paralleled by the surviving cultivation at Beni Mid and from a similararea of the Negev desert. 39Table 2: E Floral analysis after Van der Veen 1981(Ghirza samples and personal observation*)Cultivated plants Wild plantsBarley Emex spinosa Spiny shrubs of dry/Wheat Zizyphus sandy land typeOlivesGrapesHedicagoChrenepodium,Figs Caryophylaceae Weed species foundDates Malva in fields, alongAlmonds Chrysanthemum tracks and inLentils and other Polygonum, sandy, dry habitats.pulses cf Galium None indicative ofWater Melon cf Cruciferae damp conditionscf AdrosacaeTimber samples FumariaTamarisk Anchusa officina I isOlive* cf CompositaeAccacia (Talha)* Spergula cf arve gisPalms*Bamboo*Avena fatuacf BromusIt is particularly interesting to note that the list of wild plants (thatis the "natural vegetation")indicates a dry or arid-zone environment muchas today. The cultivation of olives, cereals and so on can be related tothe archaeological evidence for the development of a run-off farmingtechnology.2: 5

-43-The cultivation of date palms and other crops in the oases of thenorthern Sahara is also attested by the ancient sources. 40 Archaeologicalsurvey and excavation in the Fezzan has corroborated this.41 Palms wereused extensively in construction work in both fort and vicus at Bu Njem. 42The faunal record in antiquity reveals a decline in wildlife nunbersand species from Late Prehistoric times onwards. 43 Cave paintings and rockcarvings from the north and central Sahara show that at one time it wasnuch less arid than today.44 The spread of the desert necessitated a north-ward or southward movement of many species and many of those that remainednorth of the desert in Tripolitania and Maghreb have died out through overkillby man, rather than for climatic reasons (Table 2: F). 45 North Africa wasone of the main hunting grounds for the venationes in amphitheatres aroundthe Roman Erpire. 46 Several early sources refer to a Tripolitanian "wildbeast zone" and Pliny specifically mentions elephants in the hinterland ofthe Emporia. 47 The elephant was, moreover, one of the civic symbols ofLepcis and of Sabratha, perhaps indicating a connection with the trade inwildbeasts.48The-. expansion of.. agriculture was only achieved at the expense ofpotential predators or corpetitors in the "wild beast zoneti, 49 The lionsurvived in the Moroccan Atlas until 1922, the auroch until the 1940's andthe ostrich is also recently extinct. Many other species such as therhinoceros, giraffe and elephant were probably already hunted to the pointof extinction during the Roman period.Of the domestic animals, the long-horned cattle have died out, but themodern descendants of the stocky, long-necked horsesl of the sheept goatsand camels can still be seen today. 50 As with the flora, the basic conditionsof the country do not appear to have changed significantly and one must lookfor reasons other than climatic change for the denudation of once wooded andfertile land and the extinction of entire species of wildlife.2: 5

-44-Table 2: F Wild and domesticated animals attested in Tripolitaniaand the northern Sahara in antiquity (*denotes speciesnow extinct)Donkeys/assesHorsesCamelsCattleSheepGoatsElephantsOstrichesGazellesGiraffesRhinocerosAurochsAntelopesWildcatsLeopardsPanthersWolvesHyenas***Plutarch, Cato Y, 56; Barker and Jones 1982Strabo XVII,, 3,6; 3,19; Barker and Jones 1982Demougeot 1960; Brogan 1955; Marichal 1979Herodotus IV, 183; Strabo XVII, 3,19.Strabo XVII, 3.19; Brogan 1965a.Strabo XVII, 3,19.Pliny NH, V. 26; VIII, 32; Churcher 1980; Bovey 1979Synesius, Letter 134; Paradisi 1963, Saladin 1902,Rebuffat 1969Churcher 1980, de Mathuisieulx 1904.Pliny NH, VIII, 69; Paradisi 1963; de Mathuisieulx1904.Churcher 1980: Bovey 1979Churcher 1980.Pliny NU X, 201; Saladin 1902.Saladin 1902.Pliny NH, Xg 202; Ward-Perkins and Toynbee 1949.Pliny NY, VIII, 62.Pliny NH, VIII, 80.Pliny NH, VIII, 108.JackalsPliny NH, VIII, 108.Lions*Lucan IX, 941-47; Aurigemma1926.PorcupinesPliny NH, VIII, 53.Wild assesHartebeasts**Pliny NH, VIII, 16.Bovey 197 9.Buffalo*Bovey 197 9.Wildboars*Aurigemna 1926.HuntingRabbitsdogsPliny NH, VIII, 143.Saladin 1 902.SnakesScorpionsDiodorus 111,50,2; LucanStrabo XVII, 3, 11.IX, 710; Lucian de dips. ýThis list is not intended to be comprehensive, but as an indication onlyl2: 5

-45-2: 6 Climatic changeIt is apparent from the previous sections that the modern climate isprobably similar to that of the Roman period. But it is also evident fromPrehistoric cave and rock pictures in the central Sahara that major climaticchange has occurred at some era in the past. There is an extensive litera-ture on the subject.1 The latest thinking is that, following a wetterphase from c. 40,000 - 20,000 B. C., there was a gradualchange towards adryer climate. The last major pluvial phase may have been as late'asc. 6000 B. C., with major climatic change then occurring between 40002000 B. C. The latter date certainly marks the beginning of the currentarid and desiccating climatic phase. 2 Most geographers and geomorpholo-gists believe that there has not been any significant change since.3There has beenIa growing realisation in classical archaeology thatclimatic change can no longer be used as a convenient, catch-allexplanation for the major changes in settlement patterns and economiesin the Roman period.4 Current geomorphological work in the Libyan ValleysProject supports the view that the Roman period climate was not signifi-cantly different from modern conditions.5In 1969, Vita Finzi published his fundamental thesis on post-Classical climatic change and its effects on the Mediterranean valleys.6In it he argued for a climatic "oscillation" between the Roman period andIthe present. But he agreed that modem conditions are remarkably similarto 7ancient ones. The postulated wetter phase in the Middle Ages whichVita-Finzi held responsible for major aggradation of valley floors allround the Yediterranean cannot be shown to have existed in the Sofegginand Zem-Zem region although there is some evidence from the coastal regionnear Lepqis. 8 So whilst the possibility of an oscillation between dryerand wetter conditions, micro-climatic change on a regional basis or aminor increase in aridity cannot be ruled out, the likelihood is that theclimate of Tripolitania has remained relatively stable from late Neolithictims to the present. 92: 6

-46-There can be no doubt, however, that landscape changes have takenplace. In the Msellata hills and the coastal region there has been deep,gullying erosion and blanket erosion of soils, with redepositiOn atdifferent locations. " The erosion of soil is not necessarily indicativeof increased rainfall, bearing in mind the heavy downpours and run-offfloods of the region. It is more likely to be the result of sheet erosionof soils exposed by vegetation loss, and this could be due to overgrazing,"agriculturalclearance,12 tinber felling, 13 or the breakdown of dams andwater control walls.14 Even in 1857, Barth suggested that the denudedlandscape of parts of the Gebel was the result of neglect, rather than ofclimatic change and that the process might be reversible.15 The contrastbetween past and present was graphically demonstrated by Oates' survey ofthe Fergian region between Tarhuna and Msellata in the 1950's. Herecorded 63 sites which had been equipped with olive presses in the Romanperiod(126 indiv 'idualpresses' in total). There were only about 20surviving olive'trees in the region at that time, though they have nowbeen more extensively and successfully reintroduced.16 The great successof the olive groves replanted this century in the western Gefara, in theGefara south of Tripoli and in the Gebel Tarhuna have further demonstratedPI 2athe viability of these areas after centuries of underexploitation.17 Insome instances, then, the process of denudation of the landscape hasproved to be reversible, which would not be possible if climatic changewas the cause ofthe deterioration. Until experiments have been carriedout in the pre-desert one can only speculate on the probable results ofreplanting and recultivating of the wadi beds. The extreme marginalityof these zones means that they would have been affected by even'veryminor climatic change, but,, more importantly, there may have beenecological changes brought about by the previous periods of exploitationand of subsequent neglect.182: 6

-47-However, surely the most underestimated variable in the geography ofthe region has been the population. Nachtigal was one of the first to notethat the density of ruins implied a greater rural population over much ofthe zone in antiquity.19 The socio-economic processes behind the successfulcultivation of large areas of the pre-desert and its gradual decline intothe Islamic period are still to seek. But the answer may well relate inpart to a rapid growth and then contraction in the available manpower. 20As for the technology which made wadi agriculture possible,, it stillsurvives in the traditional farming in wadi Beni Mid, the Gebel NefusaPI 3a, 24aand the Tunisian Gebel. 212: 7 The Roman Geography of TripolitaniaThe pattern of ancient settlement in Tripolitania was conditioned bythe geographic and climatic factors detailed in the sections above. Infor-mation on Roman period settlement and rural exploitation illustrates thisclose association very well. This information falls into five broadcategories: cities, towns and other urban sites; roads, tracks anditineraries; military installations; land delimitation and boundaries;rural settlement. In addition, native tribal centres are discussed inChapter 4: 2. below.(a) Urban sites (Fig. 5The urban settlements were more numerous than the provincial namesuggests, but were almost all situated on the Mediterranean coast. Fourcities attained the rank of coloniae: Tacape (Gabes), ' Sabratha (Sabrata)q2-0ea (Tripoli), 3 Lepcis Magna (Lebda/Homs). 4 In addition, another sixsettlements are recorded as municipia: Turris Tamallen! (Telmine)95Gi9this (Bou-Ghara), 6 Zita or ziza (Zian? ), 7 Pisidia (Pisida). 87hubactis (south of Misurata? ),, 9 Digdida (wadi el-Hariga).10 Of theseonly Thubactis and Turris Tamallen! are any distance from the sea. "2: 7

-48-There are a further four coastal sites whose size or evident inportancesuggests that they may have had the status of civitates at least: Gergis(Zarzis), 12 Sugolin (Zliten), 13 Marcomades Selor= (Sirte), 14 Iscina(Medina Sultan), 15 In western Tripolitania there are also three sizeableurban sites in the Arad and Gefara plains: Aquae ncapitanae (el Haynina), 16Martae (Mareth? )17 and Augazmi (Ksar Koutine? ). 18 The island of Gerba(Meninx) which was attached to the mainland by a bridge at Ponte Zita, alsohad a number of urban settlements: Heninx (el Kantara), Tipasa (Adjim),Girba (Gerba) and Hares (? ). 19 Some of the other names preserved in theliterary sources may be those of sizeable villages or market centres*20Settlements along the military roads were often vici for Roman forts, asfor example at Golaia (Bu Njem) 21 Cheriat el Garbia, 22 Tillibari(Remada),23Thenadassa (Ain Wif)'24 Ras el Ain Tlalet2, S Henchir Medeina fThebelami? ),26Bezereos (Sidi Mohammed ben Aissa), 27 It is, of course, possible that someof the sites already mentioned owed their genesis to the initial presenceof a military garrison.2-8Taken together, the literary and archaeological evidence show thatTripolitania contained four major cities, Lepcis, Oea,, Sabratha andTacapae. The 50 hectares area of Gigthis shows that it was also animportant centre in its heyday. All of these sites have pre-Roman originsas Libyphoenician settlements and possessed harbour facilities. 29 Theywere not the result of Roman or Italian colonization. The largely un-explored site of Zita-(Zian) has produced Claudian inscriptions, but inthe absence of reliable archaeological data on the other small townsv itis impossible to generalise about their development. 30 In any case thepower, wealth and size of the Emporia, even by the first century A. D.,may well have hampered the growth of other urban settlements,, particularlyin the interior. 312: 7

-49-.(b) Roads,, tracks and-itineraries (Fig. 5; Appendix 1)The major roads are known either from surviving Roman itineraries orfrom finds of milestones. There are also some tracks or routes which werenever officially marked by milestones but whose importance cannot be denied.32Finally, there were the myriad trackways linking town and country, desertand littoral.The most important road in Tripolitania, throughout its history, wasthe interprovincial, coastal highway which ultimately ran on to link Carthagewith Alexandria (Fig. 5, no. 1)33. The earliest milestone evidence fromthis road is from the end of the Principate of Augustus, but the route was34certainly established much earlier. As on almost all Tripolitanian roads,the bulk of the milestones are of Caracalla or other third century emperors.35It has rightly been observed that many of these emperors were exploiting thepropaganda value of milestones, rather than actually conducting building or36repair work. The coast road is also known in the two main sources onRoman itineraries, the Peutinger Table (Fig. 6) and the Antonine Itinerary(see Appendix 1), although there are some variations between them in theroute followed. For instan. qeý, in the sector between Lepcis Magna andMarcomades Maiores, where the Sebkha Tauorgha prevented a truly coastalroute, the Antonine Itinerary describes a much shorter, route.37 It probably38kept much closer to the western edge of the Sebka. If Rebuffat is correctin identifying chosol of the Peutinger map with Bu Njem. (variously GholasoChol, Gholaia) then clearly that route went a considerable distance inlandbefore turning back towards the Syrtic coast.39 Only a single milestonehas so far been found on this sector and that is on the Syrtic coast andmust relate to the former mentioned of the two routes.40The other major route is the limes road known from the AntonineItinerary and-in certain sectors also by milestones (Fig. 5, no. 2). Itwill be discussed in more detail in Appendix 1, below. This road also ran2: 7

1ý I-50-from Tacapae' to Lepcis Magna, but follows an inland route via the Nefzaoua,the northern Dahar and the Gebel and incorporated several earlier roads.41Some of the sites along it can be identified with confidence, others havebeen the subject of irmitense speculation.42Three other roads shown on the Peutinger map have been even moreproblematical to trace as there is almost no milestone evidence to supple-ment place-name identifications. These are, briefly, a route round thesouthern side of the Chott Djerid linking Djerid, Nefzaoua and Tacapae(Fig. 5, no. 3), 43 an inland route in the western Gefara (Fig, 5, no. 4)44and an inland route linking Oea and Lepcis, probably via the Gebel Tarhuna(Fig. 5, no. 5). 45 This latter road may well correspond in its easternsector with that built by Aelius Lamia in c. A. D. 15 and which was laterfollowed by the limes road. 46A nuuber of other roads are known only from milestones. These arethe Gebel el Asker route between Capsa (Gafsa) and the Nefzaoua (Fig. 5,no. 6), 47 the "central road" from Oea'to Mizda (Fig. 5, no. 7)48 andthe Upper Sofeggin road (Fig. 5., no. 8), 49 A further group of unmarkedtracks were undeniably of importance since they linked settlements orRoman military installations. (Fig. 5). Since rmst of the Tripolitanianroads were not specially built pistes (outside of the towns anyway), wemay assume that the difference between beaten earth tracks with milestonesand those withoutwas slight.50 Beyond the official or semi-officialroutes, there was a network of minor routes and trackways which criss-crossed the rural areas and linked them to the urban centres.51 This wasto a large extent independent of the main military road alignments whichwere carefully integrated with the points of debouchment of the mainSaharan routes, as at Bu Njem, Cheriat, Remada and the Nefzaoua. 522: 7

-51-(c) MilitaryInstallations (Fig. 17)The development of military installations within Tripolitania wasspread over a long period and full discussion is reserved for laterchapters. But we should note here that the basis for their deployment wasneither a natural obstacle (mountain, river) nor an arbitrary line. Bu Njem,for instance, should not be seen as an "outpost fort", but as an integratedelement of the limes Tripolitanus.S3 Forts, fortlets, roadst towers, andclausurae were not placed in an inflexible framework dreamt up in Rome.Their deployment had both tactical and strategical significance and, moreimportantly, reveals a very thorough knowledge of the geographical potential54of the region. This is in stark contrast to the apparently rather shallowappreciation of the topography revealed by writers such as Strabo, Plinyor Ptolemy, or by surviving maps such as the Peutinger Table. 55(d) Land division and allocation (Fig. 19)The same point can be corroborated using the evidence for land surveyand allocation. The great surveying scheme carried out in south Tunisiaby Vibius Marsus in A. D. 29-30 was not, as sometimes claimed, centuriationfor colonisation. The stones set up by the Third Legion used the termleimitavit which implies something far more rudimentary andexploratory. Their survey formed the framework for the later territorialdemarcations between the Nybgenli tribe and the town of Tacape-56 In theFlavian and Trajanic periods a good deal of such land delimitation andboundary marking was undertaken in Tripolitania and other parts of Africaand such processes demanded detailed survey work and topographical know-ledge. 57 The aims of this work were primarily to regularise the patternof land-holding, to remove the scope for further disputes and to increasetaxation revenues. 58 But the secondary effect was the gathering of reallydetailed information about regional geography and society. Even though2: 7

-52-our main sources did not have access to such detailed material, one canassimme that it was available to the relevant officials in the army andadministration in Africa itself. 59One of the most striking examples of land division concerns theterritoria of the major cities. It has recently been shown that thesouthwestern limit of the territory of Lepcis corresponded with the forty-fourth mile of the A. D. 15 road into the Gebel and that the boundary betweenLepcis and Oea was resurveyed north of this point following the disturbancesof A. D. 69-70.60 The other limits of their territoria cannot be positedwith any certainty, but they were obviously of vast extent. Pudentilla ofOea, for instance, owned several estates, one of which was allegedly 100 m. p.fromthe city.61 This monopoly of the best agricultural land in the Gebelas well as in the coastal plain, to a large extent, explains the wealth ofthe Emporia and the non-development of towns in the interior. There aresome indications that Tacapae and Gigthis held a similar monopoly on theArad and westemGefara. rO2(e) The settlement pattem (Fig. 7)The final factor to be considered here is the archaeologicalevidence for the pattern of settlement. In spite of the inequalitiesin the data-base an attempt has been made to produce the first map ofsettlement distribution for Tripolitania in its entirety (, Fig. 7). ForTunisia there are excellent topographic maps corplete with archaeological63sites, whilst for Libya there are the Tabula Irperii Romani sheetsproduced by Goodchild. 64 There is inevitably a far greater apparentdensity of sites in areas where detailed field work has been carriedout&65 The Gebel Deum-er, Gebel Nefusa, the Gefara and Syrtica havereceived little detailed study but enough has been recorded on topographicalmaps to indicate the basics of the distribution.662: 7

-53-The overall distribution pattern strongly reflects the topographicaland climatological conditions described above. In the Gefara plain, settle-ment is concentrated at the eastern and western extremities, along the foot-hills of the Gebel and in among the long strip of coastal oases. South ofTripoli, settlement runs in bands between areas of sand dunes', and the sandygravel and dune-covered central sector is almost devoid of traces of ancientsettlement. In the Gebel, the densest concentrations of sites are in theregions closest to the coast (being those sectors best watered also), theGebel Matmata, Gebel 14sellata and Gebel Tarhuna. Settlement in the westernDahar is much sparser than that in the Sofeggin and Zem-Zem,, because of themuch greater possibilities for run-off agriculture in the latter area.Further into the desert, permanent settlement becomes almost entirely tiedto oases. In Syrtica, only a narrow 'coastal strip was exploited along withthe first thirty kilometres or so up the wadis from the sea. Further east,towards Arae Philaenorum the desert stifled practically all settlement awayfrom the coast.The greater proportion of all known sites, however, are located inareas which may be considered marginal to a greater or lesser extent. Yetthe nunbers of known sites and their geographical extent would seem to beliethe fact that Tripolitania is essentially an arid zone environment. Sincewe cannot simply resort to theories of climatic change to explain thecontraction of settlement up to modern times, this ancient success is allthe more intriguing. Perhaps, though, we have in the past approached theproblem from the wrong angle by enquiringhow and why the system broke down.Instead, one should tackle the questions of how and why the settlementdeveloped in the first place (Chapter 8: 1). If it is accepted thatTripolitania was essentially a marginal, semi-desert region throughout theRoman period, I believe that new ideas can be advanced on the decline ofthe province and its frontier.2: 7

-54-CHAPTER 3 THE TRIBAL BACKGROUND I3: 1 introductionSince the nature of the "opposition" was bound to have had a profoundinfluence on Roman policy and the history of Roman/Native interaction, thestudy of a Roman frontier zone cannot proceed far without considering theindigenous population. Although it can be argued that Roman frontierstrategy had established guidelines, it is clear that local application didnot follow an unvaried blueprint. The influence of tribal societies mustnot be underestimated,There are three main sources of information on the tribal background.Firstly, there are the primary source references and epigraphic material;but since these are mainly geographical or historical references, relativelylittle concerns the social structures and lifestyle of the native people.There is, however, a greater volume of primary source material than, forinstance, for Roman Britain. A vast secondary literature exists on boththe literary and epigraphic sources. 2The second category of data are archaeological, providing details ofsettlement sites, burial customs and religious practices. For North Africathis is a comparatively meagre resource, which is a reflection of the almosttotal emphasis placed, up to now, on the excavation of Roman cities.Thirdly, there is information of a purely comparative nature derivedfrom anthropological study of similar societies and cou=nitiesin therecent past in the Maghreb and elsewhere. Because the Arab invasions broughtconsiderable changes in tribal society in North Africa it is not possible tomake direct equations between modern political experiences and the ancient3native societies. It is reasonable to assume, however, that usefulcomparison does exist between these traditional rural societies (stillusing agricultural techniques and equipment of great antiquity) and theirforebears. 4 It can be argued that this is even more significant sincemodern climatic conditions have a close correlation with ancient ones,3: 1

-55-as shown in the previous chapter. Such comparanda can illustrate a rangeof possibilities, whether for social organisation or in terms of lifestyle,in a given ecological zone. I have endeavoured to use this material onlyin a comparative sense, not as "evidence" for the nature of indigenoussocietyin Roman times.This is not intended, though, to be a socio-economic study of tribalsociety in Roman North Africa per se. The approach has been conditioned bythe history of interaction between Rome and the Libyans. The aim has beento assess the influence of the Libyan tribes on the Roman frontier ratherthan to examine in minute detail the impact of Rome on native society. Inthe first chapter (1: 2 above) reference was made to the theories, popularisedby French scholars, which presented the history of the frontiers as a conflict"between the desert and the sown, " between nomadic and sedentary people.5Rachet is one of the most recent and extreme proponents of the theory and haswritten an history largely in terms of conflict and confrontation. Such aninterpretation cannot be proved from the primary sources and it only gainedcredence because it seemed to match up to problems encountered by the Frenchin their North African territories in the nineteenth and twentieth centuriesýThis distorted perspective of tribal society has led, therefore, to extremelysubjective historical conclusions. The line of argument exemplified byRachet has come under increasing attack in recent years by the more progres-sive French and English scholars and is rejected here. Since perspectiveis all important, it is necessary to devote considerable spacd to the dis-cusssion of a new basis for understanding Libyan tribal society.There are two fundamental modern works relevant to the study of thetribes of Tripolitania. The catalogue compiled by Jean Desanges fromsource references for all the known North African tribes in antiquity,remains the starting point for all new research,7 His corments on thetribes were largely restricted to the question of their geographical3: 1

-56-locations. In addition, there is the classic study of the Eastern Libyan8peoples by Oric Bates. His restrained and cautious examination of linguisticcultural and ethnographic material, in addition to the primary sources andthe limited archaeological data then available, contains many insights. Morerecently the work of Daniels and others in the Fezzan and an article byBrogan have focussed some attention on the tribal background. 9 The overallirpressionreceived from these secondary works is that the primary sourcesthey followed were either confused or contradictory. In researching theprimary sources myself , certain problems were encountered which are relevantto thisdiscussion.The main reason for the lack of detailed study of socio-economic aspectsof tribal society in North Africa concerns the primary sources'*10 There areseveral aspects of the problem. Firstly, the majority of references refernot to the native population in isolation, but in contact with Romansq Greeksor Carthaginians. There are no literary works written in the, Libyan languageand no single Roman source to compare with the Germania of Tacitus-11Although there are geographical works, many of these are copies (and ofteninexact ones) of earlier works. 12 Comparatively little ethnographic detailwas recorded and some such material was clearly repeated anachronisticallyfrom earlier sources. Thus both Mela and Pliny reproduced stories fromHerodotus and other Greek sources whose validity in the first century A. D.must be doubted, but all too often has not been. 13 The exact dates of theRoman sources used by Pliny are not always evident and as well as borrowingfrom other historians, such as Mela, he had access to official documentsranging in age from a few years to centuries old. 14 It is not possible,therefore, to say that Pliny presents a consistent picture of North Africain the second half of the first century A. D. Indeed far from it, theNatural History is an elaborate collage and often lacks geographical andchronological coherence. Since Pliny, like most of the other Roman geogra-.phers, was not writing from first hand experience of North Afri: ca, it is not3: 1

-57-surprising that occasionally there are geographical blunders or miscompre-hensions. 15 Nor does the inclusion of material which is plainly mythicalor apocryphal encourage confidence in the veracity of other uncorroboratedstories.16 There is also the danger that an undetected official bias mayhave distorted certain facts17 or that the Roman historians and geographersmay have introduced their own distortion in order to match their informationwith their preconceptions.18 These potential weaknesses are often notdetectable, particularly once a passage has been extracted from its fullcontext.Some of the drawbacks with Pliny s Historia Naturalls have already beenmentioned and further examples are justified if only as a corrective to theuncritical approach which is sometimes adopted towards this fundamentalsource book. That Pliny did not'always understand the significance and'geographical indications of his own sources is clear from his account ofthe campaign of Cornelius Balbus in c. 20 B. C. 19 Pliny was here using twodistinct sources of information, from the first of which we. learn thatBalbus captured three tribal centres of the Phazanii, followed by threeof the Garamantes, including Garama (Germa). The second source provideda list of the names and effigies carried in Balbus' subsequent triumph.Pliny confessed his bewilderment that few of these names corresponded withthose he had already given from his first source: but he could not explainthe discrepancy. 20 Consequently many ingenious and sometimes ludicrousproposals have been made by scholars seeking to fit the names to modern21locations. However, it seems certain that one group of names relates tosouth-west Numidia - hilgis Gemella, Tabudium and viscera being equivalentto the later lizues forts of Gemellae, Thabudeos and Vescera. Balbus, ormore likely one of his lieutenants, must have conducted a subsidiary cam-paign of which Pliny was clearly unaware. 22Another of our most valuable sources, Ptolemy of Alexandria, is equallydifficult to assess. Ptolemy is important because he listed a great number3: 1

-58-of tribes, many being sub-tribes of larger units, and he endeavoured to giveprecise coordinate locations for many of them. Unfortunately the maps thatcan be constructed from this information are extremely inaccurate and sometribes whose positions can be checked independently are completely misplaced.23Even greater problems are encountereds, however,, when the geographicalinformation from two different sources is compared. Although there are somebroad similarities, these are outweighed by the discrepancies and contra-dictions. The efforts of modern coumnentators to, produce maps of triballocations based either on a particular source or on an historical periodillustrate nothing more than the scope for disagreement. 24 Tribal namesappear and disappear; traditional lands of tribe X are suddenly occupied bytribe Y, only for X to reappear in the same place at a later date. If onetakes but one tribal group, the macae, and examines the positions they aremapped in by Desanges for instance, it is clear that there is something awry. 259Table 3A The Macae after Desanges, 1962.His Map No. Date/Period Position given by Desanges4 Hellenistic From Arae Philaenorum to Cinyps,, ' onthe littoral of Greater Syrtes and inthe Gebel and pre-deserthinterlandof the western Syrtic coast.5 Early Principate On the south side only of GreaterSyrtes. Cissipades now occupyingwesternshore.7 2nd and 3rd In central sector of southerncenturies littoral of Greater Syrtes. Westernshore now occupied by Elaeones, south-western area by Seli, Muducivvi andZamucii.8 Byzantine Along south-eastern littoral of GreaterSyrtes only. Laguatan now on westernshore.10 lst, to 2nd Samamukii in hinterland oý westerncenturies A. D. - littoral and Makkoi in hinterland ofinterior tribes south-west littoral.after Ptoleny andPliny3: 1

-59-The inplication is that there was either a very unstable tribal societyin the Roman period or that there is something wrong with the geographicalanalysis of either the ancient sources, the modern commentators or both.The solution suggested in the next two sections is that not all tribal namesencountered in the sources were of equal significance and that the existenceof an "hierarchy" of tribal names explains many of the apparent contradictions.In subsequent sections other key issues relevant to the study of Roman/Native interaction are isolated and discussed. The question of nomads andsedentarists is reexamined (Chapter 4: 1); the evidence for different typesof tribal centres is certainly of importance in assessing the military prob-lems posed (4: 2); cultural and religious aspects are less obviously so, butare still significant (4: 3) and finally the practice of warfare amongst theLibyan tribes must be considered (4: 4 and 4: 5). In each section literary,archaeological, ethnographic and geographical evidence are used as appropri-ate, along with additional historical examples and comparisons, drawnprimarily from other areas of North Africa.3: 2 Tribal hierarchy : general discussionPliny stated that there were 516 populi in North Africa between theriver Ampsaga and the Arae Philaenorum, that is to the exclusion of theMauretanian provinces and Cyrenaica. 1 This figure included 53 urban popullbut the rest were predominately rural tribes. In the succeeding chaptersPliny listed only 25 of these tribes by name. For comparisong Desanges'catalogue contains less than 130 names for this region.2 This representsabout 2/7 of Pliny's total. The discrepancy can best be explained asevidence for a tribal hierarchy.The existence of such a hierarchy of tribal names can be demonstratedat several levels in the ! 'Segmentary" structure. The possibility for aco=on origin of all the tribes has been nuch canvassed but its relevancefor the Roman period is dubious-3 There are still over 40 surviving Berber3: 1/3: 2

-6o-dialects among the relic Berber populations of the Maghreb and although inantiquity writing was comparatively little used, at least four differentalphabets are known from Libyan inscriptions. 4 The prevalence of mythicaltales of the origin of ethnic groups among the Libyans from the differentcontingents making up Hercules' army imply that in historical times therewere always broad ethnic divisions. 5 Up to the time of Caesar the mostimportant of these were the Nauri of Mauretania, the Numidae of the Telland the Gaetuli of the steppe and pre-desert zones. The Numidian kingdomwas the most significant powerblock encountered by the Carthaginians andthe Romans up to this time and although the heartlands lay mainly in north-western Tunisia and north-eastern Algeria, the Numidians came to control aformidable tribal hegemony. 6 The kingdom resulted from the enforced unionof tribes achieved by Massinissa who elevated himself from the rank of rexHassyliorum to Rex Numidarum. 7 From then until the break up of the Numidiankingdom by Caesar, the constituent tribal names barely occur. only afterthe creation of Africa Nova were smaller tribal units again referred to inNumidia. In its heyday the Numidian confederation included, by hegemoniclinks,, Garamantes, Gaetuli, lVasawnes and Kazax from the Tripolitanian lands.8The Gaetuli are recorded in several distinct contexts from the Atlanticcoast to the vicinity of the Greater Syrtes. The nam was to an extentsynonymous with the tribes living beyond the fringe of civilizationinthepre-desert, The Gaetull, however, often operated as political groupings oftribes, though we do not know the precise size of such confederations.Caesar was aided by Gaetull tribes against Juba I in 46 B. C. and similargroups featured in later revolts.9 The Maur! are normally identified withthe predominantly mountain tribes of the kingdom of mauretania. In thesethree examples the principle of hierarchy at its highest level isdemonstrated. The demise of these extremely large confederations of tribeswas not entirely coincident with the removal of their kings, as the revoltof Aedemon in Mauretania showed. The Tacfarinan War of A. D. 17-24 was3: 2

-6 i. -notable for the fact that the theatre of operations covered practicallythe whole extent of the long disbanded Numidian kingdom. 10At a lower level in the tribal hierarchy came large tribes such as theMusulams (Musulamii). Early in the first century A. D. this tribe occupieda large territory spanning the modern Algerian/Tunisian border centredaround Tebessa. 11 Literary and archaeological evidence suggests th at theMusulames contained both sedentary and pastoral or semi-nomadic populations.12The tribal hierarchy operated at lower levels still and some of the sub-tribes or septs of the Musulames are known by name: a tribus Gubul at Theveste(Tebessa)13, another tribus.... from south of Madauros in the tribal terri-tory14 and a regio, Beguensi in Musulamian land, which is probably to beassociated with the Begguenses tribe known from other sources.15Another example of this stratification has been detected in northern,Numidia between Simitthu (Chemtou) and Hippo Regius (B6ne). Three inscrip-tions from this area showed the existence of a tribus Misiciri.16 The termtribuswas at first taken to mean clan, but Camps has argued,, on the basisof no less than sixty-two Libyan inscriptions containing the ethnic XSKRHthat they were a tribe or even a confederation occupying a large territory.17The Libyan inscriptions seem to show that the Misiciri were subdividedintoclans or sub-tribes: the NSFH, CRMUH, NNBIBH, NFzxH and NNDRMH. 18 Fentresshas rightly observed that the idea that the misiciri were a confederationsimilar to the Humidiae is disproved by the fact that one of the deceasedtribesmen was both a Numidian and a Misicirl. 19 She proposed, insteadsa three tier hierarchy with the misicirl being a tribe within the Numidianethnic grouping but with the IVSFH,, CPJM and so on, being subdivisions orclans of the tribe. The Libyan texts of the three bilingual inscriptionsrecord the name of the deceased and their filiation and Fentress observedthe Similarity between these texts and the modern Berber practice ofidentifyingan individual with a family group, an extended family groupsa clan, a sub-tribe and a tribe.3: 2

-62-The same thing can be shown for the Zegrenses, a tribe of MauretaniaTingitana. They are referred to on the famous Tabula Banasitanal a bronzetablet detailing a grant of Roman citizenship to a tribesman and his son. 20Both men were called Aurelius Julianus following the grant, which was due-,to the close associations maintained with Rome by the clan (familiae) ofthe Juliani and especially by their immediate family group, (domus). 21 Itis also significant that the elder Julianus was one of the notables(populares) of one of several gentes which made up the gens Zegrensium.The mechanics of such an hierarchical structure can only be guessedat - and modern parallels can help shape our guesses, - nevertheless thewidespread existence of this type of tribal segmentation need not bedoubted.Confederation e. g.NUMIDAEMajor tribes e. g.IMUSULAMESsub-triI bes e. g. BEGGUENSESTRIBUS(clans)FAMILIAE (extended family groups)DOMUS (family*groups)11,11EGOA DIAGRAMATIC VIEW OF TRIBAL HIERARCHY3: 2

-63-This model is extremely close to the diagrams used by Gellner andother social anthropologists to illustrate what they call "segmentedsocieties", a feature of surviving Berber tribes in Morocco. 22 In tradi-tional Berber tribes the essential subdivision is the extended family group,the ikhs or. thakherroubt. 23 These include not only the direct descendantsof a tribal elder, but also nephews and cousins, workers and slaves. Thereunion of two or three of these family groups creates distinct geographicgroupings or clans (tachdert). It is the union of groups of tachdert thatcreates a small tribe (taqbilt, khoms, arch).24 Within the tribe each clanhas the right to regulate its own affairs, but with tribal matters-such asdefence discussed and decided upon by an assembly composed'of the chiefs ofthe ikhs. There is, therefore, great respect attached to the persons oftribal elders. Sometimes a chief with wide powers is elected from amongstthe notables to lead the tribe. In particular circumstances, such as whenfaced with an external threat, groups of tribes may ally together to formconfederations (leff or cof) again with an elected chief, who presidesover an assembly of the other tribal leaders. 25 Mother method of electingtribal leaders is described by Gellner as "election by rotation and compara-bility". 26 The basic principle is that if the tribe is comprised of threerival clans A, B and C, then in year one the tribal leader is elected fromamongst candidates from clan A by the members of clans B and C. In yeartwo the leader is elected from clan B by clans A and C and so on* Thesystem is structurally democratic if vaguely anarchic in its results.The Azgar confederation of the Sahara is another interesting Berbergroup. 27 They are divided into two grades of tribes, 9 noble (rhaggaren)and 32 servile tribes (1mghad). Six of the Xhaggaren comprise severalclans. An Amghar or chief is elected by each tribe and these corporately(the 1mgharen)' elect a "king" (amenukel) from the available members of aroyal family. The king rules with the aid of the zmgharen and can bedeposed by them. In this tribe, as in other Berber societies, tribal3: 2

-64-leadership is not restricted to primogeniture succession.As Gellner has observed, the segmentary system is the essential elementof most surviving Berber societies. He concluded, however, that the systembalances potentially rival groups in a way which can prevent the efficientfunctioning of the highest levels of the hierarchy. 28 Although the anarchictendencies may render a tribe unable to defend itself at a moment of crisis,such incidents are rare and more co nly the latent confederation of forcesoccurs*29 In antiquity, large scale confederation seems to have been evenmore common and the potential ability of large confederations of tribes tocoalesce in opposition to Rome must have affected Roman strategic thinking.Large scale confederation against Rome in North Africa is reflected in thenomenclature of tribes such as the Quinquegentiani of the Great Kabylie andseems to have become more common in the Later Principate. The same dangeroustrend was evident on the Northern frontiers of Germany and Britain(as shownby the Marcomanni, the Alamanni and the' Barbarian Conspiracy), 31The segmentary levels of the tribal hierarchy cannot unfortunately bestrictly related to the use of terms such as gens, natio and tribus in theprimary sources. Natio and gens were used interchangeably by some of theancientwriters.32 The problem with the other term, tribus has alreadybeen encountered in the case of the Misiciri. 33 It could be used todescribe fairly substantial tribes as well as sub-tribes and clans.A second problem concerns the level in the hierarchy of the tribalunits described by Pliny and Ptolemy. In view of the loose terminologyemployed and the range of sources from which they took their material, itis likely that the lists of tribes they gave are not from a single stratumin the hierarchy. Thus one cannot assume that the 25 tribes named by Pliny,34out of a total of over 450, were all major groupings. There was doubtlessconfusion between the reports of different visitors to the same areaconcerning the name of the tribes encountered since the indigenous populationhad several options, if asked who they were. Exactly this sort of confusion3: 2

-65-occurred in the early contacts between Americans and Indians; successivereports on the same areas producing names from different levels of the tribalhierarchy there and many variants in spellingv35 The problem was hinted atby Pliny himself, who complained that the Libyan names of people and placeswere absolutely unpronounceable except by natives.36Tribal chieftains in the Roman period were described by a variety ofterms in the Latin and Greek sources and on inscriptions. The chief Latinones are rex,37 dUX, 38 princeps,39 tyrannus, 40 praefectus4liand magistratus.42(The latter two examples show the influence Rome came to exert upon triballeadership, something considered in Chapter 5: 3). It is difficult to under-stand the political basis for the power of many native rulers. On the onehand, references to seniores and populareS43 suggest that councils of minorchieftains or elders sometimes played a role. In wartime a conmander-in-chief was normally appointed by allied tribes from amongst their tribalchiefs. Ierna and Carcasan in the Byzantine period were clearly in such aposition, as Tacfarinas, Aedemon, Faraxen, Firnus and others had been44earlier. All we can infer about the processes of selection, election andsuccession is that they were varied and complex.The zegrenses tribe, mentioned on the Tabula Banasitana, illustratethe limitations of our understanding. The elder Julianus was one of thepopulares or notables of one of the sub-tribes (gentes) which made up thegens Zeyrensium. His son, the younger Julianus, became chieftain(Princeps)possibly as a result of his added prestige as a Roman citizen, but onecannot be sure. The leadership does not appear to have been hereditarypbut rather elective or selective.Another important example concerns the Baquates, who along with theBavares and Macennites are-mentioned on a remarkable series of inscriptionsfrom Mauretanla Tingitana. 45 The Altars of Peace (arae pacem) from Volubilisdetail peace treaty relations between Roman governors and successive triballeaders. For the present, we shall concentrate solely on the terminology3: 2

-66-and nomenclature used in referring to the tribes and their chiefs. Thefollowing extracts from thirteen inscriptions are relevant: -(a) Aellus Tuccuda grinceps gentis Baquatium. 46(A. D. 140)(b) conlocut. cum ucmetio principe gentium Macennitum et Baquatium. 47(A. D. 173-175)W conlocutus cum o princ(ipe) gentium . 48 (A. D. 169-175)(d) conlocutus cum Canarta principe (con? ] stituto gentiS Baquatlum. 49(A. D. 180)(e) D. M. Hemoris Fili Aureli Can'arthae principis gentium Baquat!. um. 50(A. D. 180-200). (This inscription is from a toubstone from Rome).(f) conlocutus cum X. Masene princ. gentis Baquatium, filio Ureti_ Princ.51g. eiusdem. (A. D. 200)(g)Colloquium... gentis Bavaram et Baquatum. 52 (A. D. 223,224,233 or 234)(h).....]s Baquatiu[m....53 (cA. D. 241)(i) conlo, ...[Baqua]tium.ý . 54 (A. D. 241)(j)... principe g[. ..55 (c A. D. 239-241).(k)conloquium cum Sepemazine P. [g] Baquatium. 56 (A. D. 245)'(1) conloquio, habito, cum Jul. Nuffuzi filio Jul Matif regis g. Baqu-foederatapaci.57 (A. D. 277)(M) ob diutina(m) pace(m) servata(ml. cum Julio Nuffusi et nunc conloquiohabito cum lul(io) Mizzil fratre e(i)iusdem Nuffusi reg(is) Baquatium.(A. D. 280)58Only the final two inscriptions speak of a king of the Baquates. Up toA. D. 245 at least, the conferences were held between the Roman procuratorand a native princeps. In the earlier period it is clear that the title ofprinceps was not automatically hereditable and presumably the chieftain waselected. Although a son could succeed his father as in the case of Ilalsene,son of Ureti (f, above), they were not related closely to Aurelius Canart(h)awho had been chief only twenty years before, when already honoured with Romancitizenship. Had there been any hereditary basis for the succession ofprincipes it is improbable that the Romanised family of Canartha should havebeen eclipsed so quickly. Primogeniture is not necessarily practised evenin Berber communities where tribal leadership is hereditary. Examples can3: 2

-67-be given for succession by the eldest surviving close male relation andthe eldest son of the ruler's eldest sister.59 Had the succession ofprincipes worked in this sort of way, one would'expect more familialrelationships to have been established in the inscriptions between the newand the previous principes. The institution of a kingdom in the laterperiod (1. and m. ) implies a more hereditary form of succession, but thetwo inscriptions we possess do not allow any firm conclusions to be drawnon the principle of succession. Iulius Nuffuzi succeeded his father, butwas followed by his brother.The operation of tribal hierarchy is evident in these inscriptions.Four mention a gens Baquatium (a, d, f, h), one the gentes Baquatium (e)and two mention the Baquates in confederation; gentes Macennitum etBaquatium (b) and gens Bavarum et Baquatium (g). There were apparently nofirm rules governing the use of the terra gensIgentes by the stonecutterhere, perhaps indicating that there was considerable doubt amongst Romanofficials as to whether a confederated tribe counted as a single or nultipleunits. In the model of tribal hierarchy proposed, the gens Bavarum etBaquatium is a single stage higher than the gens Baquatium which was itselfconfederated from the gentium Baquatium, and so on down.The obviousimportanceplaced on the dedication of the Altars and themaking of the peace treaties by Rome, shows that the Baquates were a cohesiveand significant confederation of tribes. The rarity of family links betweenthe chiefs suggests that the leadership may have been rotated amongst rivalsub-tribes or possibly decided on the grounds of personal strength, powerand religious prestige. It is unlikely, however, that the annual rotationof leadership described by Cellner for the modem tribes of the Atlas applied60in this case. The death of the son of Aurelius Canartha in Rome, whetherhe was there as a hostage, or to receive schooling, or on a missionimpliesa tenure of office of longer than a single year. The altars seem to have3: 2

-68-been erected to mark the election of each new chief, his recognition byRome and the confirmation of peace. 61- The irregular time lapse betweenaltars (even though we may not have-a"complet'e se-'quence) suggests that theprinceps, once promoted, may have held the position for his lifetime or,alternatively, for as long as his prestige controlled the sub-tribes.Whilst the strength of the Baquatian confederation may be an atypicalexample of the hierarchical structure, it is highly significant that eventhe more loosely confederated major tribal groups possessed the latentpotential for united action.3: 3 Tribal hierarchy : TripolitaniaThe long littoral of the two Syrtic gulfs provided an iEportant basisfor the geographical location of the interior tribes in the ancient sources.In theory we should expect greater precision than for inland areas of Kaure-tania or Numidia which were distant from the coast. In reality the sourcesare not infallible; as we have seen, Ptolemy's coordinate locations aregenerally untrustworthy and Pliny may have confused the two Syrtes on atleastone occasion.141Whilst sore of the social information is acceptable and can becorroborated by archaeological data, as for instance in the case of theGaramantes, there is a good deal that is plainly anachronistic or apocryphal.The Psylli who did battle with the "south wind" is an example of the latter. 2Similarly, the efforts of Roman geographers to locate the Lotophages, knownfrom their Greek sources, was increasingly an anachronism in the firstcentury A. D. 3A more serious defect with the ancient sources was the conceptualframework within which they were written. There was a tendency to categorisetribes within a series of bands moving away from the coast into the interior,with each band representing a stage in increasing barbarity and degeneracy.From Pliny and Mela one can produce the following model, 43: 2/3: 3

-69-Location Habitation Tribes CharacteristicsMediterraneancoastCoastal plain cities Relatively civilized,AgricultureCoastal hinterland Hapalia/huts PROXIMS Increasingly lessGAETULI civilized. PastoralismInterior hinterland INTERIORESInterior CARAMANTES Barbaric, promiscuousAUGILAEETHIOPIANSDeeper Interior Live unnaturally TROGLODYTAE Utterly barbaricundergroundDeepest interior BLEMYS Fantastical (noSATYRIS heads etc. )What we now know about the Garamantes is that they were skilful oasisagriculturalists as well as pastoral farmers and the same was almost certainlytrue'of the Nasamonian Augilae. Yet the perspective of the -ancient compilershas distorted the truth through-the selection of information which seemed tofit the model. The difficulty is how to spot the authentic information andto see its significance even though it was used within a rigid and artificialframework. Mela, for instande,,commented that'the interior pastoral tribeswere scattered about and'neither consulted together nor had fixed rules.SHe added, however, that they practised polygamy and had many children andthus had relations everywhere. The information was neatly phrased to fitYela's framework, but there is more than a passing resemblance to thesegmented 6structure of'modern Berber tribes. The fragmented tribal structurebased on extended family units is clear enough. In such communities thereis little need for tribal law because intra-familial restraints on conductare very strong. Although Mela appears to deny the practice of alliancebetween family groups, his cryptic comrient about the existence of extensivefamily ties is a hint that confederation could occur in specific circumr-stances on agnate or ethnic grounds.3: 3

-7o-A similar indication that Libyan tribes were not always cohesivelyconfederated is given by Diodorus Siculus. Describing the Auschisae,Maxmaridae, Nasamones and Macae tribes of CyrenaiCa and Syrtica, he wrote:"Now of these, those are farmers who possess land which is able toproduce abundant crops, while those are pastoralists who get theirsustenance from the flocks and herds which they maintain and boththese groups have kings and lead a life not entirely savage ordifferent from that of civilized man. The third group, however,obeying no king and taking no account of justice makes robbery itsconstant practice and attacking unexpectedly out of the desert itseizes whatever it has happened upon and quickly withdraws to theplace whence it has set out. vs7Although Diodorus has made a tripartite division of the interior peoples,it is significant that it is not done in terms of the large tribal units.The implication is that the Macae, for instance, comprised sub-tribes in allthree categories, farmers, pastoralists and tribes living off brigandage.Whatever the defects of his structured framework and his description of theinterior tribes as entirely barbaric, he certainly gives evidence for a formof tribal hierarchy. In the remainder of the passage Diodorus related moreinformation on the third group of tribes, which in some, ways contradicted hisearlier verdict on them. Although their leaders had no citiest they hadtowers (pyrgoi) in the oases. Other tribes were subject to them and submittedto their authority and presumably paid tribute in return for"protection".This was still a co n form of alliance between semi-ý-nomadic and sedentarypeople in the Tripolitanian Gebel in the recent past, 8 Agriculture was oneof the criteria of, "civilization" used by the ancient writerst but there wasno guarantee that sedentary tribes, were politically dominant over pastoralones, and Diodorus implied that the opposite could be the case. Anotherinteresting aspect of, this passage is that the alliance between the tribesdescribed-by Diodorus was imposed by military force.The generalised and simplified approach adopted by Pliny, Mela, Diodorusand others to explain the way of life of barbarian peoples was not so muchdeliberate distortion as a product of their general perspective. Even so3: 3

, 1,-71-there are some clear indications that tribal society was segmented.It has been shown in the introduction (3: 1) that there are considerableproblems involved in reconciling the geographical data from the varioussources to produce maps of tribal settlement. The existence of severalhierarchical levels of tribal names explains many of the apparent contra-dictions,, but the broad ethnic and political divipions have not normallybeen distinguished from sub-tribal names in previous work. 9 The basis forthe following analysis of the Tripolitanian tribes has been the identifica-tion of a number of primary or super-tribal groups or confederations. Theseinclude tribal names which appear in several sources, often indicated asnumerous people: the Macae, Masamones, Garamantes and Gaetuli. There arealso some divisions created by Creek and Roman sources to refer to largegroups of people in a general way, as for instance the Lotophages and Mby-phoenices, but which were not meaningful ethnic divisions to the Libyans.Finally there are two important groupings in the Later Roman period: theLaguatan and the Arzuges. It follows that if these names were ethnic orpolitical divisions, then many other tribal names known in the primary sourceswere in fact those of sub-tribes of these p; incipal groups. Table 3B below,surnarises the primary source references of the tribes of Tripolitania, Syrticaand the Fezzan. Where possible an, approximate location is given and anattribution to one of the primary groups (although these are admittedly ten-uous and more than one alternative is possible in some cases. 1Through theoperation of hegemonic control a tribe could belong in more than one groupat different times). The following abbreviations to the work of moderncommentators are used.B- Bates; C= Courtois, 1955; D= Desanges, 1962;R- Rachet, 1970; Br - Brogan, 1975.3: 3

-72-TABLE 3: BTRIBES AND SUB-TRIBES OF TRIPOLITANIA,TribalNameSub-TribeofPrimarySourcesSecondary SourcesLocationMAE'T%EISGAETULIPtolemy, IV. 3,6; IV. 6.6.B, 64; D, 75South of LesserSyrtes?A. %L-*.-NTESCAETULIPliny, V. 34-35D, 76-77; R, 40-41GebelM to north ofPhazaniaILVACUTASAMOSEILAGUTANARZVCESGAETULI?Corippus, 11,75Crt 8.22787 a ZLAf 30C, 348; D, 76-77 ITripalitania?D, 77-80-, Br. 280-81, Near Bir Soltane, inTrousset, 1974,89-90, no. 97 the Dahar.APZUCES*Orosius, a. p., T, 2,90; St-Aug.,.letters, 46,47,93; Corippus.11,148B, 68; C, 93-95; D, 77-80, The south and/orBr. 280-81. south-west regionsof Tripolitania. inLate Roman period.ASTAKOURESASTRIKESCAETULI(later)ARZUCES?Ptolemy, IV, 3,6; IV, 6,6.Corippus, 11,75, V1,391,404,431,451,464B, 64; lWestern TripolitaniaC, 348; C, 80-81; Br. 280.AUTURIXIIAUSTURAUSURIANILACUATANAmm. Marc. XXVI, 4.5; XXVIII, 6,1-14.Corippus, II. 89.91-96,209,345.V. 172; VII. 283.Synesius, Letters, 57,78.ibid. catastasls 1, col 1568-91572.Priscus Panita, FHG, IV, p. 98.B. 68,71; C, 102-104,348; Desert r&iders, spreaD, 82; Br. 282-284. from East and establishbases south ofSyrtica and Tripolitania.BUBEIUM(cf LimesBubensis)CINITHIGAETMI orGAMMANTESARZUCES?GAETLII MPliny, V. 37.Not. Dlg, Occ. XXXPliny V, 30-, TacitusAnn. 11.52,Ptolemy IV, 3,6. CZL 8.22729.B, 59; C, 77; D. 84, UnknownDesanges, 1957.B, 58,64,68-, D. 86; R, 39. South and possiblyB, 278. west of Lesser SyrtcCINNPHIEACAESilius Italicus, It, 60; 111,275Ptolemy, IV, 6,3.B, 63; D. 87 Wadi Caam (CinYPs)area east and southeastof Lepcis MagnaCISSIPADESDOLOPESELAEONESEREBIDAEFACAEGAETULIMACAE (? )LOTOPHAGESPlinY V-28, CXZ ra. 39 and 46CIL 111,14429.Ptolemy, IV, 3,6; IV, 6.6.Ptolemy, IV, 3,6.Ptolemy, IV, 3,6; stephanus ByzýPhilostoss no. 33, F. U. G. p. 188B, 57; D, 87-, R, 41 West side of GreaterSyrtesB, 63; D. 88 South-western Tripolitaniabetweendesert and W. Gefara?B, 63; D. 88 Region of GreaterSyrtes?B, 54,63; D, 89. Gefara?EROPAEIGADABITANIGAETULI*GAMASANTESGAMLICAETLIICAETCLI (? )(cf. pHAwil)Ptolemy. IV, 3,6; IV, 7.10.I Procopius. de aed. V1.4,12.Corippus, 11,117-118.Strabo, 11,5.33-, XVII, 3,2;3,9; 3,19; Florus it. 31;Tacitus, Ann, Tab. Peut.; Dio LV,28,2-4. Sid. Apollinarus, Carm,V. 337; Vib. Sequester p. 34.Corippus, V, 431.Herodotus, IV, 174; Yela, 1.23;1,47-, Pliny V. 26; V. 44-45.B, 63; D, 89-90. Gefara and Libyainterior?D, 91; Br, 279-80. Near Lepcis Yagna?Or possibly derivedfrom Cydamus(Chadames)?. B, 56,59,68,92; D, passim; Eastern tribes des-R, 44-45; Br, 277-78 cribed as GaetullFentress, 1979, passim; 1982 with limited connec-330-34; Trousset 1982b, 98. tions with thosesouth of Numidia.Ceneral and vagueusage for tribes neaiboth Syrtes and inthe interior betweenthe coast and theCaramantes.B, 53,92; D, 91-92; Phazania region?Br, 279-80.:GARAMMTES*Herodotus, IV, 183; Strabo 11,533; XVII, 3.3; 3,7; 3,19; 3,23;Livy XXIX, 33; Virgil, Aen. VI, 791.7; mela, 1.23; 1,45; Pliny. V, 2636; 38; VI. 209; Vill 142; 178;X1111111; Florus. 11,31; TacituiAnn. III, 74; Hist. IV, 49. Ptolemy1,8,4-5; 1,10,2; IV, 6,3-5-. 6.1:8,2; Solimus, XXX, 2; Isidorus,Etym. IX, 2.128; 2, ab. peut. ; A=.Marc. XXII, 15.2; lul Honorius,B. 47, p. 53, A48 p. 54; Orosius,1.2 88; 90;, 1Sid. ASoll.. V. 36,Cori us VI ohn of Bic ara 56; pp. 212.198'B, 49,53,56,58,92-92; 98,103, Wadi el-Agial, WadiC, 93,101-102; D. 93-96; es-Chatti, WadiBr, 281-282; Daniels, passim; Berguig, the Murzuk/Ayoub. passim; Pace, Sergi Zuila depression%and Caputo, 1951; Trousset the rodern Fezzan.1982b, 99-100. Hegemony exercisedover tribes to northand south alongnaturAl routes.

-73-Tribal name Sub-Tribe of Primary Sources Secondary Sources LocationCINDANES LOTOPHACI Herodotus, IV. 176; Stephanus B, 52,110-111; D. 97. Western Gefara?Byz; Philostos, no. 33. Near Ben Cardane.IFURACES LAMATAN, Corippus. 11,113; 111,412; B, 67; C, 348; D, 99-100. Tripolitania/Syrtica.IV, 641; VIII. 490; 648.ILAGUAS Corippus, 1,478,11.87; 96. B, 67; C9 104-104,344-345, Great confederation.106; 210; 345; IV, 374; vi, 10; 348-50; D, 101-102; Br. 283- of tribes from the195; 238,437; 454; 462; 469; 86. Oates, 1953,113; 1954, Eastern deserts of604; VII, 383, VIII, 580; 647. 110-111; Mattingly 1983; Libya which movedILAGUATAN V. 153. Jerary 1976. west in Late Empire.LACUATAN* 1.144; 467; IV, 48; 85,629; V, Came to occupy oases171; V19 278; VII 535, VIII, and hinterland area434; 474; 501. of Tripolitania,LEUATHAE Procopius, Bell, IV, 21,2-22; Syrtica and CyrenaicaIV, 22,13-20, IV, 28,47. By Arab invasionsde sed. VI. 4. also established westLAWATA Arab sources. of Tripolitania inmod. Tunisia andAlgeria. Many othertribes under Laguatarhegemony.LIBYPIIOENICES* Diod. Sic. XX, 55.4; Livy XXI, B, 55-57,64; D, 103; R, 38; Coastal strip and22; XXV, 40; Strabo XVII, 3,19; Br, 267-68. immediate hinterland,Pliny, V, 24; Ptolemy, IV, 3,6. Byzacene and Tripolitania.Populationbased on oldPhoenician Emporia.LOTOPHACES* Herodotus, IV, 177; Scylax, 110; B, 52,54-55,57,63,91, Cerba and LesserPolybius 1,39.2, XXXIV, 3,12; 99; D, 103; 105; R, 40; Syrtes mostly, butStrabo, 111,4,3; XVII, 3,17; Br, 278. also near GreaterHela. 1,37; Pliny XIII 104; Syrtes and in Cyren-Ptolemy, IV, 3,6. Dionysius, aica.Periegesis, 206. Steph. Byz.Philostus. 33.MACARES ? Corippus, 11,62. C, 348; D, 105. Mountains and woodedarea. Tripolitania?MACAE* Herodotus, IV. 42; IV, 175. B, 52,54-57.63,67,91, Western(MACES) neighboursDiodorus, 111,149; silius Ital- 106,121,133,137,146-148;of Nasamones,(MAKAE) icus,coast11.60; 111,275; V, 194; ýD, 106-107, R, 41; Br. 278-and western hinter-IX, 11; 89; 222; XV, 670; 79; Rebuffat 1982c, 196-99. land of CreatorPliny, V, 34; Ptolemy. IV, 3,6; Syrtes as far northIV, 6,6; Libor Gen, Prick 1, p. as wadi Cinyps-20, EXCOrPta Barbari, Prick 1, Caam/Tareglat.p. 202.MAKLHUESCAETULI Herodotus, IV, 178; (Pliny, v11, B. 52,57-58,64,91.1 D. 107; Western TripolitaniaMAKHRUES 15); Ptolemy, IV, 3,6; IV, 6,6. R. 40. MMACHYLES MACAE? Pliny, V11,15. B, 52,91. Near Nasamones,MAMUCIef LimesMamucensistherefore nearCreator Syrtes?MACAE cf ZAMUCI B. 67; D. 133 Tripolitania orNot. Dig., Occ, XXXI, 26. Syrtica.MARMARIDAE* Scylax, 108; Diodorus Sic., III, B, 54-57,62,66; C. 280; Variously placed49,1; Strabo, 11,5,33; XVII, 1 D. 164-65. between Egypt and13; 3,22; Pliny, V. 32; 39; the eastern marginsFlorus 11,31. AE, 1934, no. 257.of the Greater Syr-MAZICES Liber Gen p. 167; Aethicus, G. l. m B, 66,71; C, 100,120,125, References88; coverPhilO3torgius, XI, 8; 348; D. 112-13; 'Br, 20. extensive area bet-Nestorius, 1,7. Nicephorusween Egypt andCallistus, XIV, 36; Synesius Tripolitania.Letters, 24; Vegetius. 111,23.N. B. Also separateMAZACESCorippus, 1 549; V 80 376;(MAZAX) , , ,VI, 44; 167; 450; 600; VIII, 305.MECALES(IMACLAS)MOUKTHOUSII GAETULI?(cf MUCTUNIANAMANUS)tes.tribes of Mazicesin other parts ofNorth Africa(Numidia. MauretaniaCaesariensis).LAGUATAN Corippus, 111,410. B, 64,68; C, 348; D, 113-114. Tripolitania?11,75.Ptolemy, IV. 3,6'Corippus, 11,116'; 120.B, 64; D, 116-117. Near Lesser Syrtes,western Gebel?MOUTOUGOURES GAETULI Ptolemy IV, 3,6. B. 64'; D, 116-117. Near Lesser Syrtes.MUCTUNIANA MANUS see above3: 3HUDUCIUU1 MACAE ZR7 85Z D, 117; R, 154; Br. 279 Vicinity of Sirto(Marcomades)

-74-Tribal Nam ISub-Tribe of Primary Sources Secondary Sources LocationM. S. ýELJI MACAE? Levi Della Vida, 1964,60. Br, 280-81; Brogan, 1964,47-JW ) GAETULI? 56; 1971,124; Levi dellaLIBYPHOENICES Vida 1964,57-63.. IASA',! ONES* Herodotus IV, 172; Diodorus S. 2 B, 52-57,62,64-66,71,91,XVII, 50; Strabo 11,5,33; XVII, 98,100,105; 6,157,166-3,20; Lucan IV, 679; IX, 439- 168,174,179; C, 102-103,444,458-59, Silius Italicus, l, 348; D. 152-154; R, 39-41,408; 111.320, XIII. 481; Pliny 153-54,159-60; Br. 279.V, 33-34; Ptolemy, IV, 5,12; Desanges 197-213.IV, 5,13; Zonaras, XI, 19,IRT 854, Corippus, VI, 198; 552589; 593; 692; VII, 465; 510;VIII, 95; 177; 234; 248; 274;423; 428; 446; 639.Other late sources as Macao.NATHABRES CAETULI Orosius. 1.2,43-45. B, 68; C, 93,102; D. 122-123.(cf NABATHRAE) Ptolemy. IV, 6,6.(cf Niteris/ Pliny, V, 37.Nitiebies)NICITIMI CAETULI Ptolemy IV, 3,6; IV, 6,6. B. 63; D. 125.Tab. Pout.NU, %IIDAE* Caesar, Bell Af XCVII, 2; Br, 277Sallust. LXXVII, 1-4.N'YBGENII GAETULI Ptolemy,, IV, 3,6; IV. 6,6; B. 63; D. 129; R. 163-64;Lib. Gen P. 109, (211). Chr. Alex. Trousset, 1974,43-46,p. 109, (182); Chr. Fasch I p. 59.1978,164-169.CIL 8,11051,22786-88, ILAf655.rripolitanian pre--!desert, wadi LamoutEastern and south-L ' astern littoril ofGreater Syrtes,hinterland of Syrtesto south, Augila andother oases bases.South of TripoliSouth of Lesser'Syrtes? Gefara?In the 2nd and Ist'century BC theNumidian kingdomextended east into'Tripolitania.Centre in oases ofKebili/Telmine.Lands include ChottFedje dj and theNefzaoua. ,-PHAZARII GAETULI? Pliny V. 26- V, 35. B, 53,98,100; D, 16,130-31;Ptolemy IV, 7.10. R. 37; Br, 279-80. Desanges,1957; 19.PSYLLI NASAINONES? Herodotus, IV, 173; Pliny V, 27; B. 52,55,58,63,66;(cf SELI) MACAE? VII, 14, Strabo, XVII, 3,23, D, 155-156; Br, 279.Ptolemy, IV, 40 6e Tab, Peut, Gsell, HAAN 1,133 n. l.Around'Cidamus(Ghadames)and southernDahar. North-and west of Hamad&el-Hamra?Near the Nasamones,therefore close tothe Greater Syrtes.The Seli on theTabula Peutin7erianaare located close tcmarcomades (Sirte)in Macae territory.it is, therefore,possible that thePsylll were in partabsorbed by Nasamonesand in partby Yacae.ISAMAMMI MACAE Ptolemy, IV. 3,6- IV, 3,11. D, 132-133.(cf. Zamucii)SELIsee aboveNortheasternand Cefara?Cabal3: 3SICIPLONSI CAETULI Ptolemy. IV, 3,6. B. 63; D, 133.SILCADENIT Corippus, 11,53-55; C. 348; D, 134.SILVACAZY? 11,52;SILVAIZAN 11,62.SINTAE CAETULI? Strabo 11,5,33. D, 135; R, 37,39.(cf Cinithi)TAUTAIMEI MACAE? Wbxen. 145, p. 102, D, p. 137Chr Alex 117, p. 102.THERIODES GAETULI? Iulius Hon, A, 48, p. 54 D, 138Herodotus. IV, 181.TIDA, %ZNSII CAETULI? PtolemY, IV, 3,6. D, 138.Western Cefara?(Tripolitania?Western Tripolitani.western littora 10)*of Lesser Syrtes?Placed betweenMasamones andmacae in latesources. Possiblya sub-tribe of onethem close to theGreater Syrtes.Phazania?Phazania?People. of Cidamud?

-75-Tribal Name Sub-Tribe of Primary Sources Secondary Sources LocationTROGLODYTES AETHIOPES Herodotus. IV, 181; 183, Mela, B, 103,168; D. 139-40. South of Phazania1,23; 44; Pliny 11,228, V, 34; and south of Carama.43, Ptolemy, IV, 4.6.URSILIANI Vegetius, 111,23; C, 100,348; D, 141-42. Desert bases southLACUATANURCELIMACorippus, 11,75; VI, 390. of Creater Syrtes(? )ZA. MCII MACAE IRT 854. D, 117; Br. 279; in vicinity of SirteEpIgraphica 1,1939,111-118 (Marcomades).CATALOGUE OF TRIBES (Figs. 8 and 9)IIThe LotophagesThe primary sources give us several options for the location of theLotophages. The island of Gerba (Meninx) was indicated by Polybius (1,39,2;XXXIV 3,12) and by Strato (111,4,3), although the latter also referred tothe Lesser Syrtes embayment as a whole as Lotophagitis (XVII, 3,7). Scylax(110) gave the Lotus-eaters an island base as well, but his position is toofar east to be Gerba. Herodotus (IV, 177) described a mainland settling ona narrow headland, a reference often identified with the Zarzis peninsularnear Gerba. On the other hand, later Roman sources were not entirely con-fident of where to find them. Ptolemy (IV, 3,6) described Gerba as Loto-phagitis, but also placed Lotophages near the Cinyps (east of Lepcis).Mela (1.37) identified them in Cyrenaica, whilst Pliny related the Lotustree to the Greater Syrtes in particular. When discussing meninx he did notconnect it with the lotophages (IX, 60). The second century Periegesis ofDionysius (206) also placed the Lotophages east of Lepcis Magna. Althoughthe consensus of the Greek sources identify the Lotophages with the islandof Gerba and the Lesser Syrtic coast, as a Greek and Roman term of conveni-ence it has no ethnic significance. Later sources evidently applied theterm to any communities close to where the lotus tree was found. As Broganhas shrewdly observed, the development of the Phoenician emporia, into thegreat Libyphoenician civitates must have absorbed most of the Libyan coastaltribes. 10 The identification made by Latin authors between the Lotophagesand the Greater Syrtes is indicative of the greater speed of social and3: 3 1

-76-economic development along the Lesser Syrtes coast, where Lotophages, were nolonger to be found in the first century A. D.IAll that can be reasonably concluded about the Lotophages is that theywere coastal or island tribes in regions where the lotus tree flourished.In all probability many of these tribes were absorbed in the expansion ofthe Libyphoenices. Stephanus Byzantinus quoting Philostos (33) named theErebidae and Gindanes as tribes of the Lotophages. Since other referencesindicate a location in western Tripolitania for these tribes, it is possiblethat they were centred on the littoral of the Lesser Syrtes.The LibyphoenicesHere again the nomenclature is a convenient generalisation coined bythe Greeks and imitated by the Romans. The implied coherence of the groupname was by no means present. It was used as a general name for the peoplein the coastal plains between Carthage and Byzacium (Diodorus Siculus, XX,55,4; Livy, XXI,, 22; XXV, 40; Pliny, V, 24; Ptolemy, IV, 3,6). Strabo(XVII, 3,19) more accurately also described Libyphoenician peoplesexisting round the southern edge of the Lesser Syrtes as far as thepromontory of Cephalae (near Misurata) In this southern zone the Liby-phoenices were divided into the individual populations centred on the townsof Tacape (Gabes), Gigthis (Bou Ghara), Sabratha (Sabrata)q Oea (Tripoli)and Lepcis Magna (Lebda). These towns started life as Phoenician emporiaestablished at regular sailing intervals. " Carthage had jealously guardedher maritime trading monopolies whilst she also dominated the emporia andthis had the important effect of diverting the energies of the emporia tothe exploitation of the land. Dramatic development took place in the lastcenturies B. C. for as well as the spread of agriculture and arboriculturethere was intermarriage and integration of Libyans and Phoenician/Punic3: 3

tion shows that the Cinithl were a Gaetulian tribe (Florus. II, 31;_-77-people. Having passed under the aegis of Rome, these independent civitateswere among the richest communities in North Africa by the early Principate. 12In subsequent decades they continued to expand into the Gebel hinterland ofthe semi-arid Gefara and one can trace this by the spread of their predomin-antly Punic culture and architecture.13 By the late first century Libyphoe-nician farmers were well established in the wadi basins of Sofeggin and Zerx-Zem. 14 ,This remarkable expansion was probably achieved at the expense of theGebel and pre-desert tribes (technically Gaetuli and Macae in my classifica-tion). The predominance of Libyco-Punic culture and the neo-Punic languagein this region indicate that the expansion was accomplished by Libyphoeniciansrather than Romans. 15 Unfortunately it is less clear what happened to theLibyan tribes whose traditional lands were taken over. One tribe, theCinithi, possibly centred in the western Gefara, were associated with Gigthis,which may have been designated their civitas (= 8.22729). Other informa-Tacitus, Ann, 11,52). The prestigious civil career of L. Memmius Mes-tius inthe early second century indicates that some of the Cinithi were able toparticipate at the highest levels of municipal life in Gigthis. An inscrip-tion (IRT 859) from a mausoleum near Jefren records the name Chinitiv [? ]and is presumably another instance of the integration of the elite of theCinithi with the Libyphoenices.Not all levels of Libyan society or tribal groupings will have beentreated in this manner. Abd el-Hakam. referring to the conquests of theLawata tribe (see Laguatan below), stated that they had dispossessed theRum of Lepcis and Sabratha of their lands. However, the "Afariq who weresubject to the Rum remained paying a tribute which they were accustomed torender to all who occupy their country. "16 The Rum were not Romans, butthe Romanised Libyphoenices. One may guess that the Afariq were some of3: 3

-78-the original Gaetulian and Macae population of the Gebel, who had beentransformed into dependent share-croppers.The civitates of the Libyphoenicians were fiercely independent ofeach other and it would be mistaken to view the agricultural expansion asa co-ordinated and agreed "carve-up" of the interior lands between thedifferent coimmtmities. The rivalry between the cities, notably Lepcis,Oea and Sabratha could have disastrous consequences. In A. D. 69 a disagree-ment over territory between the Lepcitani and Oeenses flared up into a war(Tacitus, Hist, IV, 50). At other times indiscriminate expansionism of oneor other of the coastal cities nust have antagonised the Libyan tribes ofthe Gebel. The support of Tripolitanian tribes for Tacfarinas betweenA. D. 17-24 indicates that there was resentment against both Rome and theILibyphoenices. Roman frontier policy had, therefore, not only to takeaccount of potentially hostile Libyan tribes, but also the possibly adverseeffects of allowing nominally independent cities too much freedom of action.The importance of delimiting and fixing the territories of tribes andcities alike was illustrated dramatically by the events of A. D. 69-70.17Within the civitates there is no denying the strength and wealth ofthe leading Libyphoenician families, a point best demonstrated in the caseof Lepcis Magna. The remarkable building progra of the Julio-Claudianperiod was achieved with local money by peregrine nobles and not by Italiancolonists. Bi-lingual inscriptions recorded the names of the benefactors:Iddibal Magonis (IRT 273); Annobal Himilcho Tapapius (IRT 319,321,322,.323); Annobal Ruso (. rRT 269) and Muttun (IRT 319). 183: 3

-79-The*GaettiliThere are three distinct geographic groups of source references to theGaetuli. Pliny described Gaetuli south of Mauretania and on the Atlanticseaboard (V, 9-13). Separated by deserts from this group were another setof Gaetull who lay south of the main tribes of Africa (V. 43). Other sourceslink this group closely with the Nuraidae with whose territory they wereadjacent (Sallust,, B. J., passim; Caesar BAf, passim). These Gaetuli wereonce located by modern scholars in the wadi Djedi area, but many in . dicationsshow that the more northerly Gaetuli tribes extended to the Tell. 19Apuleius (Apol, 24,1) described himself as "semi-Numidam,semi-Gaetulam",hinting at an ethnic mix in his home town of hadauros(whose location hedescribed as Numidiae et Gaetuliae in ipso confino).These northern Gaeiuliwere closely linked in the sources to the Numidian kingdom as'dependent,allied tribes or as rebellious subjects (Sallust, BJ, XIX, 7; LXXX, 1-2;LXXXVIII, 3; Caesar, BAf, XXXII, 3; XXXV, 4; LV; LVI, 4).The third use of the tem is connected with the second, in that it wasused to describe practically all the tribes lying south of Numidia which laynorth of the Garamantes and the Aethippes. 20The use of the term extendedto the region of the two Syrtes. Virgil (Aen, V, 192, in GaetulibusSyrtibus), Florus (11,31, Gaetulos accolas Syrtium) and Strabo (XVII, 3,19;3,23) were all specific on this point. Orosius (1,2,90) mentioned barbarosGaetulos Nathabressouth of the Regio Arzugum near the Garamantes. ' Finallythe Tabula Peutingeriana has Gaetuli' tribes marked at various points betweenAd Calceum Herculis (El Kantara) and'a point south of the Greater SyrtessAlthough the combined numbers of the Gaetuli made them the largestLibyan people (strabo, XVII, 3,2) there is no evidence for a united GaetulianKingdom or state. Mela (1,23), indeed, described them as natio frequensmultiplexque Gaetull. Confederation was probably on a comparatively smallscale, as for example between the six Gaetulian tribes recorded in CIL V, 5267.3: 3

-80-There are many references to the nomadic way of life and the barbarousand warlike conduct of the Gaetull (Sallust,, BJ, XIX, 6;, CIII. 4; Mela III,104; Pliny, X, 201; Orosius, VI, 21,18). It seems likely that "Gaetuli"proved a useful blanket term to describe the little-known pastoral tribesof the pre-desert who were assumed to have these characteristics. We shallsee in the following discussion that the tribes which were nominally Gaetulican be subdivided into broad geographical groupings. Whilst I have retainedthe overall name for convenience, the tribes are dealt with below with refe-rence to these zones. Since the majority of the Gaetuli tribes are notfirmly located much of what follows is hypothetical.(a)PhazaniaPliny's account of the campaign of Cornelius Balbus (V, 35-36) mentioneda region known as Phazania. In spite of the apparent similarity of name thisdoes not correspond with the area designated Fezzan by the Arab writers. Thelatter is equivalent to the land of the Garamantes, which according to Plinylay beyond the Black Mountain and across a stretch of desert from Phazania.The names of three urbes of the Phazanii, Alele, Cilliba and Cydamus werealso recorded and the latter can be identified with the oasis settlement ofChadames. This defines Phazania as the region lying northwest of the modernFezzan and the Hamada el-Hamra. The western limits were probably defined bythe Grand Erg Oriental, whilst the eastern boundary may well have been theMizda corridor leading to Cheriat and the Fezzan. An, area of the pre-desertwest of Mizda and southwest of Gasr Duib is still called"Fezzan"on recentmaps*21 The northern limits, may well have been close to the Gebel. It is,possible that Alele and Cilliba are cormemorated by the names of, the laterlimes forts ! ralalatl and Tillibarl (Remada)ý2Research by Rebuffat hasshown the presence of native fortifications of early Roman date marking the,route between Chadames and Nalut. 23 Finally Ptolemy (IV, 7,10) placed thePhazanii as neighbours of the Nybgenii which is only possible if both tribespractised transhumance over as extensive distances as is done today.24 The3: 3

-81-Phazanil may well have controlled oases and wells as far north as modemDehibat. In all this area, permanent settlement is only possible in theGebel and in the oases, notablyGhadames, those of the Derj depressionand Sinaouen.The political organisation of the tribe seems to have been hierarchical,with the Cidamensi (=Tidamensi of Ptolemy, IV, 3,6) the principal sub-tribe. 25 Other tribal names sometimes linked with the tribe are the Gamphas-antes, the Gadabitani and Theriodes. The arguments are not entirely convinc-ing and are best summarised by Desanges.26The Dahar and NefzaouaThe, northward curve of the Tunisian Gebel at Dehibat and the sand seaof the Eastern Erg, define a corridor of arid, semi-desert plateau runningnorth from Phazania. The presence of a number of important wells in this2-7part of the Dahar make it an important transhuming route. Transhumancetakes place both north - south from the oases of the Nefzaoua and east towest from centres in the Gebel'28 The north - south movements tend to besemi-nomadic in nature. Sedentary agriculture is only practised in theGebel and the oases ofthe Nefzaoua.Ptolemy listed certain tribal names twice in different positions inthe interior. The first group can be placed in the vicinity of the LesserSyrtes, the second much deeper into the northern Sahara. It is possiblethat Ptolemy had simply made an error, but alternatively he may have, beentrying to indicate the practice of long range transhumance from the Nefzaouadown the Dahar. 29 The tribes listed were, AkhaemeneislAkhaemaej AStakoUreslAstakouri; DolopeslDolopes (Ptolemy, IV,. 3,6/IV, 6,6); Eropaeiloreipaei;N. ybgenU1Nugbenitae (Ptolemy IV, 3,, 6/IVI, 79 10). Given the weaknessesof Ptolemy's data, no reliable map can be established, but for one of thefive tribes more information is available.3: 3

-82-The main tribal centre of the lvybgenil has been established byinscriptions to be the oasis of Telmine in the Nefzaoua. 30 This is one ofa group of small but important oases bordering the south and east sides ofthe Chott Djerid and Roman period remains have been found in many of them. 31The coubined population of these oases could have been considerable. In thelast hundred years the total has varied between 18,000 and 50,, 000 people.32Since Ptolemy stated that the Nugbenitae and areipaei were neighbours of thePhazanii (IV, 7,10) it seems that transhumance was practised in antiquitydown the corridor of the Dahar.33If Ptolemy's other "doubled" tribes are to be located close to theNybgenii, then it is likely that they also had oasis centres in the Nefzaouagor even that they were sub-tribes of the Nybgenli. The Nybgenil werecertainly treated as the chief tribe of the Nefzaoua by the Romans. 34 Telminewas designated their civitas capital and under Hadrian the settlement wasimportant enough to merit promotion to municipium status. It is hard tounderstand the pre-eminence of Telmine over the other small oases of theNefzaoua, unless tribal authority was in some way exercised over the othersfrom there. The absence of Ptolemy's doubled tribes in other sources (withthe possible exception of the Astrikes of Corippus (11,75)), can best beexplained if they were part of the tribal hierarchy of the Nybegnii.The Romans delimited the Nybgenii tribal territory in relation tothat of Capsa and Tacape.35 Another boundary stone from the Dahar at BirSoltane (ILAf 30) mentions the tribal names Arzosei and [.. ] maba [es4obone of which may also have been a Nybgenil sub-tribe and the other a trans-huming tribe from the Gebel, 36 Access to wells is all important in a regionlike the Dahar and the boundary stone was presumably regulating the use ofthose at BirSoltane.3: 3

-83-(c) Gefara and GebelA second group of tribes are listed only once by Ptolemy and seem tobe tribes based near the Syrtes, in the Gefara plain and in the Gebel.These are, the Cinithi, Moukthousil, Houtougoures and Sigiplonsi (IV, 3,6).To these can be added the Amantes of Pliny (V,, 34-35), who, situated northof Phazania, were most likely a Gebel tribe in the Nefusa region.37Florus (11,31) mentioned an alliance between Musulames and Gaetulosaccolas syrtium in c A. D. 6, whilst Tacitus (11,52) specifically pairs theCinithi with the Musulames during the Tacfarinan revolt. As explainedalready, the Cinithi seem to have been the chief Gaetulian tribe of thewestern Cefara and Lesser Syrtes littoral and were later connected in someway with the Civitas Gigthensium.38 Another inscription from Thysdrus(El Djem) refers to a praefectus gentis of the Cinithi but the man involvedwas not necessarily a native Cinithi himself and no connection with the'townof Thysdrus is implied, 39 The apparent assimilation of the Cinithi by theexpanding Libyphoenician population was not accomplished without a strugglepas the references to them in the Gaetulian and Tacfarinan wars show. Never-theless by the end of the first century A. D. it is probable that many of theGaetuli tribes of the cultivateable western Gefara and the coastal plainswere being sedentarised either as farmers or as farm labourers.Similarly for the Gebel tribes, the agricultural opportunities of theirlands were good and from an early date they probably practised a mixed economy.The more ample water resources allowed a tribal dispersion over a wider area.With increasing sedentarisation, whether imposed or adopted willinglyp theability of these tribes to form alliances and muster large nurbers of rMnmay have been weakened. At any rate, once pacified these tribes were morelikely to acquiesce than the Nybgenil and Phazanii of the pre-desert regions.The development of oases in the latter regions, enabled substantial populationsto grow up around tribal centres. Historically it was the pre-desert anddesert Gaetuli tribes which posed the greatest threat to the Libyphoenicians3: 3

-84-and to Rome and a large a unt, of military activity in the first centuryA. D. was directed towards the oases centres of the Fezzan, the Djerid, theNefzaoua and Phazania. 40 Diodorus Siculus'reference (111,49,1-3), to thedomination of more "civilized" sedentary and pastoral tribes by morebarbarous tribes of the interior takes its sense from this contrast betweenGebel and pre-desert tribes. 41The MacaeThe Macae (Makae, Maces) appear in many of the sources and we have seenthe problems which occur if they are assumed to be a tribe of equal statuswith all others located in the same area (chapter 3: 1 Table 3A. above). Thegeographic indications make a good deal more sense if the Macae are viewedas a major tribal grouping or confederation.42Herodotus (IV, 175) and Scylax (109) placed the makae as westernneighbours of the Masamones, extending as far as the river Cinyps (Wadi Caam).It was the makae who, with the Carthaginians (repcitani? ), evicted thesettlement of Doreius from-the cinyps in c. 517 B. C. (Herodotusq IVO 42).silius I tali cus, conf irme d the association with the cinyps, by describing theCinyphii as a sub-tribe of the Macae (11,60; 111,275; V0 194; IX9 11;IX, 89, IX, 222; XV9 670). Other sources also locate them on the littoralof the Greater Syrtes, west of the Nasamones: Diodorus Siculus (III949)jPliny (V, 34), St. Hippolytus (Chron. 145), Excexpta Barbari (I p. 202);Liber. Gen. (I p. 20). Pliny stated that the Macae lay between the Masamonesand the Amantes, who lived twelve days west of the Greater Syrtes. Thisimplies that the Macae extended back from the coast into the Gebel and thepre-desert zone of the Sofeggin and Zem-Zem wadis. Scylax supports thisconclusion by describing the macae as transhumers who moved with theirflocks and beasts away from the coast into the interior in summer. Further-3: 3

-85-more, Ptolemy gave the Macae two positions; firstly, on the coast (IV, 3,6),where they are described as Syrtites and then in the interior near themountain Girgiri where the source of the Cinyps lay (IV, 6,3, and IV, 6,6).The Macae were associated, therefore, with a sizeable area of Gebel andpre-desert as well as with the Syrtic coastline, roughly the same as thatoccupied by the Orfella tribes today. Rebuffat has recently identified thetribes of the Bu Njem region as Maces, which fits in with my analysis.According to Strabo the western limit of the Nasamones was the AraePhilaenorum, but this is demonstrably incorrect. The Rasamones were politi-cally subject to both Cyrenalca and Africa as their revolt of A. D. 85-86demnstrates. The eastern limits of the Macae are not certain, therefore,but the absorption of, Psylli tribes (Pliny VII, 14) may have created closelinks between neighbouring Macae and Nasamones tribes.IDiodorus Siculus described the Macae as the most populous of the Libyanpeoples and showed that they were an ethnic grouping of sub-tribes ratherthan a single, united tribe (111,490 1-3). The following tribes are there-fore proposed as Macae sub-tribes.(a) Cinyphii. The cinyphli in Hannibal's army were described by SiliusItalicus (11,60; 111,275) as Races and although Ptolemy (IV, 69 3)distinguished them from the Macae.. this may reflect a growing associationbetween the Cinyphil and the Libyphoenices of Lepcis by the later firstcentury A. D. or be simply an error. The earlier association of the Macaewith the Cinyps is confirmed by Herodotus (IV. 42).(b) Cissipades. This tribe was located by Pliny close to the western shoreof the Syrtic gulf but is otherwise unattested in North Africa (V. 28). How-ever, a cohort of Cissipades is known from Upper Moesia in A. D. 93 (CIL XVI939)and in A. D. 100 (CIL XVI. 46) and later in Lower Moesia (CIL 111,14429). Itis possible that the unit was raised earlier than the Flavian period044 IfPliny's location is correct, then the Cissipades are best explained as asept of the Karae.3: 3

-86-(c) Elaeones. Situated by Ptolemy (IV, 3,6) between the Cinyphii and theMacae, but otherwise unknown, one can assume they were a Macae sub-tribe andthat Ptolemy had misunderstood the status of the names.(d) Machyles. They were positioned by Pliny inland from the Nasamones(VII, 15) but are sometimes wrongly associated with the Mak1hues of Herodotusnear the Lesser Syrtes. 45 Pliny gave semi-mythical information on the tribe,but their location and name suggest a connection with the Macae.(e) Samamukli, Mamucii, Zamuci, Xuducivvi. The evidence concerning thesefour sub-tribes is inter-related and can be dealt with together. TheSamamukii were assigned two positions by Ptolemy, near the Cinyphii (IV, 3,6)and also in the interior north of the Girgiri mountain (IV, 6,6). The namehas sometimes been equated withthe Zamuci and the Hamuci on the grounds that46these similar names must all be the same tribe. The presence in all threenames of the stem -muci suggests. another possibility, that all three aredistinct sub-tribes of, the Macae, which might be guessed from the geographicalevidence in any case. The existence of the Mamuci tribe is inferred from thereference to a limes Mamucensis in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ, XXXI, 26), 47The zamuci are fairly precisely located by a land boundary stone foundthree kilometres east of Sirte (marcomades) delimiting their land from thatof the Muducivvi (IRT 854). These two tribes are not otherwise attested andin this region should be Macae (or Seli? ) sub-tribes.(f) Seli (Cf Psylli). The Seli tribe are marked on the Peutinger Table(seg. VII) associated with the towns of Digdiga and Marcomades on the Syrticgulf. According to Bates, Seli is the most likely Libyan form of Psylli, atribe who lost their independence before the Roman period(Pliny VIIt 14).Some Psylli tribes would seem to have become allies or sub-tribes of Macaeand Masainonesas a result.(g) Tautamei. This tribe is only known in later Roman sources, where it wasplaced between the Nasamones and the Macae on the Syrtic coast . 48Therefore,3: 3

-87-it was probably a sub-tribe of one of these major groups.The Macae provide a clear example of the usage of a tribal ethnic todesignate a large group of tribes. In this case the sub-tribes seem to haveled increasingly independent lives, but the potential must have existed forMacae alliances to be created. Unlike the Nasamones, the Garamantes and theGaetuli, however, the Macae confederation seems to have remained largelydormant in the Roman period.The NasamonesThe Nasamones were the other major grouping of tribes of the GreaterSyrtes. Herodotus (IV, 172-75) mentioned them as a coastal tribe, who alsohad control of the Augila oases where they harvested dates in summer. Thecoastal dwellers were notorious in antiquity as pirates and wreckers (LucantIX, 438-44; Silius Italicus, 1,408-10; 1119 320). Although Strabo restrictedtheir territory to Cyrenaica alone, it is clear from the events of A. D. 85-86that they spanned the provindial boundary and there was a substantial portionof, the tribe in Africa-, as well (Zonaras, XI, 19). Although Domitian claimedto have annihilated them in A. D. 86, the remants seem to have withdrawn fora period to their southern oases. Later sources continued to place them onthe Syrticcoast*49The evidence for a tribal hierarchy is to be found in part in the splitbetween coastal and oasis-dwellers. Some of the possible sub-tribes havebeen mentioned above, under Macae. The Augilae, the inhabitants of theAugila group of oases, were treated as a tribe by Mela (1,8,41-48). Thepredominant role played by these oases implies that it was the tribal centreand the annual date harvest provided a reason for regular reunion of thetranshuming sub-tribes with the sedentary oases-dwellers. Augl1a was also3: 3

-88-a cult centre for the Libyan god Ammon, and perhaps second only to Siwa asan oracular centre (Procopius, de Aed, VI, 2,15-20). There were certainlymany temples to Ammon west of Siwa (see below Chapter 4: 3), but one inparticular was a centre of prophesy. Procopius described this. function ofthe Augila temple and Mela also commented on the renown of the Augilae asprophesiers of the future. In the lohannid of Corippus, the Laguatan soughtan oracle from Ammon somewhere in the Syrtic region, and Augila was mostlikely meant (xoh, VI, 145-187, VI, 55). Augl2a was, therefore, both atribal and religious centre for the Nasamones, which may have been a signi-ficant factor in maintaining the cohesiveness of the Nasamonian confederation.There is not enough evidence, however, to be certain of the precise form oftribal leadership, though kingship or chieftainship linked to the religiouscentre of Augila is not inconceivable. 50The history of the Syrtic, region in the Late Roman period is one ofchange and tribal upheaval. Although the Nasamones were still mentionedinthe literature it is unlikely that they continued to constitute an independentconfederation. The Laguatan tribes, which seem to have moved westwards alongthe great chain of oases from Siwa to Augila, emerged to head a new andpowerful confederation. The Nasamones of Augila and their other oases centreswere absorbed into the Laguatan. When Corippus used the term Nasamon todescribe Laguatan warriors he was not being entirely anachronistic or"poetic"561The absorption of the interior Nasamones tribes probably occurredin the latethird century A. D.523: 3

-89-The GaramantesThe Garamantes are practically the only Libyan tribe to have beenresearched on a broad basis. Not only has the literary evidence been wellcommented on, but pioneering studies have been done in the fields of archae-ologyand anthropology.53Once again the hierarchical system would seem to have been present andthe leading modern authority on the Garamantes, C. M. Daniels, has concludedthat the tribe was probably a confederacy.54 The archaeological evidencefor the Garamantes comes from the Fezzan, where field work has revealedCaramantian settlementin three bands of oases sandwiched between theHamada el-Hamra, the sand sea of Urbari and Murzuk. These are the wadiesc Sciatti to the north, the wadi el-Agial and the wadi Berguig and theMurzuk/Zuila depression to the south (Fig. 10), 55 Although extensiveevidence for settlement sites, irrigation systems and cemeteries have beenfound in all of them, the single most important centre was located in thewadi el-Agial. This principal centre was described by Pliny (V. 36) andPtolemy (IV, 6,12) as the capital and as a "metropolis" of the tribe.Excavations beneath the medieval caravan town of Germa revealed the presenceof Garanu. However, occupation there only dated from the fourth centuryB. C. and Daniels has demonstrated that the original centre of settlementwas located at an dpdron barrd hillfort, Zinchecra. (Fig. 17) occupationof Zinchecra coymnenced in the ninth century B. C. and extended into thefirst century A. D. 56Over 130 km of the wadi el-Agial was intensively settled and cultivatedand there are minor tribal centres of both hillfort and oasis types. 57Caputo calculated that there were about 60,000 burials in the wadi el-Agialfbut Daniels now believes this to be considerably underestimated,583: 3

-90-The wadi el-Agial is seen by Daniels to correspond to the Garamantianfauces of Ptolemy (IV, 6,3-5) but another possibility is that the faucesreferred to the "tightening up" of the Waddan depression in the approachto the oases of the Giofra59. This would place the northern limits ofCaramantian lands much closer to the Tripolitanian coast. Other evidencesuggests that their territory was more extensive than the Fezzan alone inthe early Roman period. Silius Italicus (11,56-67) related the story ofAsbyte, daughter of the Garamantian Hiarbas, serving under Hannibal withGaetuli, Nasamones an d Macae, who were subjects or allies of her father.The campaign of Cornelius Balbus may have been a response to joint actionby a confederation of Phazanii and Garamantes. Pliny (V. 26) and Herodotus(IV, 183) placed the "lands of the Garamantes" closer to Augila than isfeasible if the Fezzan was implied. The ten or twelve days journey by horseor camel would only carry one as far as Zella or possibly the oases of theGiofra. The war between Lepcis and 0ea of A. D. 69-70 provides anotherexample of the northern extension of the Garamantes. They were brought intothe struggle by the 0eenses but surely not all the way from the Fezzanq(Tacitus, Hist, IV, 50).There are reasons, though, for seeing this as hegemonical rather thanhierarchical confederacy. Third century graffiti from Bu Njem show thatthe local tribes were not Garamantes and that the Garamantes themselveslived well to the south by that date. 60 The earlier success of a Garamantian-led confederation need not be doubted. Unlike their northern allies, though,they were well protected by the desert from reprisals, a factor which continuedto frustrate the Romans until the Flavian period.Apart from the archaeological evidence for minor tribal centres in theFezzan there are also hints in the literature. Pliny (V, 36) mentioned threeCaramantian oppida, Garama, Thelgae and Debris and in the following passagePliny listed other names associated with the campaigns of Balbus in his3: 3

Triumphal procession. Many of these cannot be certainly identified andalthough some probably relate to a subsidiary campaign in Algeria againstGaetull tribes, some of the names of tribes and oppida must relate to sub-tribes of the Garamantes.61Unlike the Macae, however, the Garamantes had a strong, confederated,structure and were ruled by kings. In the late first century A. D. a Romanexpedition was accompanied to the Sudan by a Garamantian king (Ptolemy, I,8,4) and when Sidi Ocba invaded the Fezzan in A. D. 666-67 there was stilla king at Germa (El-Bekri, p. 32-35). Although there are no references tothe process of succession or limitations, to the power of the kings, Pliny(VIII, 142) mentioned a deposed king. There was a temple of zu=on atGarama and a religious connection with the kings is possible.62However, Ayoub's attribution of specific tombs in the wadi el-Agial to theGaramantian monarchy and his attempt to assign dates and lengths of reignon the basis of grave goods is not acceptable as evidence concerning thekings.63Examination of a limited number of skeletons has shown that theGarajmntes were in origin a Berber tribe of Mediterranean type, with a certainadmixture of negroid stock. 64 There may have been some social distinctionsbetween different racial types, but much more anthropological work needs tobe done before firm conclusions can be reached.The essential features of the Garamantian kingdom were its internalcohesion and its strong links with other Berber tribes further north, boththrough military alliance and the cult of Ammon. Although the Garamanteswere the dominant native political power in the early Principate, theyplayed only a minor role in the later history of the region and may wellhave been subordinatedto the Laguatan.3: 3

-92-The Laguatan,The Laguatan confederation, provide an element of coherence to theotherwise confused events of the Later Roman Empire, the Vandal period,the Byzantine reoccupation and the Arab invasions. it is known under severalvariant names, Laguatan and the plural formIrlaguas(Corippus),Leuathae(Procopius) and Lawata (in the early Arab sources). The form Laguatan isadopted here as Corippus generally gave transcriptions rather than Latinisedversions of Libyan names. Careful study of Corippus' epic poem reveals thatthe Laguatan were a great confederacy and many of the sub-tribes are namedand identified as such. There has been unnecessary confusion amongstmodern commentators who have often described the sub-tribes as distincttribalgroupings.65The history of Tripolitania from the late third century until theArab invasions is punctuated by a series of traumatic incursions of desertraiders into the agricultural areas. This has sometimes been attributed tothe diffusion of the camel, which allegedly turned poor oasis dwellers intosuccessful nomads. 66 These theories are not supported by the evidence aswe shall see in Chapter 4: 5. There is no denying that the desert tribesdid constitute a new and serious threat and that some of them were migratingin an east to west direction. The Lawata had even reached Algeria by thetime of the Arab invasions. Their point of origin is thought to have beenthe northern oases of the western Egyptian desert, an area they weretraditionally linked with as Botr berbers. 67 These Botr "Neoberbýres"moved westwards along the Siwa-Augila chain of oases in-the third centuryA. D., an action which was to destabilise the frontiers of Cyrenaica andTzipolitania.The hierarchical structure can be easily demonstrated. Both Corippusand Procopius indicated that the Laguatan/Leuathae were the principaltribal group in Tripolitania. 68 During the wars, this confederation of"countless" tribes, under the control of great chieftains such as Antalass3: 3

-93-lerna and Carcasan, defeated the Byzantine army on several occasions.69Corippus could not resist calling these chieftains "tyrants" (1,463-65; 11,343) but it is clear from his account that the major decisions of war andpeace were taken by all the assembled sub-chiefs (IV, 316-337; VI, 143-44), 70The selection of an overall chieftain by the Laguatan was a war-time measure.In times of peace the individual sub-tribes seem to have conducted their ownpolitical relations with Byzantium. In A. D. 544, eighty Laguatan chiefspresented themselves to the new Byzantine dux for confirmation of theirpeace-treaties (Procopius, BV, IV, 21,1-11). Some of these sub-tribesmay have been of minor importance, but since the tribes represented wereonly those closest to Tripolitania, the scale of the Laguatan confederationmust have been enormous (Corippus 11.7, described it as "gentibus innulwris").In certain cases Corippus established hierarchical links between sub-tribal names and the Laguatan. Carcasan was the chief of the Ifuraces tribe,a numerous sub-division of the Laguatan, before he became the overall chief-tain (Corippus, IV, 639-41). The following list can be compiled of Laguatansub-tribes.(a) Austuzrianl, Ausuriani, AusturThe first Roman contact with the Laguatan was at the end of the thirdcentury A. D.,, when Maximian made two raids to the Syrtic region (Corippus I,480-82; V, 178-80; VII, 530-33). The next major problems recorded werecaused by the Austuriani tribe in the latter part of the fourth century andearly fifth century (Amm. Marcellinus, XXVI, 4,5; XXVIII, 6,1-5; 10-14;XRT 4809 Reynolds, 1977,13). This tribe are assumed to have been the sameas the raiders who devastated Cyrenaica in the early fifth century and whowere described by Synesius as Ausuriani (Letters 57,78), 71 To conductraids against both Cyrenaica and Tripolitania these tribes must have hadSyrtic bases, presumably in the southern oases. This is the region theAustur of Corippus came from (11,345). The Austuriani have generally beenviewed as a separate entityfrom the Lagruatan, yet in the sixth century the3: 3

-94-Austur were considered a sub-tribe of the Laguatan (Corippus 11,89; 91-96;209; 345; V, 192; VII, 283). As we have already seen, the Laguatan werealready installed in the Syrtic deserts by the end of the third century.The Austuriani were not then a separate tribe or confederation at all, butrather they represent an historical stage in the rise of the. Laguatan. TheAusturian! confederation was essentially the same thing as the Laguatan one;the change of nama probably reflects a shift in the sub-tribal balance ofpower. There was therefore a co n origin of the raids in the lateRoman period.72(b) Ifuraces. Carcasan served under Ierna as chief of a Laguatan sub-tribe,the xfuraces, and following the death of Ierna in A. D. 547 he was electedchief of the confederation (Corippus IV, 639-41). The xfuraces wereunquestionably a sub-tribe of the Laguatan.73(c) Recales. The Recales were mentioned by Corippus, along with the. Zfuracesin a passage concerning the Tripolitanian tribes (111,410-12). xmaclas (II,75) may be the plural form for this tribal name. They were most likely aLaqvatantribe,(d) maziceslmazaceslmazax and UrsilianilUrcelianaThe Mazices and Ursiliani were described by Vegetius (epit. rei Mil.,111,23) as desert tribes of Syrtica. The names reappear in Corippus as Mazaxand Urceliana, although Mazax is generally used as a synonym for Laguatanrather than as a sub-tribal ethnic,74 and the Libyan ethnic mazices was veryco n in North Africa. 75 The Urceliana manus were encountered by theByzantine army in the western Cefara and forced into an alliance. Thewestward migration of the ursilianilUrceiiana is additional reason foridentifying them as a Laguatan tribe.(e) Anacutas, Silcadenit, Silvacae, Silvaizan and others.There are a great number of other minor tribal names which mightrelate to Laguatan tribes or to allied tribes from Tripolitania and Byzacium.The military confederation extended beyond the immediate Laguatan tribes3: 3

-95-76 77which were allied on ethnic grounds. The Nasamones, the Seli, the Macaeand Gaetuj178 were progressively absorbed into the hegemony. FollowingIerna's defeat in 547, a new Laguatan confederacy was gathered. Horsemenspread the news to all the barbarians under their domination: a Syrtibusalae/invitantque feras regni sub imagine gentes.79 The army that wasgathered included not only the Laguatan, but others such as the Nasamoniancultivators of the Syrtic shore and the barbarian neighbours of theGaramantes. 80M Lawata, Hawara, NefusaThe early Arab historians encountered the Lawata people across anenormous geographical zone from the Egyptian deserts to the Aures in Algeriaand also in north Tunisia (Ibn Khaldun, 168; 226; 273; Abd el-Hakam, 35-37;El Bekri, 25-26; 31). 81 In Tripolitania the principal sub-divisions inArab times were the Hawara and the Nefusa. 82 The segmental structure ofthese sub-tribes is apparent, down to the level of the family unit.The Laguatan were initially a new generation of Berber tribes migratingthrough the deserts from the east. The process may have been slow at first,a gradual movement from oasis to oasis. The tribesmen possessed many thingsin common with the established tribes, notably A=on worship, and themigration seems to have taken along other tribes. The confederation wasswelled by each military victory as further tribes accepted the hegemony..A more crucial phase was entered when the Laguatan came within the range ofthe "ecological niches" of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. At first there wasplunder and destruction, but later some of the Laguatan settled. It isinaccurate to describe the Laguatan as camel-riding nomads who were simplyintent on the destruction of settled farming. It also obscures thesignificance of their role in the downfall of the Roman lims.3: 3

-96-The Arzuges/RegioArzug=One final group remains to be mentioned. From the fourth century A. D.,Roman sources referred to the Arzuges and a regio Arzugum. The regio wasin some way connected but at the same time distinctfrom Tripolitania.Records of ecclesiastical councils show that the area had separate bishopsand that those of Tripolitania carne only from the coastal towns. 83 'In A. D.411 the bishop of Tozeur passed through the regio whilst on his way toCarthage, presumably by boat from ! racape. 84 This suggests that the oldterritory of the Nybgenii, the Nefzaoua, lay within the region. A letter(93, qi. VIII, 24) of St. Augustine also mentioned the regio ArzugUM anddistinguished it as the most southerly part of the North African provincesand as being south of Tripolitania. In another correspondence, with acertain Publicola, further details emerge which confirm that the regio wasthe frontier zone of the old province of Tripolitania. The letters (46,47)described the work of pagan barbarians serving as frontier militia. Orosius(adv. pag. 1,2,90) stated that the regio was indeed formerly part ofTripolitania. However, he also added a curious rider to the effect thatArzuges was a term applicable to the tribes all along the limites of Africa. 85I shall return to the significance of this simple statement in a moment.Goodchild interpreted these references as written evidence for theexistence of his "jimitanei" and he observed that horrida tellus (Corippus,11,148) was an apt description for the Zem--Zem/Sofeggin wadi basins. 86Courtois on the other hand imagined that there was a distinction between theeastern and the western parts of the regio, because of his theory that theeastern sector of the Ems Tripolitanus was abandoned at the end of thethirdcentury.87 There is in fact no grounds for such a division.On the origin of the term Arzuges, opinion is also divided. Batesestablished a tenuous etymological connection with the name Austuriani, buthas not been followed in this interpretation by other corm-entators.88 The3: 3

-97-Trajanic boundary stone from Bir Soltane (ILAf 30) which named the Arzoseiis more often used as evidence for a tribal origin.89 However, it is worthconsidering that the name may not be that of a tribal gens at all but, asOrosius implied, a general Libyan term of late date applicable to all thegentiles of the frontier militias in-Roman Africa. At any rate, it developeda special significance for the frontier zone of Tripolitania. Whatever theorigin of the name, the Arzuges comprised elements of the earlier populationof the frontier zone, Gaetuli, Macae and Libyphoenices. The growth of theLaguatan confederation in Tripolitania must have been at the expense of theArzuges. In the sixth century the regio, Arzugum had shrunk both in size andimportance (Corippus, 11,148). The decline of the Arzuges is indicativeof the revived tribalism in many areas following the Vandal conquest andthe collapse of Roman rule.Some of the names recorded by Corippus may have been those of thedescendants of the Arzuges: the Anacutas and Astrikes (11,75), theMuctunia manus (11,116; 120), the Silcadenit, Silvacae, Silvaizan (119 52-55; 62). To these may certainly be added the populations of Talanteis andTillibaris, surely the old limes stations of Talalati and Tillibari (11979-80)1the Bir Dreder tribuni and s'ome of the mixed Libyan and Libyphoenician gsurdwellers of pre-desert and Gebel. 9.03: 3

-98-CHAPTER 4 THE TRIBAL BACKGROUND II4: 1 Nomads and fax7mrsThe ancient sources are disappointingly inexplicit or untrustworthywhen dealing with the economic practices of the interior tribes. The schema-tic vision of progressive barbarisation meant that tribes were often presentedas crude stereotypes of an expected model. The primary sources are, therefore,of uncertain reliability in relation to the nature of the economic bases oftribes, whether pastoral, sedentary or mixed. The additional problems causedby anachronistic, "borrowed", material have already been dealt with.1The greatest difficulties, however, have been caused by modem transla-tors and commentators through their translation of the primary sources. Anappropriate example is the term nomades. 2 True nomadism has been rare inNorth Africa and the movements of flocks and men are normally well regulated*3The problem is partly one of semantics and geographers and social anthropolo-gists have yet to agree which of the terms "nomads", "semi-nomads" and"transhumers" 4are (and which are not) applicable to the Maghreb. In thehistorical field, "nomadisd' has become a term loaded with the connotationsof "aggressive nomadism! ' attached to it by earlier generations of scholars.5The terms "semi-nomadism! ' and "transhumance" are, therefore, now normallyused in reference to the pastoral societies encountered in the region inantiquity.6Two interrelated questions on the nature of nomadism must be examined.Firstly, whether the supposed conflict between "the desert and the sownit isa necessary condition of the interrelationships between semi-nomadic andsedentary people. Following on from this is the fundamental question ofwhether the "nomads and sedentary farmers" dichotomy can be expressed interms of tribal units. In other words, were some tribes entirely nomadicand others entirely sedentary, or is there a considerable overlap intribal groupings between these two extremes? Trousset has summarised the4: 1

-99-development of the theory that the Roman frontiers came to separate twoincompatible ways of life and has shown that new archaeological evidence hasdemanded 7a reconsideration of this premise. Indeed when one examines moderncontacts between farmers and pastoralists in the Maghreb it is hard to seehow the conflict theory gained as nuch support as it has had. Althoughthere are certainly outbreaks of violence between nomadic and settledco=aunities, the more normal relationship is syrbiotic.8 Close, and peace-ful, coexistence is necessary to both sides since the semi-nomads need grainand agricultural produce and can provide animal products (meat, wool, leather)in exchange. They are also an essential source of seasonal labour forploughing, harvesting, crop-watching and shepherding. ' The regulatedirazingof the pastoralists' flocks on the stubble fields after harvest also benefitsboth parties as the farmers get their fields manured in the process. 9 Thereis, in fact, evidence for this sort of relationship in the Roman period.10Even more debatable is the belief that there was'a clear line betweennomadic and agricultural zones along which the Romans established theirfrontiers. Nor is the theory of an eviction of semi-nomadic tribes into thenorthSahara tenable." Instead we shall see that the allegedly "nomadic"tribes contained significant sedentary communities in oases centres and thatmany "sedentary" tribes continued to practice transhumance to some extent.In answer to the second issue, it is evident from a wide range ofmaterial that tribes were not composed exclusively of the practitioners ofa single economic mode, pastoral or sedentary. Diodorus specificallydefined three types of Macae sub-tribes, agricul'turalists, pastorali'sts and"brigands". 12- Recent work on the Musulames tribe shows that, at the time ofthe Tacfarinan revolt, they were conprised of both sedentary and semiý-nomadicsub-groupings. The existence of large hillforts such as Kalaat Senane (seebelow, 4: 2), implies a degree of sedentarisation, even if the majority ofthe population still'practised transhumance. 13 Archaeological research onthe Garamantes (see later in this section) has now conclusively demonstrated4: 1

-100-the importance of agriculture among supposedly nomadic tribes of the NorthSahara. 14Fentress has recently collated the evidence for "nomadism! ' from theprimary sources on North Africa. She observed that it was only in the mostinterior regions that the existence of agriculture was specifically denied. 15In order to account for the practice of agriculture in those parts of interiorNorth Africa, where its existence could not be ignored, an historical contextwas created. A mythical role was thus invented for Massinissa (or evenHercules), as a suitable, non-Roman "civilizing" agent.16 The large scalegrain exports made by Massinissa indicates that agriculture was wellestablished before his reign began. 17 Even in the more southerly regions,towards Capsa, the inhabitants produced enough grain to warrant storing itin fortified places.18 These examples support the assertion that seM3. -nomadism and agriculture were not mutually exclusive practices. A tribewhich was predominantly pastoral may well have included "core" sedentarypopulations in oases, or in villages in the more favoured locations whereagriculture was possible. Semi-nomadic tribes today still normally practicesome scratch cultivation of cereals during their migration cycles. In anycase the assumed antipathy between the two groups can be countered by theobservation that there were equally strong reasons for them to coexistsymbiotically.The arguments so far are not intended to deny the fundamental importanceof pastoralism to tribes operating in the semi-desert region, as much inantiquity as today. In these regions, seasonal transhumance is dictatedby geographical and climatological conditions and one can argue that thereare broad similarities between recent and ancient transhuming routes. Theclose correlation between the-placing of Roman forts and fortifications andthe points of convergence of transhumance corridors hag been observed by manymodern scholars.19 However, it is a mistake to believe that sedentaryagriculture was foreign to pastoral tribes in antiquity, or detested by them.4: 1

-101-In fact sedentarisation was a continuing processfrom, pre-Roman times and itis evident that in between the two extremes, there were transhuming and semi-sedentarised groupings, who practised a mixed economy. 20Another error of perspective when studying tribal economies is to ignorethe role of change. The processes of transformation from nomad to sedentaristand vice versa are continuous and may be profoundly affected by political andeconomic events or even, at a more basic level, by a period of drought. 21It is in this context that it is most dangerous to place undue reliance onprimary source information which may have been out of date. It should notsurprise us that the integration of tribal lands within the Roman, provincesbrought about a gradual increase in the sedentary component of the tribes.Trousset has described the Roman delimitation of the territory of, theNybgenii as a move which turned them from semi-nomads into transhumers.Within thirty years their tribal centre was a municipium.22The Laguatan have generally been described as a nomadic tribe of themost "aggressive" type. If they are identified with the Austuriani of thefourth and fifth centuries A. D., as I have argued, then their associationwith destructive raiding is established for a period of over 300 years.But not all the references to the Laguatan depicted them as unsettled nomads.In A. D. 544 eighty Laguatan (Leuathae) sub-chiefs presented themselves toSergius, the new Byzantine governor at Lepcis, as representatives of theTripolitanian tribes and requested the confirmation of their treaties.23The hinterland zone of Tripolitania includes the region of gasr-settlementof Cebel and pre-desert and Arab writers recorded the taking-over of some ofthese lands by the Laguatan. 24 Some of the Laguatan sub-tribes weretherefore established in a seigneurial capacity in agricultural regions ofTripolitania, alongside those of the original settlers who had joined theirconfederation. Furthermore, the Laguatan chiefs complained to Sergius thatByzantine troops had been pillaging their crops. 25 This reversal of roles4: 1

-102-is a useful corrective to the view that the Laguatan were simply migratorynomads. An important faction of the confederation was eager to settle andexploit agricultural land whose owners had been dispossessed and driven off.Arab sources recorded the presence of Laguatan in practically every "ecologi-cal niche" between the Nile and the Aures, so the process of sedentarisationseems to have consistently followed the process of migration and conquestThe growth of the confederation through association. of nlready sedentarisedtribes amplified this trend.The best case study, however, is that of the Garamantes. Herodotusmentioned both agricultural and pastoral practices among the Garamanteslanamely the spreading of loam onto the salty soil before cultivating it andthe peculiar, backward-grazing cattle.26 Disappointingly, Mela and Plinygave no up-to-date information, although it must have existed following thecampaign of Balbus. 27 Until systematic exploration of the Fezzan in the1930's, considerably more importance was placed, therefore, on the sourceswhich depicted the Garamantes as a tent-dwelling or war like and intransigenttribe (gentem indomitam et inter accolas latrociniis fecundam. )28 Tribalresistance was interpreted as nomadic antipathy for sedentary peoples and"civilizing"powers, and little credence was given to the specific referenceto oasis agriculture. The archaeological investigation of the Fezzan hasrevealed that over 80 miles (130 km) of the wadi el-Agial was intensivelysettled and cultivated in antiquity.29 The el-Agial plain was irrigated atnumerous points by foggaras which tap an artesian nappe at the foot of thesouthern escartpemt of the wadi. The foggara, a series of shafts linked bya tunnel at the bottom, is common in the northern Saharaq as well as theNear East and Persia (where it is called qanat)P Similar settlements,cemeteries and foggaras have also been located in the two other main bandsof oases in the Fezzan. (Fig. 10). 31Whilst there is also ample evidence for pastoralism, in the form ofanimal bones and dung deposits at many sites, our perspective has shifted4: 1

-lo3-considerably.32 The Garamantes had developed into a mixed pastoral/agricultural society a long time before their first contacts with Rome.Large segments of the population lived in substantial and permanent mud-brick settlements. Trade was a complicating factor in the Garamantianeconomy and will be examined in Chapter 8: 4, but it does not affect theconclusion that, in describing the tribal background, we must get well awayfrom the "nomades et sddentaires"dichotomy.To proceed further with the analysis we need to consider differentconceptual models. As *G. P. '.; Whittaker has stated,"We shall never-be able to reconstruct a portrait of society inNorth Africa under Roman rule from the ancient sources and archaeologyalone. There is more information to be had about the Maghreb fromany standard, modern textbook on the subject than from the entirecorpus of ancient literature. it 33Certain insights can be gained from studying the recent history of traditionaleconomic practice in-different regions of Tripolitania (Fig. 4).(a)The CefaraBecause of low rainfall and shifting sand dunes most of the centralGefara is unsuitable for settled agriculture. only the areas immediatelynorth of the Gebel escarpment, a narrow coastal band of oases and portionsof the eastern and western Gefara are suitable for unirrigated agriculture.34Although the tribes of the Gefara are primarily pastoralists (for instanceonly one in thirteen of the Siaan tribe are sedentary), they do practicescratch cultivation wherever possible and have, tribal centres in the35oases. In the foothills of the Gebel and in the western Gefara there arepe rmanent villages and a greater amount of sedentarisation.36(b)The Western GebelThe Cebel Matmata (Tunisia) and Cebel, Nefusa (Libya) are occupied mainlyby relic Berber populations, both sedentary and semi-nomadic. Both groupsnormally exploit some-lands in the Gefara below the escarpment for scratchcerealcultivation.37 The pre-desert plateau of the Dahavis also exploited38as winter pasturage for the flocks. Many of the pastoral tribes actually4: 1

-104-possess dry-farming lands in the Gebel, orchards of olives, figs and almondsand permanent villages. Such tribes normally leave only a "core" populationin their "hove" village when they transhume with their flocks in summer afterthe harvest. 39 Both Louis and Despois distinguish these transhuming tribesand their mixed economy from the fully sedentary and the "nomadic" tribes.40The agricultural communities tend to specialise in arboriculture, withcereal cultivation pursued more opportunistically according to the patternof rainfall in a given year. The principal crops are olives, figs, dates,41almonds, vines, pomegranates, barley and wheat. In spite of a trendtowards sedentarisation (and particularly olive cultivation) in moderntimes, some tribes remain more exclusively pastoralists. They have tradi-tionally procured their cereals and other agricultural products by a co=bina-tion of means; scratch cultivation or oasis farming, trade, or as a"protection" fee exacted from sedentary comminities. These protectionarrangements also benefited the farmers, since they were not only spared thedisruption of raids from their contracted partners, but the latter were obligedto defend their sedentary allies from the raids of others as well. Thesecontacts were supplemented by a regular barter trade in meat, wool and dates42against cereals, olives, figs and so on. The economic bases of thesegroups of people are essentially complementary to each other and give theregion a distinctive, mixed economy. The agricultural practicesin the Gebelinvolve the use of dams and barrages in a system of run-off agricult ýhicb.a, Zqadirectly parallels that of the Roman period; much can still be learne erePi ýa, bat first hand of the practicalities and problems of these ancient farmingmethods.43(c) The Eastern GebelThe Gebel Tarhuna and the Mesellata regions present similar topographiccharacteristics to the Gebel Nefusa, but sedentary agriculture had beenincreasingly limited to the Mesellata, prior to the Italian colonisationof the Gebel in the 1920-1930's. Brehony has characterised the tribes of4: 1

-105-the Gebel Tarhuna as having regressed into semi-Nomadism. It is clear,however, that his "semi-nomads" tend towards "transhumants", with fixedtermini, sowing and pasture lands. 44 The shifting cultivation of cerealssupplements the pastoral base.Arboriculture had almost died out in the Tarhuna region in the nine-teenth century, but has revived since the creation of the large ItalianP1 2a, bestates such as Breviglieri. 45 Some progress has been made towards thereafforestation and refoliation of the area, which had been severely denudedby overgrazing. The Gebel is actually well suited to the dry farming of theolive tree as the numerous ancient ruins testify. 46Since the 1930's there has been a significant shift towards sedentarisa-tion among the pastoral tribes, partly in response to the agriculturalredevelopment just described. The declining irportance of pastoralism wasexacerbated by the Italian expropriation of over 40,000 hectares of thetraditional grazing lands of the Tarhuna tribes, and the catastrophicslaughter of 50-60% of all livestock during the Second World War. 47The Gebel Mesellata has suffered far less defoliation from overgrazingand settled agriculture, particularly arboriculture, has continued in thisregion. Prior to the construction of the Italian estate of Breviglieri, theMesellata region provided the semi-nomadic tribes of Tarhuna and the Orfellaregion (Beni Ulid) with seasonal employment at harvest time. The almond andolive harvest lasted several months from Septe=ber and participating tribeswere paid in kind with up to one seventh what they harvested. The creationof Breviglieri (El-Khadra) diverted 3,000 of these crop pickers.48 In theEastern Gebel, we also find that the pastoral and sedentary economies arenecessarilyinteractive.M The Nefzaoua and the western DaharThe oases of the Nefzaoua and the pre-desert plateau (the Dahar) lyingsouth-east of the Chott Djerid and east of the Great Erg, broadly speaking,comprise a single zone. The region is characterised by two modes of life;4: 1

-lo6-sedentary agriculture in the oases and semi-nomadic transhilmance elsewhere.All the-tribes, however, are part-pastoralists and part-cultivators.49-Eachtribe owns land in one or more oases, which is cultivated in some cases bysharecroppers of a reduced social status (khanms). 50 Mostly, though,, thesedentary commmities are of equal status and the transhuming elements areoften involved in the harvest. In the nineteenth century the population ofthe Nefzaoua was about 18,000 (8,000 semi-nomads and 10,000 sedentarycultivators) at a time when-the antique canalizations and foggaras were ina-state of decay. Since renovation of. these the population has increasedsignificantly (22,000 semi-nomads and 289000 sedentarists in 1963). 51As in the Gebel, the-World War and a series of disastrous droughts inthe 1930's and 1940's did untold damage to the pastoral tribes as 80% oftheir livestock-died. Since then there has been an increased tendencytowards oasis agriculture.5ZThe transhumance movements of the Dahar tribes extend west to east intoGebel and Gefara as we have seen above. Others transhume over greatdistancesnorth and south from the Nefzaoua. The northward movements take-the tribesinto the Bled Segui and other areas where run-off or dry farming is possible,and interaction with-sedentary groups is necessary.53 The tribes of theNefzaoua and Dahar thus have territorial interests in several distinctecologicalzones. '(e) Ghadames and the Derj depressionA similar pattern of life applies-in the pre-desert region centred onthe oases of Chadames and Derj'S4 The oases are the only local sourcesof dates, cereals and vegetable crops. Since the collapse of the caravantrade, little trading has been conducted with the Gebel tribess but it wascertainly once an important supplement to the range of crops grown (themost, important imports were olive oil'and grain).5sThe northward transhumance of flocks extends as far as Remada, thesite of one of the Roman frontier forts. 564: 1

-107-(f) Sofeggin *and Zem-ZemAlthough the rainfall falls below the minimum levels for dry farming,run-off agriculture or scratch cultivation of the wadis alluvia is possiblein many places. Particularly in the north of the region, where rainfall ishighest and more consistent, permanent villages exist and there are trees inthe wadis, notably at Beni Ulid. 57 These village populations include aPI 5asubstantial permanent element, along with transhuming groups. However,without some system of water control the wadi agriculture rarely rises abovethe level of scratch cultivation and so the traditional economic made hasbeen pastoralism with shifting cereal cultivation." The use of pastureand water catchment cisterns is regulated within each sub-tribe of theOrfella. Some tribes send contingents north to the harvest in the Mesellataregion as we have noted already. The Orfella also have extensive pasturerights near the Syrtic coast.(g)The FezzanCauneille has shown that many of the major semi-nomadic tribes ofwestern Libya are confederated from sub-tribes which corporately transhumeacross the entire region from Gebel to Fezzan. 59 Most of the tribes ownagricultural land either in the Gebel or Fezzan and some have permanentvillages in these regions. So once again it is not easy to categorise thetribes as "nomads" or "farmers". The modern cultivators of the Fezzan stilluse many of the foggaras, which have been maintained and constructed anewup to recent years. 60 In some tribes the oasis cultivators are held in alower social status (haiatin), by the proprietorial class of semi-nomads. 61(h)SyrticaThis region is divided into two, main zones; a well watered coastalplain and a pre-desert steppe or interior zone where there are a number ofimportant oasis centres (Zella and the oases of the Giofra). The presenceof numerous ancient ruins, including olive presses, in the coastal region show62that the area is now underexploited. The tribes are predominantly pastoralt4: 1

-109-sedentarisation as has happened at Beni Ulid. On the other hand as amarginal zone, it has been susceptible to changing political, social andeconomic conditions and the majority of the region has reverted sinceantiquity to a primarily pastoral economy.By contrast the physical nature of the true pre-desert plateau of theDahar, Phazania and the Syrtic steppelands has offered little opportunityfor agricultural development outside the oases. But the existence ofsedentary commmities in the oases and the generally peaceful interactionbetween semi-nomads and the neighbouring agricultural peoples of the Gebeldefy attempts to classify these tribes in terms of the old dichotomy.The processes of sedentarisation or nomadisation are continuing dynamicsof society across the zones which make up Tripolitania. Not all herdersbecome farmers even, in seemingly ideal circumstances, but the indigenouscontribution to the development and spread of agriculture in antiquity shouldnot be underestimated. The earliest farms in the Sofeggin and Zem-Zem basinsdate to the mid-first century A. D., but were not "Roman" in any physicalsense. The culture and language of the early settlers was Punic and Liby-64phoenician but the majority of their names were Libyan. Later inscriptionstusing the Latin script but still in a Punic or Punico-Libyan languagev continueto record the names of a predominantly Libyan seigneurial class.65Bulliet has recently suggested that the Libyans of Tripolitaniapractised agriculture in pre-Roman times on the evidence of the distributionof plough types in North Africa. 66 Types B-and C of the Haudricourt/Delamarreclassification67 predominate in North Africa. Type B is thought to have beenintroduced by the Romans, whilst the earlier type C was spread in areas ofGreek and Carthaginian influence and it, is the latter which is found inTripolitania, From his study of the harnessing of plough animals on mosaicsand relief carvings, Bulliet also identified an unusual type of single harnesswhich he believes originated in Tripolitania amongst the non-Roman agricul-turalists. 68 It seems, then, that in the past we may have seriously under-4: 1

-110-estimated the-contribution of the indigenous Libyan populations to thedevelopment of agriculture and arboriculture. Conversely, the sort ofagriculture practised probably continued to incorporate an important pastoralelement in many regions and a mixed economy was the fundamental economicmode of most tribes.694: 2 Tribal CentresA wide range of settlement types were described in the primary sourceswhich concerned rural and interior Africa; tents (tecta), huts or villages(impalia), towers and refuges (pyrgo!, turxes, and munitiones), hillfortsqtribal cent res and even urban settlements (oppida, urbes, castella). Themajority of the more detailed information dealt specIfically with thekingdom of Numidia and in modem geographic terms it was principallyrelated to the north-western parts of Tunisia and the extreme north-east ofAlgeria.The Numidian kingdom was centredround a group of urban or proto-urban settlements which were recognisable towns prior to the annexation ofAfrica Nova by Caesar in 46 B. C., namely Thugga (Dougga) Vaga, Zama Regia,Bulla Regia, Hippo Regia, Sicca and Cirta. Only Cirta (Constantine) liesoutside the area described above and Berthier has recently argued that,since El Kef (Sicca Veneria) was also known as Cirta at some times this wasthe Cizta often referced to in Roman sources on Nurddia.1 This theory hasthe effect of drastically condensing the Numidian kingdom as its supposedwestern limit is 2normally held to be inside Morocco. There are problemsin reconciling all the evidence, but if the Numidian heartlands arerestricted to this smaller area (and I would not deny that the Numidian_kings controlled hegemonically an enormous geographical area beyond theirheartlands) then clearly one must be very careful in extrapolating4: 1/4: 2

information on tribal centres from material written on the much moresophisticated Numidian territory.3Thugga (Dougga) had achieved a remarkablyhigh level of urban organisation by the second century B. C. as the bilingualLibyan 4and Neo-Punic inscriptions show. Many of the other early urbansites were situated in the plains, where there was little natural defence,and fortifiedand garrisoned.SThere is no evidence to suggest that the development of urban centreswas extended by the Numidians into their muýh larger hegemonic territories.In many peripheral regions Jugurtha, for instance, had to fight his warfrom hillfort centres. The translation of Latin and Greek sources havesuffered in this respect since the translation of "urbs" and "oppidum" as"town" is generally incorrect for areas outside the heartlands. In 109 B. C.Aulus Albinus made an abortive attempt to capture an hillfort described asoppidum Suthul ubi regis thesauri erant. The natural defences of the site(murum situm in 6praerupti montis) foiled the attack. In 107 B. C., Mariusstormed a similar site by the Mulucha river, which was described by Sallustas mediocri 7castello, and by Florus as urbs. The detailed descriptions ofits position on a rocky height (mons saxeo) rising above the plain indicatethat a hillfort and not an urban centre was involved. 8 Over 650 yearslater similar hill-forts were still an important feature of native society.9There are, therefore, clear references to indicate the importance of hillfortsas tribal centres beyond the area of most rapid urban development in Numidia.A second type of tribal centre is also described by Sallusts the oasisoppidum. In 107 B. C. Marius captured Capsa (Gafsa) by a bold piece ofcampaigning across the arid steppe-lands.10Capsa'is described as oppidummagnum and was not an hillfort but a fortified centre based around aperennial spring. Whether it could justifiably have been called a "town"at this stage is debatable, clearly its geographical location and thelogistical problems of the campaign caused Marius more trouble than the4: 2

-112-nature of the defences or the size of the population." It is significantenough that a permanent and defended settlement existed at the oasis whichlay outside the dry-farming agricultural zone. The importance of the sitesurvived Marius' massacre of the male population and in the first centuryA. D. there was a recognisable town at Capsa, whose magistrates weresuffetes.12 It is interesting to note that Marius captured other oppidain the region of Capsa, which is perhaps an indication that other oases hadalready emerged as population and-tribal centres*13The use of the term oppidum to describe a native hillfort or fortifica-tion is paralleled in other accounts of Roman campaigning. The achievementsof Caesar in Gaul or Vespasian in, the invasion of Britain can, to some extentbe related to specific hillforts. Vespasian conquered two major tribes,twenty oppida and the Isle of Wight in his campaign (duas validissimas gentessuperque viginti oppida et insulam Vectem). 14 The oppida presumably includedboth traditional hillforts, such as Hod Hill and Maiden Castle (where Romansiege activity is proven archaeologically) and a number of low lying proto-urban tribal centres defended by complex dyke systems. Resistance to theRoman advance would seem to have been hampered by the fragmentation of thetwo tribes into regionalised sub-tribes.15 In the context of both NorthAfrica and Roman Britain, it is significant that it was the low-lying tribalcentres which later developed into towns and not the hillforts. 16The two types of tribal centre in North Africa which are defined aboveand which were called oppida by the Roman sources obviously represent onlyone aspect of a wider-site hierarchy. Population may well have beendispersed in tents, huts, undefended villages$ farms and so on, for muchof the time. However, what we shall examine below is simply the evidencefor theýtribal centres since these sites are those which will have mostimmediatelyconcerned the Roman army.The archaeological evidence for the two types of centre reflects abasic distinction between the two. The oases sites have generally continued4: 2

-113-to be occupied from ancient times and the archaeological evidence is oftenrestricted to a few stray finds of Roman period material. On the otherhand, the hillforts are remarkably well preserved in many cases, since fewdeveloped into urban centres. Detail of internal buildings can be recoveredby air-photography or surface survey, though unfortunately, little work ofthis kind has as yet been done.HILLFORT OPPIDAHillforts are a common feature throughout North Africa, from Moroccoto Fezzan. 17 The great wind-and-water eroded escarpments of the Maghrebfrequently have projecting, flat-topped spurs which are connected to themain escarpment only by narrow isthmuses. Sometimes a spur is left cora-pletely detached from the main land-mass. These sites are ideal defensivepositions on account of their flat tops and steep scree-covered slopes orcliffs. Their chief limitation is the problem of water supply in areas oflow rainfall and few springs. Where these promontories were joined to themain escarpment by a land link, the narrow isthmus was often fortified withwalls, rock-cut ditches and gates, hence the general name for these-typeof sites - 6peron barr6.18 In the case of detached promontories the onlyaccess was by zig-zag paths up the escarpment, generally to a single pointof entry or a gate, In some cases the natural defences were augmented bythe construction of solid, drystone ramparts.19 PI 6a, bThese basic features have often been noted but little else besides.The interiors were sometimes described with the dismissive phrases"restesde constructions" or "constructions berb4res" or simply ignored altogether.20The irregular lay-out and rough, dry-stone construction of the interiorswere no doubt a disappointment to many of the early antiquarians andexplorers, who were clearly more motivated by Classical architecture.Smythe's bitter disillusionment on seeing the ruins of Chirza is an extreme21example of this attitude. Because of this lack of detailed study ofthe interiors and the problem of water supply, the hillforts have sometimes4: 2

-114-been viewed as tenporary refuges and little more than that .22- Moredetailed archaeological work on this class of site, by Marion in theOudja region of Moroccov Daniels in the Fezzan and the Libyan ValleysSurvey, have shown the need to modify this conclusion.23The survey and excavation work undertaken by Marion in the 1950's wasin an area south-west of the most westerly fort in Mauretania Caesariensisand, therefore, in an area where Romanising influences might be consideredslight and tribal society strong. 9peron barr6 sites were an importantelement in the impressive range of sites recorded, thirteen in an area 21 x15 km. The largest of these, Jorf Ouazzen and Jebel Mahsseur are both wellover 15 ha in size.24 Unfortunately the different classes of sites havenot been dated and there has been considerable speculation as to theirunderlying social pattern.25 The proliferation of hillforts, along withundefended villages, may be better explained in terms of tribal hierarchythan by positing the existence of several tribes of divergent lifestyle inthe same region. The segmentary structure of a single large tribe, theBavares perhaps, could explain the existence of many smaller populations,both sedentary and pastoral within the Ras Afour/Oudja region.26Significantly all the hillforts examined contained traces of internalbuildings or huts. There were no structureless or "temporary" refuges.The provision of internal buildings suggests regular or seasonal occupationat the very least. 27 The occu "nce of grain silos, carbonised grain andrkquernstones implies a degree of sedentarisation or at least a mixed, trans-huming economy.28 Following Gellner's analysis, the segmented structureof a large tribe produces a complex pattern of opposed but balanced rivalriesbetween sub-groups. These regionalised clans or sub-tribes are most commonlyreunited by the emergence of an outside threat, 29 In this context thepossession of a hillfort site by a sub-tribe is not simply a defensiveprecaution, it can symbolically maintain the prestige of the sub-tribe amongits rivals and it serves as a tribal centre. As an organizational focus for4: 2

-115-the sub-tribe, whose constituent members are also part of the segmentarystructure, the hillfort reunites permanent residents and transhuming andpastoral groups normally dispersed in the region. Without detailed datingevidence Marion's work can only fuel hypotheses, but the principle of tribalhegemony provides another possible explanation for the settlement pattern.Marion's work is the most detailed done in Mauretania; what little else hasbeen reportedis summarised by Lawless.30The data are not of significantly higher standard for eastern Algeriaand Tunisia, though there is ample evidence for the existence of the hill-forts themselves. 31 The recent work of Fentress is particularly disappoin-ting in this respect.32 However, two sites for which there are good,published air-photographs confirm the impression that these sites were nottemporary refuges. El Krozbet (Fig. 13) is a hillfort located near thesouth-western end of the El-Kantara pass in Algeria. My drawing is takenfrom Baradez's air-photograph and produced at an approximate scale (basedon the size of the room units).33 The site is probably between 2-3 ha insize and the complexity of many of the hut-units is reminiscent of the Magrusasite (see below). At some stage there seems to have been an attempt towards"planning" based on an axial street. As at other sites, considerable openspaces and enclosures imply that animals could be brought up onto the plateautop. There does not appear to be an enclosing rampart, except perhaps wherethe steep approach path neared the summit.The second site is Kalaat Senane (the "Table of Jugurtha") which liesclose to the Algerian border in Tunisia. Berthier has proposed that this.was the oppidum by the Ruluccha river which was stormed by Marius, but this34identification is dubious. It was, however, a major hillfort of theftsulames since it lies just within their north-eastern borders as definedunder Trajan. 35 The air-photographs, published by Berthier, show that aleast one third of the plateau top was densely built on. Berthier's figures4: 2

-116-imply that the area of this region is about 30 ha, which if correct makesthe site an extremely large and important one. 36Of more imediate relevance to this thesis is the work done by CharlesDaniels in the Fezzan. 37 Excavations. beneath the medieval mud-brick caravantown of Germa, in the centre of the el-Agial plain, had revealed, traces ofancient Garama. However, the earliest dating evidence was from the fourthcentury B. C. and the origins of the Garamantes in the Fezzan were known-tobe much earlier. The solution lay in the discovery of an 6peron. ba=6site at Zinchecra some 3.5 km south-west., Occupation of the Zinchecra sitespanned the period from the ninth century B. C. to, the first century A. D. 38(See, also Appendix 2, and Figure 14). The main reason for-the migrationof the Garamantian centre from scarp edge to wadi centre is apparent fromthe plan of Zinchecra. The area of the plateau top is-very restricted atonly 0.635 ha and consequently there was a tremendous spread of terracedoccupation sites down the steep escarpments, particularly on the north side.A total area of c. 62.5 acres (25 ha) was defined by a series of enclosingbanks at the foot of the escarpment and the intensive occupation covered anarea of c. 31.25 acres (c. 12.5 ha). 39 The agricultural development of the,plain and the increasing water. requirement, coupled with these crampedconditions of population and flocks on the terrace sites, favoured a moveinto the plain. Although initially occupied in tandem, the unfettereddevelopment of the wadi centre site eventually eclipsed the old hillfortcentre,40Daniels discovered other hillfort sites in the wadi el-Agial and hassuggested that these may also have been paired with wadi centre sites.41Evidence for Garamantian settlement has also been found in the wadi Berguigto the south and wadi Sciatti to the north (Fig. 10)ýZ Pliny's account ofthe campaign of Balbus implies the existence of regional centres of theGaramantes. Garama itself and LL-bris (Edri? ) with its hot springs were43arguably low-lying plain sites. On the other hand an invasion of Caraman4: 2

-117-tian lands should logically have involved the besieging of some of theGaramantian hillforts and Thelgae may have been in this category. WhenSidi Ocba invaded the Fezzan in A. D. 666-67, he captured the oases andcaravan centres of Waddan and Germa and, with more difficulty, the impor-44tant hillfort of Caouan. Both types of tribal centre, thus, had a longhistoryin the Fezzan.The chief hillfort sites discovered in the first three years of theLibyan Valleys Project are described in detail in Appendix 2 (Fig. 15WFor comparative purposes, it is instructive to analyse the plans of thesesites along with some of those described above (see Figs. 12,13 and 14).Individually the Tripolitanian sites are quite small; only Magrusa-andMdaweb II are over 1 ha in area. The preservation of the internalbuildings offers an opportunity for speculating on some hypothetical P1 6bpopulation densities for such sites.There are of course many potential sources of error in any method ofarriving at such figures. For that reason the calculations here have beenIS 46made on three separate figures to give a broad range of population value .The population is determined. by a room or hut count (R) which is divided by3,2 or 3/2 on the assumption that either 2/3,1/2 or 1/3 of these roomswere unused, abandoned or used as stores, kitchens at any tire. This figureis then multiplied by four, assuming, for convenience, a family of two adultsand two children per room. 47 There are, therefore, three possible popu-lation figures (P).P,Rx43P2Rx427P3LRx4 3For ease of comparison the populationrange (P 1/P 2/P 3)for each sitehas also been converted into population per acre and per hectare. It mustbe stressed that these figures include a high proportion of women and childrenand only a quarter of the totals are here assumed to have been adult males.4: 2

-118-0 0 CoCo C-4 Cou %D M -t , 0 0 0c4 c4 r4 M lý -4r. 0 0 'týe 00 (D Co-4 00 't ýT:i Co %0 Co93. 0 cm0 rý 0 Cocw bd t `ý --1ý4ci -4 rý 0 cla -4 %. 0 TCo Ch LM %ý %0C, 4 t4enýe9364 %0 r.81Co LM %D CA c4KM C-1ý4 -4 -4e4 c4 %10 't c4-4 en>00903 (U4) 41u cu:1Iti-4:),91. Cou0%D _T a c 00 0 041 C, 4 CD ul 000 C).. 4 0 0Cop4 cq m ý4 8ju+ 1.4gl. m0 4 t" ri 8" %0 %0cw k 04 tnC, 4Kn-4 _TCow:iXj2 03W00 IT %0 fmc4C. 4 rl ri cm00-A k C, 4 +41 Kmvi rý 9-4 t4 c4 C, 4uz0> ri +WA -- 0 CY% ýe rý Co %DPd 4 ý-4 LM P. 4 -4 -4 NM0 ., 44.40200.0ipi14. .uce Co Co c4 tý4-4 c c a4) ýwli 800M tn cli %0 KM LM M IMbi tu c4 c4 %0 9-4 0% "4 1 cm., 4 --4PA Cw c;u u 0u0c4.4 410 ý4 Cogra Cci0". f1: C40.04.4:iCo041Coý412.0)f.A-7>4)CY wN4: 2

-119-The population density figures fall into three groups; under 50/acre,between 50-150/acre and over 150/acre. In the lowest group are the sites ofMagrusa East and El Krozbet. Magrusa East is an atypical site, both becauseof the sophisticated nature of its buildings (perhaps a chieftain's residence? )and the fact that only about one-third of the plateau top was built on. Theexact area of the El Krozbet site is unknown so these figures are at best arough estimate. Nevertheless it may be that the larger hillforts were lessdensely populated than the smaller ones. In the second group are MagrusalMagrusa North and Banat. The lowest figures come from Magrusa North, whichhas a density range. of 58-116/acre and 144-288/ha. This small site containsonly 27 huts or rooms but considerable effort was involved in constructingthe rampart, gate and approach track. Yet if the lowest population figure isadopted (R/3 x4- 36) there would theoretically have been only nine adultmales on the site. This seems rather low and one of the greater densityfigures should apply. Whatever base-is used, however, the normal populationof the site is unlikely to have exceeded 100. If a similar preference forthe middle or higher densities is applied to the Banat village and Magrusa,the population of those sites would have numbered in the low hundreds. Themiddle range density from these three sites gives figures varying between90-114 people/acre and 224-286 per ha and rule-of-thunb densities of 100people/acre and 250 people/ha might be usefully applied to sites of thistype,In the highest density group are two very small 6peron barrd siteswhose interiors were exceptionally densely built-up, Mdhaweb I and Qurma (WadiGarjuma). No detailed survey work was done at either site, but carefulstudy of kite air-photographs has allowed reasonable estimates of the numberof rooms to be made. The lowest density figures for these two sites are162-192 people/acre (405-480/ha). Although these figures are very high,the hillforts are very small and neither is estimated to have had apotential population in excess of 150 people. This sort of density would4: 2

-120-not be applicable to larger sites. The fact that both these sites have onlyyielded late Roman pottery suggests that such "congested" sites were a latedevelopment.The rule-of-thumb densities suggested for the middle group of hillforts(c 100/acre, 250/ha) can usefully be compared with data for north-ýwest Europe.Since the 1960's accepted ideas on population'densities for hillforts havebeen substantially modified. Hogg proposed 15 people/acre in 1962 for certainWelsh hillforts48, but this was revised. by Alcock to 25/acre in 1965.49More recently the rule of thunb base has become accepted as 40/acre (100/ha). 50But on the basis of his excavations at several hillforts in the Welsh Marches,Stanford now believes that figures as high as 60-100/acre are applicable atsome sites.51 It may well be that as a general rule, the larger the site,the lower the density. In which case, considering the small size of most ofthe Tripolitanian hillforts, the suggested figures are not unreasonable. Forlarge sites such as Mdhaweb II and Zinchecra no reliable calculations canbe attempted but a lower density may well be applicable, such as'100-200 people/hectare.The dating of these Tripolitanian hillforts is a problem. There wereabundant Roman fine wares (ARS, Terra Sigilata) on all the sites, but on theother hand, no flint. The coarsewares are not at present'diagnostic, socertain occupation in the pre-Roman Iron Age. is difficult to prove* Howeverlthe presence on these hillforts of the earliest fineware forms shows that theywere important tribal settlements in the first century A. D. when contact wasfirst firmly established between the pre-desert tribes and Rome. 52 For thepurposes of this study we need project their occupation'no further back thanthat. It is simply necessary to locate the areas where, the Roman army wouldhave encountered tribes utilising hillforts.The Magrusa/Mdhaweb group of sites (see Fig 13). constituted an extra-ordinary concentration of people in what is a bleak andinhospitable location(at least in sumner). It is worth speculating that they mark a sub-tribal4: 2

-121-centre of the Macae and were perhaps only occupied in winter, when somecultivation of the wadi alluvium would have been possible. It is unlikelythat there was adequate water for year-round occupation and fixed base53transhumance of most of the sub-tribe was probably necessary in summer,In this example then, we seem to have evidence for a sub-tribe nunberinghundreds, rather than thousands, and practising a mixed economy with a biastowards fixed-base transhuming pastoralism.No doubt many more of these hillfort sites will be discovered when theyare looked for. Rebuffat has located at least one in the wadi Bei el-Kebirregion (as yet unpublished).54 The Gebel region is dotted with examples,many of recent date but some of undoubted antiquity. The Gebel Nefusa andthe Tunisian Gebel DenmPr and Gebel Matmata are densely covered withfortified villages occupied by relic Berber populations. -55 The long historyof occupation and reoccupation of these sites has obliterated most of theevidence for their earliest antecedents, but some of the defensive positionswere certainly occupied in the Roman period. The marginal parts of theGebel region, like bhe wadi basins of Sofeggin, Zemý7Zem and Bei el-Kebirand the Fezzan, were areas of small, hillfort tribal centres (Fig 15). 56OASES OPPILATribal settlements centred on perennial springs in the pre-desert anddesert regions can rarely be detected from archaeological evidence alone,since finds of Roman period material are not certain evidence for pre-Romansettlement at these sites. In the absence of excavation in the oasesq onenust place a greater reliance on the ancient sources. capsa (Gafsa) hasalready been considered but there are other less detailed, or less specificcases. Diodorus, in a passage quoted above (Chapter 3: 3), referred to thePY-rgol (towers) built by the desert tribes at the water sources as store-S7houses. It is possible that the Greek term pyrgoi was used in directtranslation of a Libyan term, since the civitas capital of the Nybgenli wasknown by the Romans as Turris Tamalleni. " In both cases the implication4: 2

-122-is that there was some permanent and fortified structure built in the oasesand that as well as defending the tribes' water rights, these "towers"acted as a repository for non-portable valuables. The desirability forsemi-nomadic or transhuming herders to produce some grain, dates andvegetables will have encouraged the development of oasis agriculture as isevident in a source as early as Herodotus and in the specific case of theGaramantes.59 By the first century A. D. it is likely that fairly substantialoases settlements existed at many locations.The campaigns of Balbus, c. 20 B. C. took his troops to at least twoseparate locations, the Fezzan and the Wadi Djedi in Algeria. Garam,Cidamus, and probably Debris, were oasis centres located on the Fezzancampaign and some of the other ones named, Cilliba, Alele, 7belgae, forinstance, may also have been oases oppida. In Algeria identifications canbe proposed for some sites: Tabudi= = Thabudeos - the modern oasis ofThouda; Milgis Cemella - Gemellae - the modern oasis of M'Lili, a few kmfrom the Roman fort; viscera - viscera - the modern oasis of Biskra.60Other names listed by Pliny and Ptolemy relate to settlements whose locationappears to lie in the desert ýmd were most likely, therefore, to have beencentredon oases or springs.61So much then for the literary evidence, which, though thin, presents aconsistent picture of tribal centres in the desert and pre-desert beingcentred on water sources. Such centres served as a home base for transhumingelements of the tribe, as an agricultural centre where cereals vegetables anddates could be grown, as a storehouse for these crops and the non-portablegoods of the tribe and as a hore for a "core" sedentary population. Thedevelopment of the irrigated area of the oases by digging new foggaras andwells has continued down to modern times. In the Fezzan, Daniels reported60 foggaras in a single 6 km stretch of the el-Agial and another reportgives the combined lengths of the foggaras in the Germa area as 2,00OOkm! 62The same long history of the use of foggaras is evident in the Nefzaoua. 634: 2

-123-Garama (Old Germa) is a uniquely important site because of the-'excavations carried out there by Ayoub and Daniels (see Appendix 2, below).The site was declared a national monument and the population resettled inNew Germa in the 19301s; a far-sighted action which made excavation possible64in the 1960's. The walled medieval caravan town of Germa (25 acres/10 ha)overlies the remains of an even larger site,, the Garamantian capital. Surfacetraces extend 300 m-beyond the walls to the suburb of Saniat Gebril (5 acres/2 ha). The mud-brick buildings of Saniat Gebril were large and complex, butthe biggest surprise was the discovery of ashlar masonry walls and footingsin the centre of Old Germa. 6*5 Overlying several earlier phases of mud-brickconstruction, these buildings date to the later first century A. D. and had66a long life thereafter. The possibility that these buildings were part ofa package of "technical aid", accorded by Rome to the Garamantes, will beconsidered in a later chapter (6: 3). The population of Garama must havebeen numbered in thousands and the evidence of the extensive foggaras suggeststhat they became an increasingly sedentary, ýagricultural society.67 In viewof this we should be careful not to underestimate the size and importanceýof some of the other ancient oasis populations.Turris Tamalleni (Telmine), as already mentioned, was the civitasNyb9eniorum. Telmine and many other oases of the Nefzaoua region containtraces of ancient occupation, mostly-being finds of Roman date-68 At'Mansoura, a few kilometres north-east of Telmine there is a prominent moundor "tell" of demolished mud-brick. The modern village of Telmine itselfsits on a hillock which looks largely artificial in origin . 69 The developmentof such tribal centres in the Roman period was swift in some, cases and Telminewas promoted to the rank of municipium during the reign of Hadrian.70. Therapid promotion of the tribal centre suggests that it was already ofconsiderable size and political importance when Roman interest in the regionwas stepped-up under the Flavians. A similar picture is emerging of the4: 2

-124-important oasis settlements on the other side of the Chott Djerid, notablyIvepta (Nefta), Tuzuros (Tozeur) and Thiges (Kriz? ). 71Cidamus (Ghadames) is another site for which we have some evidencewhich indicates that it was a prosperous and sizeable centre in antiquity.Roman military occupation is attested in the early third century, but amass of second century pottery from a large area of the oasis indicatesearlier Roman contacts with this important trading, and tribal centre.72Native fortifications associated with second century pottery have been73reported by Rebuffat at other minor oases north of Chadames.The Nasamonian centre in the double oasis of Augila lay technicallywithin the Cyrenaican desert, but is important because of its position onthe east-to-west chain of oases which linked Egypt and Africa. 74 The Ammoncult probably spread westwards by this route, as did the Laguatan tribes inthe Late Roman period (Fig 2_). ' At the Sirtic and Tripolitanian end of thischain, ancient. ruins or Roman pottery have been found at Zella'75 Waddan andthe Giofra oases76. Roman forts in Tripolitania were normally located atoases which were presumably already native centres, as in the case of Golaia(Bu Njem) and Gheriat el Garbia77, Ghadames, Remada and Ras el-Ain.78Other important wells or oases where ancient settlement is known or suspectedare Mizda and the wells of Sceghega79,Shwerif8o, and the many minor watersources of Nefzaoua, Phazania and Fezzan. This information is presented onFigure 15.TRIBALCENTRES : CONCLUSIONThere are a nunber of fundamental differences between the two types oftribal centre discussed above. The Tripolitanian hillforts seem to haveindividually catered for populations of at the most a few hundred- Theproblem of reconciling the superb defensive position of hillforts with theunavailability of water on these sites was a serious, limiting factor in thiirdevelopment, By contrast the oases centres could expand with successive4: 2

-125-improvements of the water supply, such as the construction of new foggarasor canalisations.81 Some of the major groups of oases, such as the Nefzaoua,the Djerid, those of Phazania and of the Fezzan or Augila could probablymuster populations numbering thousands, even though the majority of these mayhave spent part of the year transhuming away from their tribal centre. Inmilitary terms, this gave the pre-desert and desert tribes an advantage overthe Gebel and hillforttribes.Although the hillfort tribal centres were difficult positions to stormwithout heavy losses, their small size suggests that tribal organisation mayhave been much more fragmented among the Gaetuli of the Gebel and the Macaetribes. The sort of tribal grouping which could have assembled around theMagrusa/Mdhaweb sites was almost certainly at a lower level of the tribalhierarchy than the tribal units which could gather at a single major oasis.The largest and most significant tribal centres of Tripolitania, therefore,were those of the desert confederations, the Nasamones, the Garamantes, theGaetuli of Phazania and the Nefzaoua. It was against these tribes thatRome was obliged to direct her main military effort rather than those of themajor zones of hillfort settlement in the Gebel and the great wadi basins.4: 3 Culture and religionThe question of Punicisation and Romanisation receives a fuller treatmentin Chapter 9, but certain aspects which more directly affected the interactionbetween Roman military and native need highlighting here. When studying thecultural history of the Berber peoples in North Africa one is first struckby the multiplicity of influences; Greek, Egyptian/Alexandrian, Phoenician/Punict Roman, Ethiopian and later Vandal, Byzantine and Arab. Some of thesecontacts had a lasting impact, others left little long-term indication thatsyncretism had once occurred. Bates has masterfully illustrated thesecultural influences of the Eastern Libyans and no exhaustive repetition is4: 2/4: 3

-126-necessary here. 1 But an important point, which has, sometimes been missed,is the significance of the Libyan cultural dynamic in tailoring the outsideinfluences to fit its requirements. When we talk of Punicisation or. Romani-sation from a Libyan point of view it must be as a selective "culturalassimilation".2 Benabou has argued that there was "cultural" as well as"military" resistance to Rome in Africa and, certainly, the Romanisation ofNorth Africa was "particular and original".3 But Benabou may have over- .,estimated the level of cultural assimilation which the Romans were tryingto achieve among the Berbers, for as Garnsey observed, acculturation was,4aimed specifically at existing elites. Nevertheless, it is impossible todeny that the chief dynamic of Romano-Libyan or Punico-Libyan culture wasprovided by the Libyans themselves. Smythe was mistaken to dismiss theGhirza tonbs as crudely debased classical torbs in "indifferent taste"05As examples of a Libyan cultural heritage, which had absorbed some Mediter-ranean influences,they are of prime importance.The archaeological work in Fezzan has provided a wealth of new informa-tion about the cultural contacts of the Garamantes. Finds from theexcavations include objects imported from Greece and the Hellenistic world,Egypt,Rom and the Sudan.TABLE 4B : IlTORTED GOODS FOUND IN FEZZANArea of origin Artifact ReferenceEGYPT Nubian sandstone Ayoub, 1967a, 17,21.Alexandrian glass, Daniels, 1973,39;faience ware Ayoub, 1967a, 9Glass fish beaker Tagart, 1982,81-84Wooden headrest Daniels, 1971a, 267GREECE AND C4Bc f, Hellenistic black Daniels, 1973,37GREEK WORLD glaze waresSUDAN Ivory Ayoub, 1967bg 218-19CARTHAGE ?Cold Ayoub, 1967a, 16.20.-ROMAN AFRICA/ Terra Sigillata, Arretine Ayoub, 1967a, 19-49ROM" WORLD African Red Slip wares. Daniels 1973,38-9; 1975,251-52Roman and Tunisian amphora Ayoub, 1967a, 26-, Daniels, 1973,39; 19750 252-554: 3

it is a measure of his importance in the Libyan pantheon that he was conflated-127-Trade was undoubtedlyone way in which these goods could have reachedFezzan, but whatever the arrangement, the reason for their importation wasthat the Garamantes wanted them. The enormous quantities of fine potteryand glassware imported must reflect a Garamantian rather than a Roman prefe-rence, since the scale of breakages of such fragile goods on the desert trackswould have been a major disincentive to the shippers (merchants or otherwise).6The high prestige value of these goods in the Roman world indicates the wayin which indigenous elites often sought outside symbols of high social statusto strengthen their own prestige. The point is illustrated in a more recentcontext by the requests made by Sudanese chieftains of early European travel-lers. 7 The volume of second century Roman pottery found by Rebuffat atGhadames is another example of the mass importation of fragile material intotribal centres in the desert. 8 It is also a valuable indication of theprobable existence of elite social groups within the tribes of Tripolitaniaand Fezzan.The ashlar masonry construction in Garama is indicative of another levelof this contact between the Garamantian elite and Rome. The buildings areevidence that the Garamantes were indeedpacified by the late first centuryand being given the opportunity to identify with Roman concepts of wealthand prestige. Collaboration of native elites would thus be rewarded bymaterial goods and benefits in cases where the elites showed a receptivenessfor cross-cultural borrowing of status symbols. In general, this was afeature of the Libyan tribes.The religious practices of the Libyans were also of importance to theRomans. The syncretism of native deities with Punic and Roman gods cannotobscure the underlying Libyan character of the cults. So, for example,Baal Hammon and Jupiter Ammon are adaptations of the great Libyan god, Ammon,whose cult originated in the oasis of Siwa and spread both into Egypt andwestwards across the Libyan deserts. 9 Ammon (or Amon) had many qualities and4: 3

-128-with both Zeus and Jupiter. 10 The ram-headed Ammon had associations withdesert tracks (as the guide and protector of travellers)", with oases1z,with the cult of the dead13 and with prophecy for which the oases of Siwaand later Augila were famed. 14The westward spread of the cult of Ammon is particularly significantfor Tripolitania as is demonstrated by the many Ammonia or temples for whichwe have evidence.15 As a god of the desert and of oases, Ammon worship wasa unifying aspect for the Libyan tribes. The westward migration of theLaguatan in the Later Roman Empire followed the same chain of oases fromSiwa to Augila that had allowed the original westward dissemination of theAmmon cult. It is hardly surprising, therefore, to find a major revival ofAmmon worship amongst the Libyan tribes of Tripolitania. Corippus repeatedon several occasions the importance of the oracles obtained by the Laguatan(probably from the Ammonium at Augila).16 The oracles were initially usedto excite tribal support and unite the confederated forces; secondly, thepropaganda-value of such prophecies was used to maintain confidence on theeve of battle. The existence of this form. of universal paganism was aserious threat to Roman tribal control, particularly from the fourth centuryonwards when the less tolerant Christian empire was no longer able to deflectreligious opposition by syncretism.The veneration of the dead is a cou=n trait in North African societiesand was a feature of Ammon worship. This veneration has taken many forms*from ancestor worship to the creation of saints or marabouts. The activitiesof the Circumcellions, during the Donatist schism, are well known. Theirname suggests an association with small shrines or tombs and they are knownto have veneratedmartyrs.17 Such practices undoubtedly have a long historyIin NorthAfrica.There is also a form of veneration of the living. Gellner has observedthat the institutionalised "Saints" in the Moroccan Atlas must be an Islamic4: 3

-129-version of an earlier18social phenomenon. The essential factor is thepossession of baraka by an individualas this marks him out and sanctifieshim. Baraka is, therefore, an extremely useful and necessarily unco nco dity. It is a quality of religious sanctity and rare prestige.19 Itseems certain that the origins of this lie in the tribal society of theMaghreb long before the Arab Conquest. It seems reasonable to credit thekings of Numidia and Mauretania with a form of baraka. The control ofdisparate tribal groups is hard-to understand unless some quasi-religiousconcept-underlined their authority.20 After his death Massinissa was wor-shipped in a temple at Dougga and later,a shrine was set up to Micipsa atCherchel. 21 Jugurtha, Juba I, Juba II, and Ptolemy appear in a differentlight when the concept of baraka is suggested. In these monarchies it waspresumably institutionalised as an inherited feature of, the office. Thesuccess of Tacfarinas as leader of a major revolt may likewise have beenaided by his being accepted as the leader of multi-tribal groups on accountof his baraka.Once again, interesting parallels can be found in the Byzantine wars.Corippus described in some detail the three great Libyan chiefs, Antalas,Ierna and Carcasan. The rise to prominence of Antalas was the result of aprophecy sought by his father from Ammon. His baraka was established by theoracle, which marked him out as a future, unifying leader of the Berbertribes.22 Antalas then signified his coming of age by the ritual killing of23a ram, the sacred beast of Ammon. Ierna, chief of the Laguatan, possessedbaraka through his parallel duties as high priest of Gurzilq the bull-headedson of Ammon4tý4 He was also renowned for stage-managing favourable omens "25Finally, when in flight after his defeat, he refused to relinquish the effigyof Gurzil which he had carried into battle. It was a symbol of his prestigeand the guarranteur of his bazaka, but its very weight prevented his escape. 26Carcasan was elected leader in his place and his first act was to seek anoracle from Ammon. The prophecy foresaw the victorious entry of Carcasan and4: 3

-130-the Laguatan into Carthage and he was immediately able to assenble a newconfederation of Laguatan and allied tribes on the strength of it. 27-Eventhough the evidence for an early form of baraka is so slight, the indicationswe do possess of its operation show that it may have been a crucial factorin the history of native resistance and revolt.In his analysis of tribal society in the Atlas, Gellner described thenormal situation as "structural" rather than "ideological" democracy. Inreality the majority of the tribal "republics" are highly oligarchical witheffective power shared or disputed by elite family groups within the clans.28The only co n departure from the principal of rotating tribal leadershipbetween the socially elite menbers of the sub-tribes is the arisal ofephemeral tribal tyrannies. 29 Before the French conquest of the Atlas in1933, the area had been a constant, though normally quiescent, threat to thecentral government in Morocco. Most of the changes of dynasty were initiatedby semi-religious crusades which were brought about among the Atlas tribes bythe "rare crystallisation of authority by religious charisma".30 ThiB latentdangers of a society where tribes may suddenly unite behind-a charismaticleader or religious crusade are as significant to the study of Roman Africa,as to the Maghreb since the Arab conquest.In this section I have isolated three aspects of Libyan social customand religion which will have been of concern to the Roman administrators ofTripolitania. The hierarchical organisation of Libyan tribes was neitherdemocratic nor was it egalitarian. The existence of elite groups wassignificant because they presented a stable target for Roman diplomacy andbenificence and they showed a propensity for adopting Roman prestige goodsfor their own status symbols. This need not imply a high level of accultura-tion though; the problem from a Roman point of view was how to excite demandand then regulate supply to maintain the prestige value of what she had tooffer.4: 3

-131-The hierarchical or segmental structures described in Chapter 3 sufferfrom several potential weaknesses. Theoretically the hierarchical linksbetween clans, between sub-tribes and between tribes enables large scaleconfederation to take place in times of crisis. The problems occur whenthe latent confederation fails to happen, as in the 1920's in Morocco. Thesignificance of the cult of Ammon and other Libyan deities (and in morerecent times, Islam) is that they provide an additional basis for unitedaction which can trigger the unification processes. The potency of a leaderpossessing religious and social charisma in affecting this has been illustra-ted. Roman frontier policy had to come to terms with the fact that resistancewas latent, even in pacified or semi-pacified areas where Libyan tribal society,culture and religion remained strong.4: 4 WarfareThere. is little direct evidence for the style of warfare practisedamng the Libyan tribes of Tripolitania and the Fezzan. Herodotus statedthat the Garamantes fought from four-horse chariots, a statement corroboratedby discoveries of rock paintings from Fezzan. 1 The likely date span of thesepictures was c. 600-300 B. C., with the importance of cavalry becoming paramountby the latter date. 2 The Roman accounts of campaigns against the Garamantesgave no information about the style of warfare encountered, but there arebroad hints in other sources.If one considers the tribes of North Africa'as a whole, the dominantfeature of their warfare was the cavalry engagement or skirmish. The Numidianand Moorish cavalry were famed in antiquity for their skill and cunning. 3Livy, Silius Italicus and others recorded the deeds of Carthage's Africanallies in the Punic wars and Lucan similarly described the Numidian andallied troops of Juba 1.4 The Numidian king Syphax sought help from Rome4: 3/4: 4

-132-in 213 B. C. because his people were only practised in cavalry engagementsand being unable to fight as disciplined infantry had been worsted by theCarthaginian phalanx. 5The concentration on horsemanship amongst the Numidian tribes was alsoapplicable to their southern and western neighbours. Lucan and SiliusItalicus recorded contingents from the southern tribes fighting alongsidethe Numidians. Lucan referred to Gaetulian, bare-backed cavalry, Massylianhorsemen who controlled their horses with a switch, Nasamones, Garamantesand the javelin throwing Mazax. 6 Silius Italicus mentioned a similarmixture of tribal contingents with Hannibal in Spain and Italy: Garamantes,Macae and Cinyphii, Nasaimnes and Gaetull (who rode without reins).7 Thedescriptions of battles reinforce the impression that the Libyans wererecruited mainly as cavalry. The Cinyphiae turmae was in action at LakeTrasimene and at Cannae the Libyan tribes, who were mainly cavalry fighters,made up the left wing of Hannibal's army. 8 Strabo confirmed that horsesand horsemanship were essential features of the Gaetuli and Garamantes tribes.Describing the interior regions occupied by these two broad groups, he wrote,"Both horses and cattle-have longer necks than those of othercountries. Horse-breeding is followed with such exceptionalinterest by the kings that the number of colts each year amountto one hundred thousand. " 9Even assuming that Strabo'exaggerated the figure, the implication isclearly that the southern tribes possessed large nunbers of horses. This isconfirmed by a reference of Silius Italicus to the thousand cavalry squadronsof Gaetuli who supported Hannibal. 10 It is apparent, therefore, that theNumidae and Mauri were not the only tribal groupings to practice cavalrywarfare; the Garamantes, Nasamones, Macae and Gaetuli also possessed largenumbers of horses.'Infantry were not unknown in native warfare, though their role wasfairly limited normally, being unsuited to pitched battles. The infantrywere more accurately light-armed skirmishers, whose use was best suited to4: 4

-133-hit-and-run attacks or ambushes. They were unsuited to hand-to-hand fightingwith disciplined and armoured troops." Their chief weapons indicate theirrole: the javelin12, the bow and arrow13 and slings and slingstones.14The cavalry also employed the throwing spear as the main strike weapon andeach man carried two or three of these into battle. 15 The main differencebetween cavalry and infantry fighters was one of status. Strabols referenceto the particular interest of "kings" in horse-breeding suggests some formof social differentiation. Indeed the horse has continued to be an importantstatus symbol in the Maghreb. In the nineteenth century the horse was stillthe prized possession of a warrior elite and tribesmen who did not own, orcould not borrow, horses were organised as infantry whose duty it was toguard the encampment, the camels and the women, whilst the cavalry did battle*16The horse was essential, in fact, for all three of the main pursuits of theelite: warfare, raiding and hunting. 17 Between such tribes the scale ofraiding and warfare is limited not by the available manpower, but. by the numberof horses. We shall see in the next section that tribal warfare was notgreatly different in the sixth century A. D.The arms and armour of the Libyan tribes have been well discussed byBates and others and only a few observations are necessary here. 18 Some ofthe earliest sources remarked on the shortage of metal for producing weapons. 19But though mineralogically scarce, metals could be traded and it is likelythat most of the interior tribes were in a position to produce metal-tippedspears by the first century A. D. Archaeological evidence for metal workingin Garama proves that the necessary technology existed in the oases centres.20Arms and armour will also have become available to the tribes through contactand service with the armies of Carthage and Rome. The Libyan warriorsencountered by Rome in battle were not, therefore, equipped merely with fire-hardened and sharpened wooden spears.Body armour was rarely worn by the Libyans, though shields were sometimescarried. These were mostly ci Wa ýRYLAAteki of wood and leather. 21 The lackj9vHN4: 4 tj UNMRSITY 11ýNýDSL. 113MAMYI

-134-of body armour allowed for swift movement of cavalry and infantry, a pointnoted by Diodorus. 22 In a pitched battle against disciplined infantry,however, it was a grave disadvantage and the result of such engagementsalmost invariably favoured Rome. Although Tacfarinas trained his troops tofight as a disciplined formation, following the Roman model, the arms andarmour of his troops were unsuited to a pitched battle and they were routedby Furius Camillus in A. D. 17.23 The future course of the war was notablefor the considerable success enjoyed by Tacfarinas when he resorted to a24policy of skirmishing and guerilla warfare. In the same way, Jugurthahad won his victories by surprise attacks or by persistent skirmishing withthe advancing or withdrawingRoman colums.25An important tactical advantage open to the desert tribes was theirability to withdraw into their desert confines after a successful raid orattack. The Garamantes excelled at this tactic since pursuit was made doublydifficult by the great distance between the coast and their tribal heartlandand secondly by their habit of covering over the well-heads with sand asthey retreated.26 Rome's achievement in adapting to desert warfare shouldnot be mous. 27underestimated for the logistics and the risks were enor INevertheless, once an army penetrated the natural defe'nsiýve screen severalfactors worked against the defenders and in favour of the attackers. Theexistence of hillforts and oases centres presented Rome with targets forher attack. Secondly, the sub-divisions of tribal society could cause afragmentation of the wider tribal alliances when the'campaign was on hometerritory and Rome threatened several sub-tribal'centres at the same time.The resistance to Balbus, for instance, may well have been disunited andregional as his campaigns accounted for twenty three hillforts and tribalcentres and only seven tribes or sub-tribes.28In summary then, the tribes of Tripolitania and further south possessedthree main characteristics. They fought mainly on horseback as light'armedcavalry with javelins. The confederation of sub-tribal groups could reunite4: 4

-135-substantial cavalry forces, but these were most effective in mountingsurprise attacks, as may have happened when the Nasamones nearly defeatedFlaccus in c. A. D. 86. Pitched battles, or concerted campaigning by theRomans, normally ended in the defeat of the Libyans.A second point concerns the operation of tribal hierarchy in militarymatters. Occasional feuds and inter-tribal raiding must have been featuresof society in pce-Roman times as the occupation of hillfort sites indicates.To some extent the existence of inter- or intra-tribal conflicts will haveweakened the chances of major confederations opposing Rome. However, aswe have seen in the previous section, the influence of Libyan religion anda leadership cult based on an ancient form of baraka could overcome manyof the obstacles to large scale confederation. In any case some of thetribes, such as the Garamantes and Masamones, seem to have been more perman-ently confederated under the strong central authority of kings. The northernhegemony of the Garamantes extended well to the north of the modern Fezzanin the heyday of the tribe. The sharpest Roman military response wasprovoked by such large scale confederation whether hierarchical orhegemonical.Finally, one must compare the success of tribal warfare in the firstcentury A. D. with the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. The relativecalm of the Tripolitanian frontier in the early period was accoloplishedwith few troops and relatively little canpaigning against the large, andpotentially hostile tribes. Explanations of the decline of the Romanfrontier in the face of raids from desert tribes have concentrated overmuchon the significance of the camel. It is argued below that the militarytactics of the Laguatan tribes were not dissimilar to those of the earlierLibyans. At least part of the explanation for the collapse of Rome must belooked for, therefore, by inverting the problem and examining the reasonsfor her earlier success (see below, Chapter 6). Only then can we put forwardsome new theories on the changing course of the Roman and native interaction.4: 4

-136-4: 5 Warfare -in the Later Roman period: the Myth of the CAM1,The theories of French scholars of the colonial period were, as we haveseen, coloured by their own experiences of "aggressive nomadism! ', involvingcamel-riding Touareg and others operating from oasis bases deep into theSahara. The belief was widespread that the Roman limites were confrontedand overrun by an enemy whose potency was revived by the diffusion of thecamel. " It was even claimed that the frontier earthworks, clausurae andfossatum were erected as barriers'against such nomadic raiding.2 Althoughthere is now a trend towards modifying some of these ideas, their influenceis pervasive and a more thorough reappraisal is necessary.3There are four main defects of these arguments. Firstly, the existenceof the camel in the northern Sahara can be demonstrated at a much earlierdate than the period*when the raiding commenced. Admittedly its use wasmainly as a beast of burden or a working farm animal. This leads on to mysecond point, which is that there is no evidence to support the idea of atransformation of the camel into a beast of warfare in the later period.The case cannot be convincingly made because it is based almost entirely onmodem colonial experience and the incautious interpretation of a fewsource references. A third point concerns the implicd responsibility ofthe camel for the unleashing of the desert tribes and the decline of Rome.As well as being entirely unprovable it offers a very limited explanationfor the end of the Roman limites. There is, fourthly, ample literaryevidence for the later Roman and Byzantine periods which detail the practicesof warfare among the supposed "camel nomads". This is entirely conclusiveevidence to demolish the myth of the camel.These problems can be discussed mainly in relation to Tripolitaniasince the best evidence relates to that area, but the conclusions aboutcamel nomadism! ' have 4a wider application. Demcugeot has reviewed theevidence for the diffusion of the camel, 5 and the conclusions are worthsummarising. The camel was present in the Northern Sahara in late Prehistoric4: 5

-137-times, probably towards the end of the first millenium B. C. 6 Archaeologicalevidence, in particular relief carvings, demonstrate the employment of thecamel as a farm animal and as a beast of burden in the second and thirdcenturies A. D. 7 The introduction of the camel cannot then be placed as lateas the fourth century nor explained away as a "gift" from Septimius Severusto his homeland. 8 The north African camel probably originated in Egypt andits diffusion was along the east to west caravan routes. The more prolificevidence for the camel in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica is explicable in termsof the crossroadsof major caravan routes.9 At first the camel was used asa beast of burden and the horse for warfare.10 Even Demougeot, however;does not question the use of the camel in warfare by nomads in late Romantimes. "Demougeot, then, has introduced a serious discrepancy into the chrono-logical schemes proposed by Gautier, Gsell and others. The existence of thecamel in the northern Sahara in pre-Roman times leaves a considerable time-lag before the onset of the raids, during which time the camel's potentialwas not recognized. This is a damaging blow to the theory of a causalconnection between the camel and the raids.In fact, though, there is no clearcut evidence for the camel playingother than a passive role in the warfare of the Late Roman period. Thearchaeological evidence strongly identifies a domestic employment ofcamels from the second century A. D. and probably earlier. Representationsof camels ploughing are common in Tripolitania and there is also evidencefor their employment on the caravan routes and for local haulage of goods. 12These are tasks the camel is well suited to. Particularly on desert marchesthe camel's greater carrying capacity, hardiness and low water consumptiongive it a distinct advantage over horses, mules and oxen. 13 But it is amisnomer to believe that the diffusion of the camel rendered these otheranimals superfluous. In spite of their obviously inferior performance, theother types of pack animal have continued in use to the present day. 144: 5

-138-Although the camel is the superior animal for desert travel, particularly ina stone desert where it is less prone to lameness, one can question theassumption that it is a superior beast for warfare. The greater short rangespeed and agility of the horse are compensation enough. There is no evidencethat the fighting potential of ridden camels was exploited until-after theArab conquest of the Maghreb. 15The historical evidence used to identify the camel with the destructiveraids is very thin. Vegetius allegedly menti oned "camel-riding" tribes fromthe Syrtic region, the Mazices and Ursiliani.16 Another interpretation canbe suggested for this reference, as is demonstrated below. Another possiblepiece of evidence is the description of the Laguatan confederation gatheredby Carcasan which included cavalry, infantry and "those who rode camelsfollowing the custom of the moors. st17 once again we shall see that thisis not evidence for camels being ridden in battle. Thirdly, there are thedescriptions of Procopius and Corippus which referred to the Libyan customofforming defences for their encampments. by placing rings of tethered-camels round the outside.18 The "passive" use of camels here had adisruptive effect on attempted enemy cavalry attacks and the tactic wassuccessful on at least one occasion during the Laguatan wars with theVandalsand Byzantium.19The references to camels, particularly in the latter example, haveled to a concentration on this one aspect of late tribal warfare to theexclusion of conflicting, or clarifying information. Reading the secondaryliterature, one would imagine that the tactic of counter-attack from behinda wall of camels was the only strategy employed by the Laguatan against20regular field armies. Courtois has even calculated the likely number ofcamels used by the Laguatan to form their "camel-ramparts". 21 Because ofthe paucity of source references to camels before the fourth century, A. D.,,'the concentrationof thousands of camels in the hands of the barbariantribes does seem quite a leap in magnitude. Such large totals were probably4: 5

-139-not quite so surprising at the time. Synesius, for instance, bewailed thefate of Cyrenaica when the Ausuriani raiders in the early fifth centuryrustled 5,000 camels to carry off their booty. 22 Similarly, when Romanusdemanded that the Lepcitani provide 4,000 camels for a retaliatory expeditionagainst the Austuriani, the Lepcitani were outraged not so much because thenumber was inconceivably high, but because their camel herds had probablybeen too depleted by the raids to meet it. 23Nevertheless, used selectively and augmented by some circular reasoning,the evidence for a connection between the camel and the onset of., the raidscan be, made to seem reasonablyconvincing.24 But a return to the primarysources, and an examination of these references in their full context,-concIlusively demolishes this house, of cards.There is no reason to doubt, as we have seen, that the Laguatan possessedlarge numbers of camels, but I have also shown thatthe same was true of thecities of the Pentapolis and Tripolitania. 25 Camels were sometimes ridden,as Corippus stated in one reference, though he was. not referring to a26battle, and this must be. set against other information. The Ausurianiused the camels they rustled in Cyrenaica to carry away their bootyq notfor riding. Nor does Synesius, an eye-witness to the raids, mention camelsbeing ridden, In two of his letters he described chance meetings with smallgroups of the barbarianswho rode horses and dismounted to fight.271! he rohannidos of Corippus is by far the most important source for thepractice of warfare in the Byzantine period and although he had access toeye-witness accounts, he nowhere mentioned camels ridden in battle. 28 onthe contrary his accounts of battles were full of references to Laguatancavalry. He described the battles at two levels. On the one hand, theywere a string of personal combats between the glorified Roman heroes andindividual Libyans in the tradition of Epic poems. There is a second levelof treatment, which used contemporary information to provide a generallyreliable overall picture of the battles. 29 From both categories of description4: 5

-14o-the information on the Laguatan is the same, namely, that they fought aslight armed cavalry (the elite troops) and infantry. 30 'There are over fiftyreferences to Libyans riding horses in battle. 31 It is clear'that theimportance of'the horse in warfare had not diminished in the sixth century,let along by the third or fourth, as is sometimes argued. 'Corippus also provided us with some information on the use of camels bythe Libyan tribes. The defensive walls of camels were a passive rather thanan active use of the camel, and depended for their success on the unsettlingeffect of the camels' smell on attacking cavalry. The Laguatan fought onfoot when defending these fortifications,, standing between the legs of thecamels for cover.32 The ranks of camels'were only part of the total defences,,however, as the full obstacle course also included tethered rows of cattleand mules as well as sheep and goats!33 This type of defence was a logicalresponse from people on the move in the semi-desert, in the same way that thecordon of covered wagons was used on the trails of the American west. Thedefences were constructed from the non-combatant animals in order to protectthe goods and families of the Laguatan during the battle. The horses werenot included in the defences for the obvious reason that they were neededfor the serious fighting. Contrary to the view of some historians, theLaguatan cavalry were well capable of fighting and winning pitched battles.The defensive strategy was only resorted to when the odds clearly favouredthe Byzantine army in a pitched battle or when the cavalry had suffered aninitial defeat and staged their last-ditch resistance at their camp. 34 IbnKhaldun recorded the same practice among the Berber tribes after the Arabconquest, where lines of camels and baggage animals drawn up behind thefighting men steadied their nerve and gave them a position to fall back35on. The same tactic is probably to be inferred in the comment of Vegetius36that certain tribes drew camels up into lines. The actual involvement ofthe camel defences in the battle was clearly envisaged as a bad thing and wasa sign of desperation by the tribes.4: 5

-141-There is one final clinching piece of evidence, relating to Corippusagain. He mentioned on two occasions the identity of those who rodeýthecamels. As well as carrying the baggage and tents of the Laguatan., thecamels bore their women and children.37The evidence of Corippus, which has been so often used to support themyth of camel-riding nomads, in reality points the other way.Procopius also confirmed that the Laguatan warriors of the sixth centurystill depended on the skill and sheer numbers of their equine cavalry for38their success. The camel remained primarily a beast of burden, carryinggoods and the non-combatant camp followers. Along with the other pack-animals the camels were used to form a rudimentary cordon around the camps.39The raids were real enough, the Laguatan confederacy an all too tangibleenemy to the frontierzone, but the causes have been obscured by the unfoundedinsistence on the significance of the camel in the warfare of the laterRoman Empire.4: 5

-142-CHAPTER 5 FRONTIER THEORY AND PRACTICE5: 1 Introduction"Innocent of the new science of "systems analysis", the Romans,nevertheless, designed and built large and complex securitysystems that successfully integrated troop deployments, fixeddefences, road networks, and signaling links in a coherentwhole. In the more abstract spheres of strategy it is evidentthat, whether by intellect or traditional intuition, theRomans understood all the subtleties of deterrence, andalso its limitations. (Luttwak 1976,3)"Rome had no institute of strategic studies. In militarymatters as in government, within a broad framework of thesimplest form, Rome tended less to act, than to wait forthings to happen and then react. Frontier developmentshows this admirably. Each developed merely as a localresponse to local circumstances. It is impossible toforce them into rigid strait-jackets. " (Mann 1979a, 180)The detailed examination of the Tripolitanian frontier is reservedfor Chapter 6, below. I have here adopted an all too infrequently attemptedinductive approach and this chapter is devoted to an in-depth discussion ofthe wider issues of frontier strategy, in particular drawing on examplesfrom the other African provinces. The formulation of a conceptual frame-work is an essential preliminary to my approach to the Tripolitanian mater-ial and, it is hoped, fulfils the comparative aspect of the thesis.The above quotations illustrate two slightly different approachesto Roman frontiers. The first summarises the work of E. N. Luttwak, whichapplied modern strategic thinking to the literary and archaeologicalevidence for Roman frontiers. ' Luttwak identified three main frontier"systems" applicable to the Roman Principate in the period from Augustusto Diocletian (Table 5: A). In his review of Luttwak's books, Manncriticised the over-conceptualised and unitary approach to Roman frontiers. 2There are indeed grounds for questioning the applicability of some ofLuttwak's abstract models to all the various frontiers of the empire.3But although Luttwak's conclusions may require modification to match up tothe specific evidence for individual frontiers, this does not invalidate theconceptual approach. My argum-nt here is that, far from rejecting the searchfor abstract models, one should seek to develop the technique beyondthis preliminary and pioneering attempt.4 It is clear that constructive5: 1

-143-0 tuCo 0uýdt 41_xCon u k4 41(U 0) >% u.. dg4 v) t%43 cu 41 , q&4 000> 5 0) 41 w u> lu w 4)ý4ý to>r%w .mW ... d .k4 0qi44to :3. 4 cu w 41-bdcu cii U ci. c:, w 4) ci 41w>Co 0 KZ -, 4 4j0 rn CJ > -4 .Cd a 1041 0 4.4(U 4jr. r. 00U0..-4 0 :3 ca w 9 -4 .. A 0 -4 X00-4 lu -M N to0 on (VCo sWc 0Nd (43e-A ij "d 41 4.4 r.4Co 4.1 wu j--Ek4 0eto wi34 44gw4,4 kd0 .W0CoItiß4) qi >t41ti 0) Co 0 41 b4 p. >0 ci b44 w.. 4 AJ fA 0) lu 0 v c: &i x &i.. d -0 r. r. 0 4. a e di 9A 44 92. r.-a ý 0xw=xuItiC.,. d-t 4)ffNd4) ýd il.4.4 dj44 -, 4 -, 4 0) 0 lý 4-4 c: -0 (U 0 to 4) 0) 0 (U -, -40ý0 ., 4 1 k4 04.4 %644.4 4.4 44 "00 0.4 -4mUuw qi0... 4 r. 0 -, -4 w rA %4.4 ý4 w 41.9r.W-4a) > 41u - cs 0 - 0wu9:r. CoCo 4) 0 0.N4 $. 4 di vir- 0) 10 c: 0 -4 . 3: -4 U0 w >% ci -4 1w410) 4-4 10., 4 41 4) 4) uj00) ei92Co0)a ei ci00"f Co 41 0 --4 4.4 c: 0 41 ci0cr.> lu A 4j 04-4 4-4 0 r. Z Qj W k4 %... 4 *:: 14 M A041 4.4 t r.-, 4 01.49: 10 Q) ci >" - 9: 110 u .. -4 1 cu0) rj-4 034 ., 4 -Mw"20m 4)Qi -A JK (0 w ti u00C0 c: ei 41 4jk2 c: wcu a) -4 01 4j 3>Cr. -4 CO . --4 W --4 W Co C41 41rA . ýf Co-m 41 W 13Co qi 040 (U002.0 .. 4 41 = 41 UU0 4)-00 4.4 Co -4 w 4.4ý4 tü41 0 ur 9) w .. 4 fj "4 4) Co 444-4 0p4 Pd 4j c6.4) 92 . w 29 4.4 04 4j -A -4 . ý44)41e -4 N M (14 r. cu -4 c4 M -m m0Wa40>41 41 rAri3 W0 -, 4 4jtu C0 Co 4) 4). -1LMcmc40) ctw 4113j .,. #IID 044 t r. u "40 t%. 0 r.J., lu N 0)41 4) 10 w1 ý4 0 r. w NdCY% M -, 4 fj 41 (UV-4 4w . 4j cm41 U Cäa 41 4) tuto 4) r. 10im 41 0 qi. ý4 to Nd 44ce W 4.4 0 j2b3 . 41-40) 410 (L)., 4 m 93.1 g:r. Co -, -1 -441 0) -, 4 0C., 4 41 Co r. to Co 14 0 41cu 41 r. u0 tu k du., 4 41 c00-4Nd c le c 41 r. :u%64 00g. 4 9-4 ; 41 00wc3 4.4 - ., 4 0NX044 41 000 r. ( Vma- 41> r 41 , 0a.. 4 4-1 u0-4wj44 (V IU-, 4 wW(A 0 w 9) Z4.1 .. d inZ g. Eiiv Co 41w0r ý4 r. AU p4 0 9: 6 to k4 .,. 4 0 4) r. 4-1mc: 0w19 mr. tu.. 4 (U 10 qi (L) u02 Co >hd ., 4 0 0) 0 4.4p4 fß "d w4) . "d tu.>-, -f .. d CD» 4j00-ti Co :x0 34w Co p-f CL) w00vi ce 0 N4 N441 ce 10., 4 ci0 Wu0-9 440.5 ., 4 0ki 8 c:CUb. 4 0Z 4) Co U j2N4 Co 4-4 CO M0 g) Ci. KZ44 00w00 41 ci Na qj 0 44C 41a.. -4 0 90 -, 4 CJ 4j CU:5m 4.4Cd tuw41> 41 0 lu-4 $. 4 Co Cdi-, 4 4j 04) l= 0. 14 0 rA ei. ý4.., 4 14 4.4 m "4 a r: tu 44 044 41 ö34j_w-, 4 W= 10 0.0) 3.4 4j :J :x ci4.4 p. ro 004.4 eiw c: >P-4 10g: mm s4U td 0) 41 .wCo kt 0 0> -w >% r. 4j gl0) fj ., 4k g3 -' 0 :101-4 W 41p4 4 ri ". f cs 0 Nd"4k49-4 A cu wu41 e 41 1 ., 441 W -, 4 4) -4tu w gi 5w0cu 10 0) 0 4) :x.4 93 ei m 41 w Ce 92.0) .. 4 v .4r. M :x> 4.1 -1 Co (1A0mw k#102 4 Pw 126 0.44 DI 0 PQf.%ý lt;wu41rA ., 4-4ir.2geCZ 0 4-4 jo CU -4 0 ta0 4) -A to ba41 41 torý Co 10Co ki 10 ei41 mxr" k#&0 ý4 c: Ac4 014) ". d U 4) %w ..0wuu 41Co w 4-4 r r:c:.4.4 Q) 00m0wtow0fi r. 0.m wfi 0) iIri Z:i MCo CJ. 01Cuý00-4 44c:em- A0 Clw ti 0P-4 0N4u4v cci4 1-1 ., 4 90wA, " 4 0 CL)(A0 10 c0w 010 k0>I Dcto4) "4 U.. 4 W r,4.4 ci. ýd cl 41 0(9 Co.q) fi0vu ba s4 -0.4 44 -, 4 ýdW cu 4ý4to99 41 t>w421 4) 4lu 0-44 to0 41 41 (L)0 92.9: eiu 4ý e 0.cuci0 41 uA 4j W-CrU.4j ... f ZW-, -1 00uW 44 -ktil :1 4) 0Wkuc: %-, -f 4)0u 4)fi., 4 -4tu -4 k0 4.1 0 -4 10 0 tu 0-, 4 tu Z0Ixi4j .k4j-4 k 44 41ki 0 ai fßCo (U=0a 0 4j > 44 -A - 4)ý tuDi 00r. 0-% U* 40 gl.10 0wr.4j r. 14.4 00e. A gj Q>% C ., 4 00 (A 4j m 41 4.40 f. 4 U 93H0r 00-4 ... f.v-i "4 j4Cm 10- 41 0 tu Co &0 24ß 0) 24 uW gz 91. ww 0) w004 c:LnE. v N4 2

-144-criticism of Luttwak's thesis and of other attempts at understanding Romanstrategy are essential preliminaries.The main aspects of Luttwak's three phase history of strategy aresumnarised in Table 5-: A. There is nuch here that it is hard "to fault; inexamining Roman strategy he has "done for Roman historians, what they havenot done for themselves". 5One may question, as Mann has, whether the system really had thechronological or spatial'coherence that Luttwak implies. 6 Certainly thethree period division suggests a much more accelerated and abrupt processof change than appears to have been the case. Roman frontiers were notconceived and executed at a stroke. Their development was drawn out andcontinuous. Witness, for example, the complex structural history of theTyne-Solway frontier in Britain. The construction of Hadrian's Wall was anelaboration and embellishment of an existing'frontier system and was itselfmodified several tires in the course of construction. It I was then abandoned,reoccupied and further modified during itsworking life*7* If frontiers hadbeen static creations or the products of Roman inertia and lack of CI oncern,it is hard to explain this high level of activity. More reasonably, thehistory of frontier development reveals the concern felt for strategy andtactical deployments by successive generations in the upper echelons of theRoman military establishment. The fact that changes were not synchronisticin every province of'the empire shows that the regional solutions to tacticalproblems could vary considerably within the framework of a broadly definedstrategy,- -8The chief value of the inductive appro-ach lies in its demonstration ofthe distinctions between'power and force, between strategy and tactics andbetween warfare and deterrence. 9 Power can be defined as "the ability ofstates to affect'the will and'behaviour of other states by armed coercion orby the threat of armed coercion. " The essential difference between powerand force is that power is a "perceived phenomenon", whilst force is a5: 1

-145-physical one. The active use of force, in warfare for instance, consumesforce (through casualties and the use of logistical resources). Power$ onthe other hand, can function without consuming force by eliciting a responseto the threat of using force. 10 Augustan policy in Germany and in the Eastillustrates the difference between the two. The initial attempt to conquerGermany involved a large input of force, which was nearly all consumed inthe defeat of Varus. The last years of Augustus' reign saw a series ofreprisal raids take place which at least salvaged Roman prestige and re-established the perception of her power among the tribes along the Rhine.When Tiberius recalled Germanicus from beyond the Rhine, he was recognisingthat the required input of force to complete conquest'was not available.The "temporary" (or so it was intended) halt of the army of Gez=nia on theGaulish side of the Rhine was mitigated by the subsequent use of Romanpower to achieve peace at little physical cost to Rome. 11 Similarly,Augustus was able to reach a diplomatic agreement with Parthia through ademonstration of military force which stopped short of actual warfare. Thereturn of the eagles lost by CrassUs and Antony was a. minor military andpolitical triumph. The cost of the five legions kept on station in Syria wasminimal when compared to the potential consumption of force in a full-scalewar. 12 The use of power rather than force in this and other cases is notsurprising. Rome's resources were limited (Varus and his three legionsrepresented about one ninth of her available force in A. D. 9). The wars inGermany were made possible only by the favourable conditions in other regionswhich were created and sustained by Roman power. This and this aloneallowed Augustus to produce a concentration of disposable force in aparticular sector. The exercise of power through diplomatic suasion andthe visible proximity and capability of her armies achieved a vital"economy of force" in the settlement of political points with her neighboursand with her subjects.5: 1

-146-In modern assessments of the success and'failureof Roman frontierpolicy, the incautiou's bias towards Clausewitzian 'offensive warfare has' ledto an undervaluation of defensive strategy. ' Following Luttwak's argument,we cannot assume that Rome' could have solved her frontier problem by goingon to conquer Germany and the Iranian plateau. ' The restilt'would have beenan earlier encounter with-some of the peoples who were eventually to dismemberthe empire; the outcome, 'however, could have been equally disastrous*13 Onecan-speculate, at least, that prolonged and force-consuming warfare on oneor more-fronts would have precipitated financial and man-power crises evenearlier than they actually occurred. The subtleties of Rome's defensivestrategy, as it evolved, were in the variability of response and the con-trolled use of pow6r'and force. For this reason alone'Rachet was mistakento assess the'-military history of Roman Africa on the assumption that theinteraction between Rome and the berbers could have been only in terms ofarmed confrontation.14 Rome's manipulation of people and events by diplo-matic suasion and armed coercion deserves a more thorough analysis.The importance of differentiating between strategy and'ta'cti'cs Willbecome increasingly clear below. In part, it reflects a distinction betweenreceived ideas in Rome an&their adaptation to suit'local conditions'in theprovinces'.' Regional variations in'frontier deployment are not necessarilyindicative, ''therefore, of different strategies. Topography, natural resourcesand the nature of potential opposition imposed constraints on governors andgenerals which affected the tactical and logistical deployment of troops.15But despite this, we should still expect that there were basic similaritiesbetween'what governors in different regions were trying to achieve.The-development of Roman frontier policy was not in reality in thethree convenient, phases used by Luttwak; it was-a single, continuous processwith myriad revisions and modifications over the centuries.16 It is, never-theless, worth tracing some'of the main themes-which represented departures'from earlierpractice.5: 1

-147-In the first century B. C. and early first century A. D. it is fair tosay that the only limits set by Rome on her expansion were the limits of theknown world, 17 The "iniperium sine fine" was not a dream of the poets in theAugustan age, for it was shared by their contemporaries in comnand of the,Roman armies. 18 Brunt and others have demonstrated that the advice passedon to Tiberius by Augustus to eschew further expansion (coercendi intraterminos imperii)19 was more a case of "do as I say" than "do as I havedone". Until the tribulations of the Pannonian revolt and the cladesVariana,Augustus was the arch-expansionist.2-0 As the first Princeps hewas responsible for adapting the military system of the Republic to suitthe special needs of an autocracy. He demonstrated a fine appreciation ofthe practice of deterrent-based diplomacy, no matter whether the theory hadbeen fully articulated or not-21 The termini of the empire did not havethe same significance as the later limites. Far from being demarcated lines,they were temporary halting places en route to world conquest. If anything,fines had an even wider application to include the territory of all kingdoms,tribes and people who had submitted to Roman hegemony, whether or not theirlands were technically occupied. Under Augustus, Britain, India and remotetribes (such as the Garamantes) were already considered as being part ofthe empire in its wider, hegemonical sense.22The change from this attitude of confident expansionism to a morecautious and defensive policy can be attributed to several factors.23Improved geographical knowledge and military setbacks had already changedthe mood in Rome by the end of Augustus'long reign.24 But there wereother reasons relating to the nature of the Principate itself. Under theRepublic, the martial goal of world conquest had been used (and abused) byindividual generals to further their own political ends. The conquests ofPompey and Caesar were symptomatic of the inability of the Senate tocontrol its servants. The "Roman revolution" left the Senate as the servantOf Augustus and gave to him the onus of decisions about war and peace. In 23 or5: 1

-148-22 B. C. the governor of the Senatorial province of Macedonia was convictedof treason for starting an unauthorised war. Three years later CorneliusBalbus was the last man outside the Imperial family to-be allowed to celeb--rate a full Triumph and even the practice of awarding the ornawnta triunph-alis was restricted later. 25 Precedents were thus established and soonexpansionist warfare became the exclusive prerogative of the Princepshimself; he could take command himself or delegate to his relations and hismost trustedgenerals.26 The ideal of expansionist warfare was not givenup, -therefore, but the opportunities to put it into practice were restricted.Much depended on the attitudes and abilities of individual Principes. Onewonders how much Tiberius and Hadrian were personally affected by theeventual failure of the expansionist policies of their predecessors727As important, though, was the distrust felt by autocrats towards successfulgenerals (vide Tiberius and Germanicus, Domitian and Agricola? ) and theproblem of balancing the likely consumption of force against'available28resources. In fact'the system which evolved did have some limited'flexibility and there were occasional wars of conquest (as in Britain betweenA. D. 43-80's, 142 and 210, D4cia in A. D. 101-106'and against Parthia in A. D.114-17,161-166,195-99,amongstothers).30 These wars were either led bythe emperor in person or by a trusted subordinate at a critical, -earlystage in a new reign, when military prestige was needed (so Claudius andAntoninus pius). 30The development of a new and essentially defensive strategy (alongsidethis expansionist option, of the emperors) was a logical, response, then, tothe joint problems of autocratic control of generals and of limited materialresources. The idea of an imperium sine fine was unworkable withoutrestrictive control'by the Princeps; with such limitations it graduallyceased to have any real meaning. When Corbulo was prevented from carryingon a private war across the Rhine by Claudius, it must have been clear thatthe Rhine had become a sort of delimiting line and not simply a launching-5: 1

-149-pad for campaigns into Free Germany. 31 It is interesting to note thatCorbulo obeyed his recall and was later rewarded with prestigious commandsin wars against the Parthians. 32- The rules of engagement had been re-writtenand this in turn required a new attitude towards territory and limits ofresponsibility. The process of developme_nt from a new concept of empire tothe construction of artificial barriers like Hadrian's Wall was neverthelessextremelygradual.33It is no doubt correct that Rome had no "Institute of Strategic Studies"qbut this does not mean that the Romans were ignorant of strategic or tacticaldiscussion. After all, a celebrated general like Frontinus could compiletwo books on the subject for the benefit of his contemporaries and futuregenerations. The accounts of Caesar's wars are filled with technicaldetails and there is a great deal more in Latin literature which was clearly34written for an audience well versed in military science. Since thearmy of the Principate was only professional below the level of its higherofficers this was vital. The employment of senators and knights as officersin the legions and auxiliary units as a stage, or stages, in their cursushonorum was successful mainly because of their knowledge of campaignstrategy and battlefield tactics and their imbued martial spirit.35 Thesuccessful manipulation of diplomacy and passive force were as much a partof the Roman inheritance as were the glorious victories and the rarely36challenged battlefield superiority of disciplined cohorts. Roman strategywas not invented by Luttwak, it was an organic part of the Roman Republicand Principate, and its several phases developed one from the other to meetchanging circumstances. It will not do to imply that there was no broadstrategic awareness behind Roman frontier development.37Roman military thinking was certainly conservative and this tended toslow down the acceptance of new ideas. In the A. D. 90's Tacitus was stillanticipating the eventual conquest of Germany. 38 Later, the hostility ofthe militares viri towards Hadrian demonstrated their dislike of his anti-5: 1

-150-39expansionist policies. More normally the emperors consulted with theirleading generals and debated military policy. Under Nero there were seriousdiscussions about the future of the British province, with the result thatQ. Veranius volunteered for the post of governor in the belief that he couldconquer the rest of the island in three years.40 A decade later Nerocontemplated war with Parthia and then a campaign to annex the Caucasusregion, but the detailed strategic arguments came from his generals andgovernors who had experience of the problem of Parthia and Ar. wnia at firsthand. 41 The formulation of military policy was too important to be left tothe whims of the emperors alone, even if the final decision rested withthem. Marcus Aurelius recognised this relationship between himself and hisgenerals and sought their views in formulating his strategy in the Marco-mannic Wars. 42 The composition of such ad hoc foreign-policy committeesdid not follow any set pattern, although consultation with the PraetorianPrefects and with the most respected generals was probably expected andwould have helped maintain the confidence of Senate and army in theirPrinceps. The lack of any formal bureaucratic structure is typical of Romangovernment. But, in any event,, the problems of one area will have beendiscussed and the solutions adopted in analagous situations noted. Thepractice of giving Imperial procurators, legates and even Proconsulsdetailed official instructions (mandata) when they set out for theirprovinces must have ensured a degree of centralised control of policy.These instructions would have to take account of local factors, but direc-tives on diplomacy and suasion, policing and military activity were formula-ted within the context of Roman strategy as a whole. Since these matters43were secret, it is understandable that little evidence survives. But theprospect of reporting back to the emperor must have constrained mostgovernors to work within their brief. 445: 1

-15 1-The twin elements of informed discussion/consultation and a measure ofcentralised control combined to give Roman strategy a broad comparative base.The development of frontier terminology, such as the word limes (pl. limites)can be traced across the whole period and was the product of collective, notindividual,changes of attitude.45 It-was originally a surveying term usedby the agrimensores to denote minor roads between centuriated plots ofland; 46 later it developed the meaning of a road driven into enemy territory47and from about the time of Domitian it started, to take on the connotations ofa demarcated and patrolled frontier road, line or strip.48 By the lateRoman period it was used in the sense of a frontier zone or to denote minorsubdivisions of, the frontier region.49 The earliest associations with roadsand surveyed lines indicate something of the new significance, that frontierstook on towards the end of the first century A. D. Tacitus used the termlimes, in unambiguous contexts, in the sense of "territorial frontier".something that would have been %inthinkable in the Age of Augustus. 50Tacitus was an expansionist at heart and his acquiescence in using the term,shows that the changing concept of empire was not limited to menlike Domitianand Hadrian - traditionally the great exponents of scientific frontiers.51The problem for Rome was that once the possibility of advance on all frontswas given up and it became necessary to define frontiers, there was a singularlack of suitable natural obstacles. Wars of annexation from then on wereincreasinglyýconcerned with establishing better. strategic frontiers. Theconvenient lines made on modern maps by the rivers Rhine and Danube aremisleading; mountains and deserts provide much better frontier lines and Romeattempted to solve some of her European problems by establishing salientsinto the Taunus and Carpathian mountains.52In establishing these patrolled and garrisoned frontier lines, somedemarcated by artificial barriers, Rome created a new myth of empire. Overa considerable period of time there arose-a belief that everything worthwhilehad been encompassed and that the frontiers separated barbarians from5: 1

-152-civilized men. 53 This was not the case at the moment when the frontierswere created, but a later testimonial on the effect that such frontiershad had on native societies which had been arbitrarily bisected by theircreation. Socio-economic development was certainly different within theempire, but it is inadmissable to suggest that Rome chose to ignore thenative people who lived "beyond the pale".54- It has been observed that the"client state system! ' declined with the creation of demarcated frontiers.Many kingdoms were annexed to form new frontier provinces or territory:for instance,those of King Cogidubnus and Queen Cartimandua in Britainand of Lesser Armenia, Sophene and Commagene in Anatolia. 55 This was notnew policy in itself, but in the case of the Eastern frontier the annexationswere part of a major strategical rethinking of the Armenian problem.56But contrary to the impression given by Luttwak this was not the end of theclient system. Inter alia, the kingdoms of the Bosphoros, Armenia, Iberia,Albania, Osroene, Dacia (till A. D. 105) and Nabatean Arabia (till 106)continued to play an important part in Roman foreign policy.57 On theRhine, Danube and in many other sectors, the client tribe system continuedto operate in the same way as before. The hegemonic network of alliancesextended well beyond the formal frontiers in all areas. The real departure$then, in the Flavian period was that client states became extra-limites eventhough they remained hegemonically connected. In the long term the waningof Roman power and of her hegemony produced the false assessment that thefrontiers had been erected to defend Romans from barbarians. In the HighEmpire, the frontiers had started life as convenient lines of demarcationgcustoms control and military deployment and the lands beyond were notterraeincognitae.Rome did not "wait for things to happen" beyond the frontiers beforereacting and it was through hegemony and forceful diplomacy that she couldand did take precautions." This diplomatic suasion was not simplydependent on the indigenous perception of Roman power. Subsidies, technical5: 1

-153-aid and even military assistance were given to certain allied tribes andkingdoms. 59 Rome arbitrated in tribal disputes, provided them with kingson occasion and gave refuge to the losers in intra-tribal coups. 60 Wholetribes were, in exceptional circumstances, resettled on Roman territory.61Although our evidence is much less detailed concerning diplomatic, asopposed to military, successes, there is no doubt that coercion and concili-ation through diplomacy were integral to Roman strategy in all periods. Thepolicy was, however, most successful whilst the perception of Roman powerwas strongest. The loss of a credible deterrent in the mid-third centurytransformed the relationship, allowing the barbarians to dictate the terms.size and regularity of the subsidies they required not to invade the empire. 62There are other ways in which the long term effectsof the frontiersmay have been harmful to Roman interests. It has been suggested that theoutflow of specie from the rich, agricultural provinces to the underdevelopedfrontier zones to pay the standing costs of the army created a false boom inthe latter regions and helped precipitate an economic crisis in the former.63The frontiers also regionalised the armies through an increasing reliance onlocal recruiting. Long-term. postings in the same fort, acquisition of"wives" and families and even lands, reduced the mobility of the individualunits, who became loath to campaign too far from their home base and wereincreasingly involved in providing higher levels of local policing. Whenthe confidence trick of deterrence was exposed by civil war and the first ofthe great invasions, these troops were shown to be no longer the invinciblearmy of yesteryear. In spite of the partial recovery under Aurelian, Diocle-tian and Constantine the damage done to Roman prestige had a lasting effecton the frontiers. Although a form of preclusive defence seems to haveremained an ideal, in many areas the breakdown of diplomacy and deterrencebeyond the frontiers meant that strategy became based on the necessity oftackling the enemy within the empire and not outside it. The differencebetween an "elastic defence" and a "defence-in-depth" depended on the ability5: 1

-154-of a frontier zone to resist being totally overrun. In either case themain field army was stationed back from the frontier and took time to arrive.The construction of new style forts, town walls, blockhouses, fortifiedgranaries and fortified farmhouses was the combined result of local andgovernment initiatives and allowed for the successful defence of key points.64But it is difficult to say proportionally how much this was deliberate policyand how much'a regio - nal response to the abnegation of responsibility forthe security8f the frontiersby Rome. In many areas of the empire therewas revived tribalism inside as well as outside the frontiers and this wasexacerbated by the official policy of allowing certain tribes (like the- Goths) to settle inside the frontiers on condition that they defended them. 65Inadequately protected by centralised field armies and without a credibledeterrent, the frontier regions were vulnerable to attack and increasInglyliable to renounce Roman government. Nevertheless some areas did adapt wellto the new strategy and survived for a remarkably long time - notably, ofcourse, the Eastern or Byzantine Empire. 66So far the analysis has centred on the Roman input to frontier policy,but the native response to this provides valuable insights into the effectivefunctioning of that policy.67 We have already examined the native backgroundfor Tripolitania in detail and in subsequent sections some suggestions aremade regarding the causes of resistance and revolt.68 There were clearlydifferent kinds of warfare. A tribe might resist an attempt at annexation,or reject hegemonic control or rebel, when apparently pacified, over a minorinjustice. There is also a "domino" effect to be considered in that a minorrevolt by one tribe might ultimately involve many others unless rapidlydealtwith.69 Revolts could break out either amongst people where territorywas occupied by Roman armies or amongst tribes within her hegemony. But ineither case the action in one area was likely to have repercussions in theother. Roman strategy had to take account of local revolt patterns and,in spite of the notoriety of certain provincial governors, successful prose-5: 1

-155-cutions of Senators and Imperial officials who abused their positionsdemonstrate Roman determination to avoid unnecessary provocation.70The treatment of defeated rebels or enemies also varied considerably.The severe reprisals carried out by Suetonius Paulinus in the aftermath ofthe Boudican revolt delayed the final surrender of some of the rebels andwere judged excessive in Rome, so he was replaced as governor. 71 Lenienttreatment was much more common than the attempted annihilation of enemies.If a pro-Roman faction existed or could be created within the tribe, animplacable enemy could soon become a loyal ally.72,In formulating our own opinions of Roman frontier policy we should notneglect material on frontier activity in more recent periods. Present dayfrontiers, of course, are generally between equals and involve the conceptof nation states (which is an anachronism in the context of the ancient world).Of much greater interest, though, is the work of frontier theorists, workinglargely on the impact of the American mid-west and the Chinese Hongolianfrontiers on the socio-economic development of those regions.73 But thebiggest contribution to a discussion of ancient Imperialism can come frommodern study of the recent history of colonialism and decolonialism in Africa,74India and elsewhere. These case studies are of value because they provideparallels for known Roman, practice, but they can also highlight differencesand stimulate discussion. How should we account, for. instance, for the factthat Roman Britain (population perhaps 4.5 - 6,000,000) required a garrisonof between 40,000-63,000 men, whilst Tanganyika in the 1930's, (population3,000,000) had a conbined army and police service of 2,600 men? 75 Converselyat the beginning of this century, French Algeria, and Tunisia had a garrisonof 58,000 troops, compared_with a Roman garrison of the same region between20-25,000 only. 76 The largest colonial garrisons have tended to bemaintained in areas where resistance to the colonial power was strongest orwhere rapprochment and indirect rule through existing elites had failed.5: 1

-156-Returning now to the two quotations which prefaced this chapter, itis evident that there is some logic in the claims of both Mann and Luttwak andtheir approaches need not be mutually exclusive. Too often parallels havenot been drawn between frontiers because of a laclý of detailed knowledge.Several points emerge from the above discussion. Firstly, there was acoherent element of strategy in Roman frontier policy and this changed anddeveloped over several centuries. The three phases suggested by Luttwakare useful (if slightly misleading) divisions of what was a continuallydeveloping strategy. Whilst he notes the main features of three "systems",it is important to remenber that each system evolved gradually from theprevious one and that its full elaboration may have been a late occurrencewithin the period division.An alternative framework for assessing Roman frontiers is outlinedin Table 5: B, below. Here, the emphasis is more on the development ofthree sets of frontier "characteristics". The types of warfare, the typesof diplomacy and suasion employed and the military deployment, all changedsignificantly during the period under consideration. In terms of warfare,there was a marked shift away from expansionist warfare (with both terri-torial and hegemonic aims) by the end of the Julio-Claudian period. Laterreturns to this kind of warfare required the sanction and normally thephysical presence of the Princeps. So although Trajan, Septimius Severusand others were able to raise new legions and undertake new conquests suchwars were a limited commodity. The majority of wars in the later periodswere defensive either countering internal revolt, external disruption ofRoman hegemonic, control or a mixture of both. The main difference betweenthe Antonine era and the Late Roman Empire is that in the latter periodthere was a much greater quantity of warfare of all types : civil wars,invasions,hegemonic rebellions.5: 1

-157-TABLE 5: B CHAPUkCTERISTICS OF ROMAN FRONTIERS AND ROMAN STRATEGY (d4veloped from Luttwak ot -al. )Lo-ClaudianFlaviansto Saveransmid-third century and laterI. YPOS of warfare(i) Wars of conquest(expansionist)(Li) Wars of hagemonic nature- for domination of navlyencountered tribes & people- vs revolts- as reprisals (deterrencevalue)(iii) Civil vars and mutinies(iv) Revolts of a territorialnature.7ypes of diplomacylsuasionM Use of power (deterrence)(ii) Use of client kings end tribes(for hagemoaic control andborder defence)(iiI)Us* of treaties, subsidies,(iv)technical aid 4tc.Interference in tribal poli-(v)tics and affairsDiplomacy aimed at elitegroups.(a) 2Vpes of warfare(i) Wars of conquest (mostly ledby emperor)(ii) Wars of territorial control(revolts)(iii) Wars of hogemonic control- in face of changing balanceof-poweroutside empire- vs revolts following failureof dotstrance and disruptionof hegemony.- as reprisals.(iv) Civil wars(v) Vs revolts threateninghagemonic and territorialbothcontrol.(b) rypes of d1plomscylsuasion(i) Use of power (deterrence)(ii) Use of client tribes and kingdomsbeyond frontiers(LIL)Use of treaties, gifts,(iv)subsidies. technical aid,inducements (Roman citizenship)Economic and cultural attachmento Roman empire encouraged -(v)aimed at elite groups.Use of Roman officials toregulate tribal affairs,landholding and migrations,interference in tribal politics.(a)7VP@S Of W&ffazsM wars of conquest/reconquest(CLOW V. rar: )Ui) wars of territorial control- civil wars- revolts- invasions(iii) Wars of hagemonir- control(iv) Vs threats to both heg*monicand territorial control.- external revolts.- arisal of new threats.The main change in this period is oneof quantity rather than typology I(b) 2Vpes of diplomacylsuaslon(J) Deterrence weakened by perceivedloss of power throughcivil wars, economic crises andinvasions.(ii) Use of treaties and payment ofsubsidies and bribes to buypeace where possible.(iii) Rase ttlament of barbarians insid,empire and use as border troops.(iv) Religious (Christian) attachmentto empire encouraged.(v) Us* of indigenous aristocracyfor regulation of tribal affairsand Roman military commands.&JItarydeployment(i) Fluid strategic situation -varying tactical deployment.(Li) Troops (legions and auxili--aries) in battle groupconcentrations not asindividual units.(iii)Forts and fortresses still offairly temporary nature -hibernae and aestivae.multi-lagion and"voxillation" fortresses.(iv) Some surplus force for use inother frontier zones.(V) Fortifications (forts andcamps) mark lines ofadvancelptnetration. notfrontier lines or static(c) IdlItarVdeployment(i) Troops deployed on roadsthroughout frontier provincesand along frontier lines (forcase of supply, local policingand concentration of forces inemergency).Ui) Carrison posts for individualunits and of increasingly, permanent nature.(iii)Dafance of province by reunitedgarrison - preferably fightingin enemy territory.Uv) Limited surplus force fordeployment elsewhere.(V) Local policing ioportantaspect of &arrison's work.(C) x1lItary deployment,(i) Sharp division between fieldand border troops (letterbeing the downgraded remantsof old legions and auxilia).(ii) Border troops, militia andnative levies in regionalisedfrontier zone. Policing anddefence of key points.(iii)riald armies nearer regionalcontras of power.(iv) Maintenance of frontierdefences where possible butdeclined efficiency andgradual isolation from-central go-ýOrnment.garrison points.(vi) Little local policingundertaken.

-158-The use of deterrence and power politics was well developed by Augustusalready, but reached its apogee in the late first and second centuries. Theemergence of the concept of a defined territorial empire altered the rela-tionship between Rome and her client states, which now lay mostly outsidethe frontiers. Whilst the client tribes and kingdoms still remained partof the hegemonic imperium, in the long term they were distinguished as non-'Roman by geography and no amount of diplomacy or subsidy could disguise thisfact. But for a while the'; Pax Romana was realised by a combination ofdeterrence and technical aid in the frontier zones and by the politicalmanagement and regulation of tribes within the frontier. The bitter pillof Roman taxation, land expropriation and military levies was sweetened bythe "encouragement" of native'elites, of urban and'economic development.These aspects of Roman policy did not significantly change in the lateRoman Empire, but the efficiency of the system had declined. The clearfailure of Rome to protect the frontier provincials lowered the value ofdeterrence diplomacy, encouraged brigandage and invasion and eroded thelinks between the peripheral zones and the empire.Finally, military deployment provides the clearest indication ofchanging strategy and tactics. In the Julio-Claudian period, troops operatedin temporary summer camps (aestivae) and spent the winter in slightly morepermanent bases (hibexnae). These deployments were generally-not in termsof the standard size units of the Roman army. For instance legionaryvexillations were brigaded with'auxiliary troops in fortresses of about halflegionary size and on the Rhine it was co n practice for two legions to bedeployed together., Small'single cohort-size forts were comparatively rare. 77The function of the'standing armies was not to guarantee the integrity ofRoman'territory against petty raiding, but to secure more important politicalaimsg"J'th"e, conquest and domination of the surrounding peoples. The troopswere; therefore, not deployed in a linear formation, but in battle groupconcentrations at certain key points, 'generally close to the main invasion5: 1 1

-159-routes into the territory of potential enemies. 78The Flavian, Antonine and Severan periods saw several phases of develop-ment and elaboration of the idea of securing both local security and provin-cial defence by spreading the garrison along strategic roads within theprovince and along delimited frontier lines. In some areas physical barrierswere constructed along the frontiers, but the function of these is to be seenin connection with policing rather than as defences against invasions.79Forts and fortresses were generally constructed-for single, standard unitsand achieved an increasingly permanent appearance. Smaller installationssuch as fortlets, signal and observation towers are-other features indicativeof the growing interest in local policing.80 Luttwak has convincinglydemonstrated that the intention was still to defend the province againstmajor threats by reuniting the garrison and fightingýpitched battles,whenever possible away from the frontier itself in enemy territory.81The late Roman deployment was a combination of the previous system indecline and of ad hoc reinforcements of new style field army troops. Theprogressive, downgrading of border troops meant that troops recorded with thesame name in the Notitia Dignitatum and in service earlier had little incorm n with each other. Late Roman barrack plans from Britain suggest thatgarrison sizes may have been much smaller, with the presence of wives andfamilies giving many forts the appearance of fortified villages.82 Newstyle fortifications indicate that individual positions were expected to beable to withstand siege, with border troops fighting from inside their walls.The continued maintenance of Hadrian's Wall and other measures show aninterest in keeping up border policing by frontier troopse83 Comparativelylittle is known about the fortresses and bases'of the late Roman field armies.These three characteristics of 'changing frontier policy can usefully beapplied to the study of the African frontiers. Once we have established whetherthere was a pattern of development there, we can apply a new conceptual frameworkto the specific case-study of Tripolitania. and thir, can help our understanding*in spite of the great lacunae in primary evidence.5: 1

-16o-5: 2 Warfare and revolts: problems, pattems and perspectiveI The first point to be established about the African provinces (MauretaniaTingitana and Caesariensis, NumidialAfrica Proconsularis and Cyrenaica) i, -tthat a remarkable economy of deployed force was achieved there. The garrisonfor the territories extending from the Atlantic to the Nile (but excludingthe Egyptian garrison) has been variously estimated at around 30,000 men. 1For comparison, the garrison for the small province of Britain in the mid-sedond century may have been as high as 63,000; 2the Easternprovincesrequired c. 81,940 troops and the Danubian-provinces c. 132,700.3 Althoughthere were one or two serious revolts requiring reinforcement of the Africanarmies, the limited interest expressed by the ancient sources implies thatAfrica was not considered among the major threats to imperial security.4The fact ihat the Mauretanian provinces were left without a permanentlegionary garrison, in spite of a number of crises there,S must be an indica-tion that warfare was neither endemic among the neighbouring tribes nor aconstant threat to these regions.6 Compared to many other frontier zones,North Africa was clearly considered by Rome to be a "low intensity threat*,, 7A second observation follows on from the first. The achievement of thiseconomy of force was due to diplomatic strategy as well as success in warfare -unless we are to assume-that the indigenous Africans were totally inept inwarfare (which they clearly were not; see Chapter 4: 4 above). This pointneeds stressing as some recent studies have assumed that Rome pursued apolicy of naked aggression and colonialist expansionism against her nativesubje cts and neighbours.8 Benabou, for instance, argued that revolts andwars were all caused by Roman expansionism (establishing forts and colonieson confiscated lands). 9 This is an oversimplification and maybe even adistortion since it ignores the possible nuances of Roman frontier policyat its best, whilst dwelling on the worst aspects. Rome's assessment of thecomparative success of her policy in Africa was demonstrated by the size ofthe garrison she maintained there and reflects the long periods of peace5: 2

-161-enjoyed (a peace which was achieved by force of arms but maintained bydeterrence, political control and incentives). The history of-Roman Africaas it actually occurred was generally peaceful, interrupted by occasionalviolence; yet modem attempts to write that history tend to present it as aseries of wars and revolts, interrupted by blank periods.10 If one assumesthat Rome was not habitually provocative and extortionate in herýfrontierrelations, and that she could be conciliatory and open-handed on occasions,I think one comes closer to understanding the pattern of history. No one candeny that there were exceptions. Miscomprehensions of African sensibilities,mismanaged annexation or expropriation, the cupidity of individual officersand officials did spark-off some revolts, and Rome must have appeared attimes to have been a brutal and corrupt regime." But in general,comparisons with latterday colonial powers are to be made with reservations,since the Roman empire was far more cosmopolitan than its recent nationalisticsuccessors and the degree of involvement of regional elites in management-andgovernment is quite remarkable. Africa produced several Roman emperors, butno Indian Maharajah could have become King of England, no Berber chieftainPresident of France or Italy. Roman rule in Africa sought, and enjoyed, theparticipation of native elites on a scale which was unthinkable in theImperialism of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.12 Knowledge ofwarfare gives only a limited perspective of Rome's interaction with the Africans.From Augustusto GordianThe information about wars in Roman Africa is very sparse: soredisturbances are only mentioned on a single inscription or in cryptic one-sentence references in the sources. Only occasionally do we have a greaterdepth of coverage, as in the case of the Tacfarinan War and the revolt ofFirmus. 13 Although a good deal of interpretation has been ventured on thelimited evidence, the basic facts are well established,14 and no detailedchronological account need be repeated here (see Tables 1: A and 5: C).5: 2

-162-.TABLE-5: C Wars, revoltsand policingDate ITribes or zones involvedInterpretation29,22 B. C. ? (Triumphs awarded)20 B. C. Gaetuli, Phazani, Garamantesc. 3 B. C. - Gaetulian revolt - Musulames,A. D. 6 Cinithi, Nasamones. TribesMajor campaigns of hegemonicalconquest.Major campaigns of hegemonicalconquest.First major revolt against Romanhegemonical control. Territoryfrom Mauretaniato Syrtes.annexedat end of war?Early A. D.? Campaign of Quirinius vsGaramantes and Karmaridaepart of the revQlt - re-establishmentof Roman control overdistanttribes.17- Musulames and Cinithi. Later24 Maures, Gaetuli andGaramantes.Starts as territorial revolt,spreads to hegemonically alliedtribes.4o- Revolt of Aedemon and41 Maures.42-43 Tribes of Atlas and desertResistanceof kingdomEstablishmentto Roman annexationof Mauretania.of Roman hegemonymargins.44/46 Galba vs Musulames (andor 45/47 other tribes? )c. 52-57 Death of soldier on detach-over tribes well to south.Territorial revolt - spread-toallied tribes as in A. D. 17?Policing.ment nearChemtou.69-70 Garamantes75 Two extraordinary missionsBreakdownWar/revolt?of Roman hegemony.Or territorialpre-86to Mauretaniaorganisationof province/tribes.85-86 Revolt of NasawnesMurder of Roman tax collectorsstartsthe war thereforeinitially involves tribes insidedefined territory of Africa.post-86 Two "campaigns" vs GaramantesSecuring hegemonical controlover Garamantes and lessertribesbeyond.Trajan-'haures118 Naures ruled by Quietus whohad attained militaryprominence under Trajan.122-23 Naures (including Baquates? )144 Sala regionRevolt over treatment of LuciusQuietus by Hadrian.Revolt (severity unknown)Policingc. 145-50 Major Moorish revolt.152 Roman official attackedbetween Saldae and LambaesisTerritorialproblems.Brigandageand hegemonical171-73 Invasion of Spain by maures(from Rif).Failureof Roman deterrence.174 Agueneb campaignHegemonicalcontrol197-205 Saharan Atlas, Taza gap,Failure of deterrent and/orTripolitania,MauretaniaRoman territorialexpansionism*'Caesariensis.Establishmentof new frontiers.Reshaping of tribal alliances.226-27 Kaures238-40 Maures?250's Bavares, Quinquegentanel,Hegemonical revoltCivil war disturbs hegemony.Repeated hegemonical (andFraxinenses and otherMaures - af fect M. C. and Numterritorial)revolts.5: 2continued. .

-163-Date Tribes or zones'involved Interpretation289-98 Haures (Bavares, Quinque- A series of revolts, initiallygentanel etc. ) Laguatan. mainly hegemonical. IncreasingInvolves tribes from severity through failure toAtlantic to Syrtes. re-establish deterrence.363 f. Repeated raids of Austurianil Failure, of deterrence, periodicLaguatan against collapse of hegemony overTripolitania and Cyrenaica. allied tribes and loss ofterritorialcontrol.373-75 Firmus leads tribes of Revolt - both territorial andborder region of M. C. hegemonical in that Romanborder defence now dependenton co-operation of tribalchiefs.397 Gildo and field army (plus Civil war.Donatists).Early Invasions of Laguatan Repeated failure of hegemonicM continue. arrangements.Between 46 B. C. and A. D. 14 most of the recorded wars were offensiveoperations beyond the territory which was then undergoing economic develop-ment and where the troops were stationed over winter. The campaigns ofBalbus to the Fezzan and to the Biskra region of Algeria were long-rangeoperations whose purpose w as to establish hegemonic control rather thanto conquerterritory.15 The same must be true of the campaigns of Quiriniusagainst the Marmaridae and-Garamantes.16 The date of Quirinius'campaigns isnot certain but it could well relate to an action during the Gaetulianrevolt of c. 3 B. C. - A. D. 6, which marked the first major disruption ofRoman hegemony in Africa. The revolt seems to have been in several stagesand involved tribes over a very wide area.17 Some Gaetuli tribes wereapparently placed under the suzerainty of the Roman client king of Mauretania,Juba IL They rebelled from his authority because of his associations withRome and thereby caused a rupture in Rome's hegemonic dominance over othertribes in the periphery. Roman armies sent against them were initiallydefeated and the revolt spread.18 At an early date a Proconsul may havebeen murdered by the Nasamones and Tripolitania was certainly involved inthe troubles. 19 The victories, for which both Passienus and Cossus Lentulus5: 2

-164-won the oxnamenta triumphalis, signal the reassertion. of Roman hegemony overthe closer tribes. 20 An ambiguous passage in Orosius implies that in theaftermath of the war, the lands ofýthe Musulames and certain other Gaetuliwere defined more closely or reduced.21 If the campaign of Quirinius isdated to the early years A. D. it demonstrates Roman concern with re-estab-lishing hegemony over more distant tribes.The work of pacification continued after A. D. 6 and though the pattern ofevents is not at all clear, there may be a connection, with the outbreak of theTacfarinan revolt in A. D. 17ý2 The older views see the causes of the new revoltin connection with Roman expropriation of land and with the alleged, policy offorcing the nomadic tribes back towards the Sahara. An alternativeýviewlinks the outbreak to the construction of a road ex cast(ris) hibernisTacapes, which has been interpreted as an early defended frontier alongwhich northwards transhumance was turned back. 23 The construction of theroad certainly indicates that some, if not all, of the territory of theMusulames and of the Cinithi had been annexed, but it is mistaken to attachtoo much significance to the year A. D. 14 in this context. The annexationmay have taken place as early as A. D. 6 and this could be a possible inter-24pretation of the passages in Orosius. The caput viae was the winter campof-the legion and this has been identified with the site of Ammaedara on thebasis of the. Julio-Claudian military toubstones there. But Ammaedara wasitself within the area of Musulamian territory and as a castra hiberna wasunlikely to be in the "front line"., Roman troops must have been operatingwell to theýsouth and west of Ammaedaza when the road was built in A. D. 14.It is, therefore, highly probablp that the Musulaws and Cinith! tribes hadbeen formally annexed some time previously and possibly as early as A. D. 6in the aftermath of the previous revolt.,, The purpose of the road built by Nonius Asprenas has been muchdebated,particularly in terms of its postible links with the outbreak of5: 2

-165-revolt three years later. The most recent account by Lassare concludesthat it was an early frontier and that its purpose was to control the northto south transhumance routes.26 However, in the context of early Romanstrategy a policed frontier road would be a real anomaly and as I haveargued the presence of the winter quarters of troops at one end of the roadindicates that military occupation had already progressed beyond the zonedefined by it. Lass4re does make the observations, though, that there isno evidence for land confiscation or for establishing colonies or estatesin the vicinity of the road at this early date. Nor could the route havebeen used for bringing in reinforcements by sea. The harbour at Tacapaeis no closer to Ammaedara than that of Carthage and a good deal moredangerous to use on account of the Syrtic shallows.27There is an important piece of supplementary evidence which Lassareunfortunately missed. The earliest evidence for the coast road leadingeastwards from Tacapae is now also dateable to c. A. D. 14 and there was,therefore, a complete road link between the Emporia and the headquarters ofthe Legio 111 Augusta. 28 This road was not a frontier; it was not garrisonedin detail or patrolled. It is argued below that the military deployment atthis time was in terms of large battle groups of mixed auxiliary and legionarytroops. There is evidence to suggest that the fortress at Ammaedara, althoughthe headquarters of the legion, was not built to full legionary size and thatthe early deployment was in several distinct "vexillation fortresses" (seebelow 5: 4). The best parallels are to be found in the relationship of theFosse Way to the early legionary bases in Britain. 29 The role of the roadwas simply to provide a strategic link between separate battle groups inorder to permit rapid redeployment.Following the postulated annexation of the Musulames and Cinithi inA. D. 6, pacification had evidently advanced some way if the winter quarterswere brought forward into the region. Tacfarinas himself served for a whilewith distinction in the auxiliaries.30 The real reason for the revolt lay5: 2

-166-not in the act of expansion itself, then, but in the events of thesubsequent pacification period. One would like to know why Tacfarinasdeserted from the auxilia; was ii-a personal grievance or because of some-thing that was happening to his people? 31 The fact that the Cinithi joinedthe revolt from the start suggests that the peaceful incorporation of boththese tribes'had been bungled. The most likely issue of contention was thequestion of landownership and land use. 32 Tacfarinas issued a demand forland during the war and in its aftermath a major survey of southern Tunisia33was undertaken by Rome. As conquered tribes they may have been subjectedto an unnecessary level of interference and harassment over traditionalland use arrangements and transhuming patterns.In spite of its "territorial" origins, the revolt came to involve theGaramantes, the Gaetuli of the desert margins and other tribes allied to34 Rome. It took seven years of sometimes bitter fighting and guerillawarfare, before the death of Tacfarinas suddenly ended it. His coalition oftribes went well beyond the normal limits of tribal confederation and the mainreason for the length of the war would appear to have been his personalcharisma or baraka. 35 Both of these factors are characteristic of thepattern o'f native revolt in Africa. 36The early history of Mauretania followed a slightly different pattern.Rome first inherited the client kingdom on the*death of Bocchus in 33 B. C. 9but Augustus reverted to the system of installing a client king in 25 B. C.Juba II, and subsequently his son Ptolemy, ruled with considerable success.But the execution of Ptolemy by Gaius in A. D. 40 ruled out the possibility ofpeacefully annexing the kingdom. The resistance was led by Aedemon, afreedman of Ptolemy, but his revolt was already crushed when Claudius became37Princeps in A. D. 41. I follow Fishwick in viewing the subsequent resumptionof warfare as a separate issue. 38This second phase of warfare involved longrange campaigns by Paulinus and Ceta against the tribes of the Atlas mountainsand the desert fringes well to the south of the t6rritory to be formalised5: 2

-167-39as the two provinces of Tingitana and Caesariensis. In the first warRome secured internal security and her territorial interests; in the secondshe established hegemonic control over the neighbouring tribes. Militaryexcursions, displays of force and occasionally warfare were to be a featureof the relationship between Rome and the Atlas tribes.The two years campaigning of Galba against the Musulames (and others? )in Numidia came a generation after the death of Tacfarinas. The causes*areunknown, but the new generation of fighters who had grown up since the lastpractical demonstration of Roman force may have provoked the new lesson.40The fact that two years fighting were necessary and that Galba was speciallyappointed implies that the revolt again disrupted Roman hegemony as well asherterritory.Apart from wars against the Garamantes and the Nasamones (see below,chapter 6), the Flavian period inaugurated a long period of peace inNumidfalAfrica Proconsularis and this in spite of the fact that this was anintense period of military activity, territorial annexation and the reorgani-41sation of tribes and tribal lands. It is likely that sore importantlessons were learnt from the earlier revolts about the handling of contentiousissues such as land and water rights, taxation and tribute and about theorganisation and management of the tribes (see below 5: 3,5: 5).In the Mauretanian provinces, by contrast, there were still sporadicouthreaks of revolt. An analysis of the evidence for rebellion down tothe A. D. 240's is important, since it is on this record that the turbulenceof the African provinces has often been assessed. There are few sourcereferences (none detailed) but on the basis of epigraphic evidence and abit of imagination a large catalogue of revolts can be drawn up. 42Nobody can deny the existence of some major disturbances, but I wouldquestion whether the evidence is really adequate for us to assess in everycase, the nature of the problem, the severity and the duration of theroposed revolts.:2

-168-Some of the evidence adduced as proof is decidedly anbiguous. Let ustake for example the variable titulature of the governors of the twoMauretanian provinces (Table 5: D).Table 5: D Departures from the normal titulature of the procuratorialgovernors of Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana(e. g. Procurator Aug. Mauretaniae Caesariensis (or Tingitanae)Title and name Date Reference Known reason1. Procurator pro legatoM. Fadius Celer Flavianus Maximus A. D. 44 AE 1924,66 Aftermath of warsP. Besius Betuinianus C. MariusMemmius Sabinus c. 103-117 CIL8.9990 ?C. Iulius Pacatianus c. 198-211 =12.1856 ?C. Iulius Maximus (praeses pr. leg.: c. 221-235 ILM41 War. cf. SHA Sev. A58.4Anonymous it PsAW,, 1945,M. Ulpius Victor c. 238-44 AE1922,57166 itAnonymous_ 241 MEFR1953, ? Revolt andno. 26 its aftermathM. Maturius Victorinus 245 AE1954,1102. Procurator pro legatoprovinc[iar.] Hauretan.Caes. fet Tingit] (? )- T. Flavius Priscus GalloniusFronto Q. Marcius Turbo 118 AE1946,113 Revolt, CF-SHA,LutseeSy^At. - Had. 5,23. Procurator Augusti utrarumqueMauritaniarum Tingitanae etCaesariensisLucceius Albinus 69 Tacitus H. Civil War11.58.1 appointmentCn. Haius Diadumenianus 202 CIL8.9366 ? WarQ. Sallustius Macrininianus c. 198-211 CIL8.9371 74. Legatus Augusti pro praetore(ordinandae) utriusqueMauretaniae AE, 1941,79Sextus Sentius Caecilianus 75 CIL9.4194 ?(Uttedius Honoratus? ) 144 AE 1931,38 75. Wz exercitus Africi etMauretanici ad nationes quaesunt in Mauretania comprim-endasC. Velius Rufusc. 86 ILS 92006. Dux per Africam NumidamMauretaniamqueM. Cornelius Octavianus 254-60 Pavis-d' RevoltEscurac19535: 2

-169-Whilst some of the changes of title (indicating wider powers, commandof legionary troops or governorship of the two provinces combined) can berelated to otherwise attested wars and revolts it is not certain that thisrelationship existed in all the remaining examples. The appointment of SextusSentius Caecilianus as Legatus pro praetore for a coubined Mauretania inA. D. 75 need not indicate a military crisis there. It was an extraordinaryappointment, however, and he seems to have gone there directly from being43Legate of the Third Augusta in Africa. But our knowledge of his activitiesin Africa suggests another purpose for his mission to Mauretania, other thanto put down a revolt. He had aided Rutilius Gallicus in his special appoint-ment to review the African census and they are recorded together on the stonesmarking the resurvey of the fossa Regia. 44 His subsequent mission toMauretania may have been ordered by Vespasian for similar fiscal, rather thanI45military, ends. If. as seems possible, he had legionary troops under hiscommand their presence can be explained in terms of census and land surveyingrequirements. The only Mauretanian inscription which mentions him, however,records that he was co-opted as patron by the colony at Banasa. 46 on theother hand, there are no actual references to warfare at this time andwithout further corroborative evidence the case for a revolt cannot be made.A similar difficulty exists over the cursus honorem of C. Velius Rufuswho was recorded as dux exercitus Afric! et hauretanici ad nationes quaesunt in Mauretania comprimenda. s. This is normally interpreted as indicatinga major revolt in the region c. A. D. 86,47 The wording is ambiguous, however,and since Velius Rufus' military exploits are recorded in some detail inthe inscription the use of the word comprimendas is peculiar. Although thiswas clearly a military appointment, fighting is not necessarily implied andhis task may h-ave involved intimidating those tribes inside the Nauretanianprovinces. If this were a major revolt, it is likely that it would havespread to tribes beyond the provinces in defiance of their allied status.The possibility remains that Velius was also on a diplomatic or fiscal5: 2

-170-mission perhaps delimiting some of the tribal lands within the provincialboundary. 48 The troops under his'command could have fulfilled the doublerole of intimidating the tribes and carrying out the survey. Once again,I do not believe that a major revolt can be argued for with any confidence.Another point to consider is the duration of revolts and wars. In afrontier strategy which relied heavily on deterrence and the maintenanceof treaty relationships with tribes in advance of formalised frontiers, oneshould expect some build up of forces in certain cases before a revolt brokeout. In her relationships with the Atlas tribes, Rome must have been awarethrough pro-Roman intermediaries when trouble threatened* An influx oftroops or increased powers for the governor might even stave off a potentialhegemonicrevolt.49 Even where revolts took place, the process of buildingup forces, fighting, winding-up operations and reprisals might be spreadover several years but the period of real danger to Rome might be limited toa few weeksonly.50 The wars in Mauretania under Septimius Severus, SeverusAlexander and Gordian are of unknown severity and duration. The erection ofa triumphal monument by Severus at BOu Hellou in the Taza g, ap . shows thatthesecurity of the occasional land route between the two provinces may have beenone of the issues then. 51 But the higher powers given to a number of governorsat these periods need not indicate that these revolts were of long duration.The completion of pacification, the restructuring of Roman hegemonical controland reprisal campaigns against a defeated enemy would continue long after aninitialvictory.It is strange that there is no evidence for the use of higher titulatureduring the great Moorish revolt in the reign of Antoninus Pius (with thepossible exception of Uttedius Honoratus whose precise title is unknown), 5ZThe exact dating of this revolt is uncertain ' but the often quoted inscriP7tion to Sulpicius Felix at Sala may be misleading with respect to itsstart. The erection of walls to protect the town of Sala, the prevention5: 2

-171-of raiding and the detailed patrolling by the ala 11 Syrorum are notactivities that an auxiliary unit would have undertaken if a major revolt hadalready broken out. What is described in the inscription is a meritoriousexample of the local policing work of a permanent garrison.53 The broaddate-range normally quoted for the revolt (A. D. 144-52) probably masks apreliminary period of increasing agitation, followed by a large scale revolt,followed by sporadic cleaning-up operations. The evidence of reinforcementssent from other provinces is not detailed enough to establish chronologicalcontrols,54 but it is unlikely that even the period A. D. 145-50 was one ofcontinuous and intense warfare.55The construction of town walls is often assumed to, have been associatedwith outbreaks of violence or a feeling of chronic insecurity on the part ofthe townspeople. The erection of walls at Tipasa, Rapidum, volubulis and Sala,in particular, has been linked to periods of revolt, but in no case is theconnection cle4rcuO6 Civic-pride and prosperity equally were strong motiva-tions and there is an obvious danger in using the fact that walls were built-57as evidence for revolt. If some of the more dubious evidence is discountedfrom the catalogue of wars, it is-evident that Roman deterrence, was reasonablysuccessful up to the early third century. Whilst Numidia was much more quicklypacified and more thoroughly Romanised, the mountainous regions of Mauretania(and beyond its southern borders) required periodic displays of force as wellas active diplomacy to maintain Roman hegemony. The Rif, the High Atlas andthe Great Kabylie in particular, remained areas of strong tribal societiesand here Romanisation was, at best, superficial. The lack of evidence ofpermanent garrisons in these regions, however, does not indicate a lack ofconcern on the part of Rome. These areas were not left as unsubdued mountainenclaves58; they-were controlled by deterrence, diplomacy and manoeuvresor campaigns. Revolts could disrupt Roman hegemonic control, but theserevolts were caused by the periodic breakdown of diplomacy and deterrence;they were not the result of a continuous antipathy. An arbitrary or rapacious5: 2

-172-action by Rome Or a shift in the tribal balance-of -power could result in thetemporary dominance of an anti-Roman faction. 59 What is certain is thatRoman campaigning and field'manoeuvres' extended into these 'regions, even inpeace time. Both Pliny and Dio referred to Roman troops operating as farsouth as the High Atlas'. 60 This need not have entailed'actual warfare, ýinmany cases the-physical presence of troops and the display of force beingenough to maintainthe hegemony,The same conclusibns can be drawn about Roman campaigns into theSaharan Atlas from Numidia. The establishment of a fort at Medjedel in A. D.149 cannot-have been' an isolated act, although it is the first proof of Romaninvolvement in the region.61 The well known inscription from Agueneb recordsa campaign'in A. D. 174, which extended at least 480 km southwest of Lambaesis.62In another campaign in A. D. 198, the expeditionary'force established a chain63of forts and fortlets. This last action involved the annexation of theregion, -but clearly Rome had tried to dominate it hegemonically for some timiebefore. 64 The Severan advance of the frontiers here and in Mauretania Caesar-iensis and Tripolitania was not, stricto sensu, the conquest of new territorysince these regions had previously been controlled hegemonically. The forwardmovements of the garrisons earned Severus the title Propagator imperii, but ina sense the new frontiers were designed to control known tribes better, 65The Zate Roman veriodFor a variety of reasons, the Late Roman empire was a period of relativedecline in Africa, though the effects were not everywhere the same. 66 Inthe Mauretanian provinces there were repeated failures of Roman hegemonyduring the third century leading to tribal revolts, though it is impossibleto judge how serious some of the outbreaks of violence'were.67 It is not myintention to give a detailed analysis of these revolts, but there are someindications that the theatre of warfare was changing. There are no certainreferences to long distance campaigning and some inscriptions show thatwarfare was taking place well inside the Severan frontiers , 68 The principal5: 2

-173-of hegemonic control well beyond the frontiers seems to have been graduallyabandoned and warfare became almost entirely defensive in nature.There were far-reaching changes in the structure and character of thearmy, the full inplications of which are beyond the scope of this thesis.Although the fourth century field army in Africa may have been about-thesame size as that of the second century, its reputation was much lower. 69From the late third century the African army had a dismal service record inspite of the early fourth century re-organisation of field forces. In the290's, Maximian was obliged to go to Africa with a large expeditionary forceto deal with a series of revolts spread acrossthe Maghreb. Following thefirst raid by the Austuriani against repcis in A. D. 363, the Comes Africa,,Romanus,. was criminally culpable in that he failed to launch an offensiveagainst the tribe. Nor did he provide any form of defence for Tripolitaniaagainst further raids.71 The revolt of Firuius in the 370's required thedispatch of Count Theodosius to Africa, again with substantial reinforcements.72When Gildo, the brother of Firmus, became Comes Africae and rebelled in 397,73his army was defeated by a small expedition sent from Rome. Finally, whenBoniface the Comes quarrelled with Galla Placidia in A. D. 429 he called on theVandals in Spain to support him against invasion from Italy. When he latertried to atone for his mistake, he was comprehensively defeated by Gaisericand Roman rule was effectively ended. 74This catalogue of disasters and near disasters can only have harmedRoman hegemony. The Laguatan (Austuriani) demonstrated that deterrence in75Cyrenaica and Tripolitania was an empty threat. only occasionallyinthisperiod is there any evidence that the war was actually carried to the barbar-ians, as Theodosius did in Mauretania in the 370's* Once Rome failed todemonstrate her will to enforce her hegemony, the style of her warfarebecame far more defensive. The down-grading and regionalisation of theborder troops disqualified-them. from the longer range and intimidatorycampaigning of the earlier period, and for the first time the frontiers really5: 2

-174-did come to demarcate the limits of Roman military activity. Diplomacy, mayhave still continued to work, but the emphasis shifted to buying peace. Theprocess of decline was accelerated by the growth of larger, tribal confedera-tions (or supertribes) such as the Quinquegentanei and Laguatan and by theestablishment of strong berber kingships in the peripheral regions.76Perhaps this paints an over-gloomy picture of the late Roman frontiers.77There were still long periods of peace and local policing and the maintenanceof the linear barriers (fossata) continued into the fifth century.78 But thesacking of cities in revolts and civil wars, the occasional ravaging of agri-cultural lands and the widening gulf between the frontier regions and centralgovernment will have sapped confidence. In the last years, the field armywas, alternately used to safeguard Rome's grain supply or to protect renegadeCounts who were, trying to withhold the supply. The widerýstrategic aims ofhegemonic domination and territorial defence were no longer attainable giventhe tactical plan adopted.The record of known. wars is full of lacunae and epigraphic discoverieswill no doubt continue to supplement the meagre evidence.79-Butitisnecessary to distinguish between different types of war, between rebellionand brigandage" and between campaigning and policing.81 In a highlyconceptualised (and perhaps overgeneralised) format, the changing patternof warfare and revolt can be sunmarised in the following way :EarlZ PrincipateEstablishment of hegemony and territory by wars of"Limitless frontiers of conquest. First revolts against both types ofcontrol. Highly mobile mixed battle groupsýinflexible deployment. No fixed frontiers and littledetailed policing.Flavians"Rollingto SeveransfrontieFs"r-Creation and advance of frontiersq start of policingof frontiers. Hegemony exercised well beyondfrontiers. Revolts mainly against Roman hegemonyor resistance to incorporation within province.Dealt with by regrouped garrison to serve as fieldarmy.Late PrincipateTrd's--sif r--r ied f rontiers"Policing work continues but decline of deterrentvalue of field army. Roman hegemony not maintained byforce but by cash subsidies. Secession of many tribesfrom Roman control. Failure to respond to growth ofnew tribal alliances. Field army involved in civil5: 2strifeand defence of core areas only.

lb-175-These strategic adjustments were accompanied by changes in the tacticaldeployment of troops. This is perhaps most clearly illustrated by thechanging form of Roman forts and their disposition (5: 4, below). 82 None ofthese developments was limited entirely to one or other of the Africanprovinces and it is fairly clear that the strategic changes were made on anempire-wide basis and that even in the tactical sphere there are parallelsbetween some of the different provinces. -5: 3' Roman diplomacy-i suasion,, organisationand conciliationThe importance of Roman diplomacy as an element of her frontier policyhas already been made clear. The manner in which Rome dealt with potentialthreats to her domination was, as we have seen, through the exercise ofpower backed up when necessary by force. The implications of Roman diplomacyspread beyond the question of mere suasion and coercion. At its most devel-oped, it entailed a complete system for the management and organisation ofsubject tribes and client tribes, with a scale of penalties and rewards toencourage compliance. Just as most recent colonial governments have soughtto deflect indigenous opposition by incorporating some native chieftainsintotheir schemes for regional government (for example, the Moroccan caids)91the Romans pursued a sophisticated policy towards native elites. Althoughthere were no "Bureaux des Affaires Indiganes" as such, the available evidenceshows that a thought-out "native policy" was developed.2In earlier chapters I have outlined some of the potential problems facedby Rome in Africa. The process of tribal confederation, the cult of theleader, religious affinities and long established land and water rights wereall danger areas. The existence of large tribal centres in the oases andin the Mauretanian mountain regions also posed special problems. Largetribal groupings like the Musulames with major hillfort centres and areasonably close-knit confederated structure were almost bound to resist theRoman advance of arms. Yet as we have seen the historical record shows that5: 2/5: 3

-176-African resistance was remarkably passive. Beyond a few verifiable majorrevolts, the interaction was generally peaceful.When Juba I was defeated at Thapsus, Caesar annexed the Numidianclient kingdom. Whilst I follow Berthier's estimate of the small size ofthe Numidian heartlands, it is only reasonable to assume that the Numidianhegemony was much wider spread and that this too was inherited by Rome. 3When Bocchus of Mauretania bequeathed his kingdom to Rome in 33 B. C., Romewas faced with the necessity of taking on even wider territorial and hegemonicresponsibilities. Perhaps wisely, Augustus handed control of Mauretaniaover to Juba II a few years later - having first founded a handful of colonies.The client relationship between Juba and Rome was extremely successful andit is interesting that he was also given control of some of the Gaetull4tribes previously subordinate to Numidia. Oa a nunber of occasions Juba,and later his son Ptolemy, provided military support for Rome. 5In the act of inheriting Numidian land and hegemony, however, Romewas obliged to start taking an interest in, and interfering with, tribalaffairs. As I have already suggested the military history of the Julio-Claudian period suggests an initial process of establishing and spreadingpolitical dominance, followed by a series of revolts possibly caused byRoman inexperience of or misconceptions about African tribal societies.The first attempt to assimilate the Musulames, the Cinith! and their terri-tory into the province of Africa Nova went seriously wrong. To judge fromthe later history, some important lessons were learned and internal revoltsover taxation or land delimitation seem to have been rare in Numidia.6The question of land delimitation is a vital one, especially in viewof the old theory that Rome dispossessed the tribes of their lands forcingthem to move away into the Saharan oases to the south. 7 Behind this liesa misconception about how much land the Romans actually needed to expropriatefor settlement. The greatest nunber of colonies, established in the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods, were created out of ager publicus or inperial5: 3

-177-_lands which had fallen to Rome with the destruction-of Carth age'-in 146 B. C.'and the seizure of the Numidian royal estates in 46 B. C. 8 Large'Italian-owned estates and private latifundiae were much less co n outside the oldprovince.9 Imperial estates in Numidia and the land assigned to the coloniaefounded there still constituted a substantial hectarage which changed owner-ship. 10 But within the context of the overall reallocation of lands whichtook place, although it is impossible to be certain whether these lands wereconfiscated outright, or passed to Rome following a revolt, it is likely thata peasant substratum remiined-in situ in most cases.Survey and allocation of tribal landsThere is a good deal of evidence to show that tribal lands were physicallydemarcated. The process started with the independent civitates (mostlyLibyphoenician) under Augustus. " The majority of tribal boundary stonescome from the Flavian-Antonine periods12, although the process was stillcontinuing under the Severans. 13 (Table 5E). In a few cases the evidenceis detailed enough to allow substantial reconstruction of the tribal terri-tory to be made, as in the example of the Musulames.14 In spite of theirrecord of resistance, their tribal territory was demilitarised and landsallocated to them under Trajan. Their territory extended from west of2heveste to east of Anm)aedara and as far north as Madauros. Although someof this vast area was taken up by imperial and private estates, and by theter. ritorium of'A=aedara, the Musulaws were clearly not deprived of all thebest land and they shared in the rich economic development of the region.15Some other tribes, such as the Nicivibes and Suburbures were granted terri-tory in more than one area, presumably in recognition of their traditionaltranshumingneeds.16The dates of the delimitations are interesting, as the physicaldemarcation of tribal lands was probably undertaken at the moment of theirdemilitarisationand, therefore, marked a stage in the tribes' satisfactory5: 3

-178-TABIE 5: E Tribýtl delimitation in North Africa, Date Tribes or lands delimited ReferencesA. D. 73-74 Resurvey of Fossa Regia by Rutilius- =8.308,11543,25967,Gallicus and Sentius Caecilianus 23084.A. D. 74 Resurvey of city lands of Lepcis di Vita-Evrard 1979.and Oea by RutiliusGallicus(speciallegate)A. D. 75 Sentius Caecilianus to Mauretania ciL9.4194 As 1941,79.A. D. 75-79 as special legate. Capito leglay 1968,225-28Pomponianus in similar role in Lancel 1955, BerthierAfrica - delimitation of Suburbures 1968.and Nicibes, Vofricenses and AE1942-43,35.Suppenses.A. b. %4-0 Boundary between Muduciuu! and IRT854; Romanelli 1939.zamucii.A. D. 100-03 Delimitation of Musulames (with crL8.10667,16692 - ILS104-05 lands of Madaurenses, Tisibenses 5959 - ILAIg 2939, CIL 8.and imperial estate and estate of 28073a - ILAIg 2828.Valeria Atticilla). xLAig 2978,2988, ILT 1653A. D. 116 Redlimitation of Musulames (with CIL8.28073b - nAlg 2829lands of Madaurenses, Imperial ruig 2989,2939 bis,,estates and territory of CIL 8.23246 - 11451Ammaedara.Trajan Delimitation of Nybgenii (with Trousset 1978; CIL8.Tacapitani and Capsenses? ) 22786m, 22787-22788,IL! r 69-70. CiL 8.22796;iLAf 655; BC771 19069245-47.Boundary stone of Bir Soltane. CIL8.22763 - 1LAf 30.Arzosei and .. maba.. mentionedA. D. 116-117 Suburbures (fines adsignati) rLs 9380-9381.A. D. 128 Boundary fixed between zimizes and CIL8.8369.Igilgilitanos(M. Caes)A. D. 137 Numidae (of Mauretania Caesariensis) . CIL8.8813-8814(fines adsignati)Hadrian Sap(apenses). Boundary stone of ciL8.7090.Hadrian.A. D. 138 Permission for market (nundina crL8.232461,11451.in territory of musulares on Shaw 1981.SaltusBeguensisSeverus Musoni regiani between Thelepte iLAf 102,103.and Cillium (territorymay havebeen definedearlier? )Assignationof pasture and water Leschi 1948; AE 1946,38.rights south of Chott el Hodna.5: 3

-179-progress towards pacification.17 The land survey was also necessary forassessing and fixing the level of tribute payable. It is significant that thefirst major initiatives were made by the Flavian emperors, who conducted amajor recensus of the whole empire. Africa came in for special scrutiny anda number of special legates were appointed. Rutilius Gallicus achieved aImajor increase in the revenues from Africa and shortly afterwards anotherlegate with special powers, Capito Pomponianus commenced the delimitation oftribal lands. 18 I have suggested above (5: 2) that Sextius Sentius Caecilianusmay have been sent as special legate for both Mauretania provinces for similarreasons, rather than because of a military crisis.Later reassessments of land tax would have to take account of the economicdevelopment of tribal lands. Rome may have even given some technical assis-tance to tribes in subdividing their agricultural land. The extensivecenturiated areas or rectilinear irrigation schemes discovered in the frontierzones need not be the work of "Roman colonists".19 The indigenous contribu-tion to the development of the expanding province was extremely significantand was encouraged by Rome, though not always directly. 20Roman supervisionand rewardsIn the political organisation of the tribes she conquered, Rome drew adistinction between those whose territory was occupied and those who becamehegemonic allies. The former, after a period of pacification under militarycontrol, were generally organised into civitates.21 These were partly self-governing communities and often the civitas capital of the tribe achievedhigher urban status at a later date. 22 The processes which decided therate of development and the degree of Romanisation are little understood,but a good deal probably depended on native initiative and enthusiasm. Romeprovided the blueprint for development and the initial direction of localenergies. In Roman Britain many towns developed from the civil settlementsoutside forts, with a superimposition of administrative functions when the5: 3

-180-garrison was withdrawn. Another method used to encourage town life was thefounding of colonies of army veterans to provide models for development. 23In Africa the organisation and supervision of tribes whose lands wereoccupied were entrusted to praefecti gentium. There have been a number ofrecent studies of this office.24 The praefectl are first attested in thelater first century A. D. and were appointed over one or more tribes.25Initially the office features among the military commands of the holders'cursus honorem and one can infer that serving auxiliary officers were onoccasion given responsibility for overseeing tribal affairs in their locality.When a region became fully demilitarised, the office was granted to men ofequestrian status in procuratorial service and later still to native Africans-and even to town councillors in the civitas capital (as in the case ofRactar).26The functions of the praefecti are tmclear and may have altered in linewith the transitions from military to civil to local control. In one inscrip-tion the praef. gentis Nuzrdda(rum) was linked to the office of dilectator[tirlonum ex Numidia lecto[r). 27 Recruiting for the army from the subjecttribes is, therefore, one probable function. Assessing and levying tribute,establishing a link between Roman ind native administrations and acting insome judicial capacity are other possibilities. Similarly they may havefostered the political, economic and urban development of the tribe.28Native Africans (though not necessarily from the tribe in question) weresometimes appointed as praefecti from the reign of Trajan onwards, perhapsfor their greater understanding and experience of indigenous, affairs.29Leveau interprets the development of the praefecti from military to civilofficers as representing stages in the pacification of tribes and the advanceof the frontier as further tribes were absorbed. 30In the later empire, the title of tribal praefectus survived mainly inareas- of continued or renewed tribalism. In urban civitates, the tribalstructure had been largely superseded by Roman-style municipal officers.5: 3

-181-But in the areas where tribal structure remained strong, the title ofpraefectus seems to have, become a sort of conferred chieftainship and tohave rivalled the traditional power ofýnative principes.31 The praefectipresumably acknowledged Roman authority and promised to regulate theaffairs of their tribes in favour of Roman interests. In return theyreceived, the prestige of Roman titles, support and perhaps even a sinecure.32Treatment of tribes under Roman hegemony was similar in this respect.Military comanders and governors may have been responsible for tribes beyondas well as inside the frontiers. 33-Initiatives were certainly made tosecure the support of elements of the tribal elites. The collaboration ofpro-Roman elites made direct intervention in the tribal politics of hegemonicI allies avoidable. The well known series of altars recording peace treatiesbetween the governors of Mauretania Tingitana and the, Baquates, Macennitesand Bavares tribes represents only the tip of the iceberg of Roman diplomaticactivity.34 Rachet argued that these altars were erected to mark the con-35clusion of peace at the end of periods of revolt. On the contrary,though, they seem to have been erected on the election of each new princepsof the Baquatian confederation and indicate reaffirmations of a long term36peace-treaty between Rome and the, tribe. At least one princeps, AureliusCanartha, had the active backing of Rome and his name indicates that Romancitizenship was one of the incentives offered to the tribal elite for theircooperation. It is possible that subsidies were also paid and that technical37aid was sent to the tribe, Some direct intervention may have been necessary,but in general the policy seems to have guaranteed long periods of peace. 38The Bavares and the Macennites are mentioned once each in confederationwith the Baquates and one should-not assume that they were otherwise leftoutside the scope of Roman diplomatic control.39 Treaty relationships wererarely so extravagantly advertised as at Volubilis, but the wide extentof Rome's hegemonic dominance should not be doubted.Some of the tribalhillfort centres in remote areas of Morocco and Algeria display a level of5: 3

-182-architectural pretension that probably indicates the presence of skilledmasons as part of treaty relationships.40 The political control of hegemonicallies, pacati- and foederati, was achieved therefore by deterrence, treatyrelationships and material benefits offered to the tribal elites. Romanisa-tion of such areas was extremely superficial and there was normally no attemptto encourage urban development beyond the frontier.The controversial issue of whether there was a permanent land linkbetween Mauretania Caesariensis and Tingitana has its answer in hegemoniccontrol.41 The route-through the Taza gap,, linking Volubills and NumerusSy. rorum (Marnia), was feasible as long as treaty relationships were maintainedwith the Baquates and the Bavaresý2 As Rebuffat has observed, the territoriallimits which are implied by the known garrison deployments bore little rela-tion to the area over which Rome actually exercised political and militaryauthority.43Roman citizenship was one of the main incentives offered as a rewardto native elites both within and outside the territorial empire. All theevidence shows that its prestige value was maintained at a high level by44the rarity with which it was granted to individuals* The couplex processesbehind such grants are revealed in the Tabula Banasitana, which also makesclear that its social status value was of wre significance than anyfinancial or legal distinctions. 45 In a recent article, Sherwin-White hassuggested that-the deditici mentioned in the constitutio, Antoniniana mayhave included the tribes of the frontier zones. The deditici were specifi-cally excluded from Caracalla's massive extension-of the Roman citizenshipandýthis would have conforred well to'the need to maintain the prestigevalue of citizenship in these areas.46When Theodosius campaigned againstFirmus and other chieftains in the frontier region of Mauretania Caesariensisin the A. D. 370's, few of them bore Roman names.47In the late Roman empire, although diplomatic activity, continued,-theemphasis seems to have shifted from securing control over a wide area beyond5: 3

-183-the frontiers to maintenance of the frontier itself. The tribes mentionedby Ammianus in connection with the revolt of Firmus were almost all locatedvery close to towns and forts (that is, within the provinces of Caesariensisand Sitifensis). 48 Saint Augustine did refer to some tribes beyond thefrontiers accepting Roman prefects in place of their kings and adoptingChristianity as part of treaty agreementsý9 But these were described asfew (paucl) in comparison with the many tribes (Innumerabiles gentes) whowere activelyhostilePThe changing relationship is evident in the case of theBaquates, whoin the two last attested colloquia with Rome were represented by kings inplace of the principes of earlier peace treaties. There is no evidence thatthese treaties were continued in the same way beyond A. D. 280 and theinauguration of the monarchy suggests that the confederation was increasinglyindependent of Rome. 51 Instead Rome seems to have concentrated more and moreon conciliating tribes within the frontiers. In some areas there was a sig-nificant shift towards a retribalisation of the frontier zones and this wasactually accentuated by official policy. Tribes were recruited for borderdefence in return for the use of frontier lands for agriculture and pasture.52Native chieftains were recruited as officers and commanders of frontier sectors.These men may have been given Roman titles such as praepositus, praefectusor tribunus, but they were (or became) semi-independent warlords.53 Theparallels are particularly strong, as we shall see, between MauretaniaCaesariensis (and Sitifensis) and Tripolitania. 54 Whilst they could berelied upon to maintain transborder police and customs control in protectionof their own lands, they were ineffective against large-scale invasion. 55The diplomacy was rarely backed up by a credible deterrent and in the eventof a revolt the loyalty of the border regions was often doubtful. 56In the Byzantine period the practice of frontier diplomacy echoed thatof the late Roman period. Tribal chieftains sought and obtained peacetreaties, Roman titles and the "traditional synbols of office. " Some tribes5: 3

-184-fought alongside the Byzantine troops in return for their subsidies, otherssimply agreed not to raid or invade her territory. 57 Loyalty to Rome,however, was more often paid for in cash or in kind,than induced throughmilitary power. The crucial difference between the Antonine and the LateRoman diplomatic strategy was that it had changed from being an offensivealliance to being a defensive one. Rome, the Vandals and Byzantium wereconfronted with increasingly large tribal confederations and kingdoms as aconsequence,5: 4 The militarg garrison -* patterns of deployventSome caution is necessary when assessing the evidence for the deploy-ment of military force in the African provinces. Knowledge of militaryunits and their movements is restricted on the whole to epigraphic sourcesand the corpus of such material is far from complete. Few fort sites havebeen excavated and only two of those to modem standards.1 The importanceof the discoveries made at the few excavated sites merely underlines theprobable extent of our ignorance. In extrapolating a view of frontierdevelopment from the limited evidence alone, there is a danger that distor-tions will be introduced through underestimation. In 1913, for instance,Cagnat knew of only two alae and three cohortes of the garrison of MauretaniaTingitanao'z Further discoveries have demanded many revisions to his suggestedframework; Roxan was able to list six alae and sixteen cohortes in 1973.3Nor is this the end of it, for as Roxan observed, of the fourteen or fifteenunits present in the Hadrianic period relatively few can be assigned tospecific fort sites with certainty. Moreover there are only fifteen knownfort sites in the region (mostly discovered in the 1950's and 1960's4) andmany of these are of very small size or of late Roman type. Perhaps as manyas half the Hadrianic fort sites for that area are still unlocated.5 ForHau. retania Tingitana and Caesariensis we at least have the "control" of5: 3/5: 4

-185-knowing the size of the garrison from discharge diplomas, unlike Numidiawhere the evidence of diplomas is missing and the most important document,Hadrian's adlocutio at Lanbaesis is incomplete in the section listing militaryunits.6 It is unrealistic to assume that we have a complete knowledge ofeither the units in garrison or of their deployment (Fig. 16).The problems are greatest for the Julio-Claudian period. The nature ofRoman fortifications during this period (temporary summer and winter camps)has not lent itself to their long-term. preservation. Military inscriptionsof first century date have been much less co nly found than those of laterperiods. But I think we can advance even on the limited evidence available.The road built by Nonius Asprenas ex cast(ris) hibexnis Tacapes, as we haveseen, connected the headquarters of the Third Augusta legion with the7Emporia. It was not a frontier in the later sense of the word. In theAugustan period there was no intention of using this sort of road as a8patrolled frontier line. The fact that Ammaedara was described as a wintercamp shows that sumner time manoeuvres were already taking place south andwest of this road. For a number of reasons'it can be suggested that at thistime the legion and its auxiliaries were brigaded in several mixed battlegroups rather than as individual cohorts, alae and the-full legion all inseparate camps. It is implausible that, with such a large'area to establishcontrol of, the Leglo XXX Augusta should at this early date have beenconcentrated at a single base. The use of half-legionary size fortifications(the so-called "vexillation fortresses") is well attested in the first centuryA. D. in Britain and Germany. 9 We shall see in a moment that there is literaryIevidence for this sort of tactical deployment in Africa.Further archaeological evidence for military activity in the Julio-Claudian period has not been searched for since the recognition thatAnunaedara was a major military site, despite the fact that Annaedara startedlife as a hiberna and there must also have been sumrnPr bases. But the sizeand exact location of the site at Ammaedara has never been properly defined.5: 4

-186-Ground observation and scrutiny of published plans suggest that the fortressis unlikely to have been a full-sized legionary establishment.10 Theprominent plateau in the centre of the site, the presence of the wadi andsubsidiary water course, and the intersection of the two main roads, allcombine to give a fair idea of the probable size of the military site. Mycalcul ations suggest a fortress no larger than 25 acres (10 ha). 11 Althoughit was probably the legionary headquarters, Ammaedara was clearly not theonly legionary base in the Julio-Claudian period.12This assertion can be supported by the literary evidence concerningthe Tacfarinan war. When the revolt broke out, Furius Camillus had toreunite his forces before leading them into battle. 13 Later the army wasrepeatedly subdivided to counter the guerilla w arfare of Tacfarinas; acohort was defeated by the river Pagyda14, a vexillum of 500 veterans won avictory at Thala. 15 The Legio XX Hispana was sent to Africa during thegovernorship of Iunius Blaesus and he divided his forces into three offensivecolums.16 He also continued to campaign into winter, rather than withdrawingto winter quarters and experimented with even smaller detachments usingexperienced centurions as leaders. 17 The final campaign of the war involveda four-way split of the army (now reduced to one legion again) and the lastbattle was won by auxiliary cavalry and light armed infantry in a surpriseattack.18Flexibilitywould seem to have been the key factor in Rome's even-tual success and their rapidly changing deployrents were as important inpeace-time for the maintenance of a widely-spread hegemony.To return now to the question of the strategic road built in A. D. 14.Although there is no evidence that it was ever used as a patrolled line, itconnects several key strategic positions on lines of advance which Rome mayhave wished to utilize for purposes of intimidation or warfare. Ammaedaraitself controls one approach into the Aures, Thelepte another, Capsa andTacapae are nodal positions in the network of the pre-desert routes and thelands of the Emporia by their very isolation were vulnerable to Garamantian5: 4

-187-attacks. ' In a rapidly changing strategic situation, the existence of a roadproviding a well-defined link between distinct battle groups, was an importantdevelopment. Perhaps the best parallel'is to be found in Roman Britain. Thelong held contention that the Fosse Way was an early, formalised frontier hasbeen effectively ruled out by the recognition and discovery of further earlylegionary sites (and notably "vexillation fortresses"). '19 The'Se do'not assuch relate to the northeast - southwest'alignment of Fosse, but to perpendi-cular advances and withdrawals of separate battle groups: one operating upthe east coast, another into Devon and Cornwall, another into South Walesand another into Central and North Wales from the Midlands. 20 A more credibleexplanation of, the Fosse Way is that it was first surveyed as a strategiclink road between these battle groups. ýThe same explanation would seem to bewell suited to the African situation, though the other "vexillation fortressesilare stillto seek.The early development of the Mauretanian provinces suggest asimilar concern for brigading the troops in a few large concentrations. Mostof the earliest inscriptions come from Cherchel (rol-Caesarea) and Tangier(Tingi), the provincial capitals, plus a few locations in the Chelif valley.21Logically, Volubilis will have had some troop's in its vicinity as well.22There must be temporary camps and summer bases undiscovered in both regions.From the Flavian period onwards there was a reintensification of militaryactivity and an advance of garrison positions down the major routes of pene-tration. 23 The legionary headquarters were moved to Theveste (Tebessa) inc. A. D. 75, possibly built to house the entire legion following the normal24Flavian practice. The construction of a small fort at Larbaesis in A. D. 81by a detachment of the Legio III Augusta need not be interpreted as evidencefor a legionary contingent in garrison. At this date the legions remainedthe constructors of most of the forts for their auxiliaries.25 At any ratea chain of forts was extended from Theveste into the Aures mountainsindicating the territorial absorption of the region.26 The other main area5: 4 -

-188-of concern may have been the region of the Djerid and Nef zaoua oases.27The limited available evidence shows that the deployment was' still alonglines of penetration rather than frontier lines as such.In Mauretania Caesariensis, the first permanent forts were pushed outinto the Chelif valley and in Tingitana some garrison points were establishedon the two main roads of the province linking Tingi to Sala and to volubilis.28There is barely any evidence for Cyrenaica, but at least one fort wasestablished in the first c%entury, at Co=iclanum (Agedabia) on the importantroute south to the oases of Augila.29 The first concern in all these areaswas to secure control of the routes linking hinterland with coast and notto establish demarcated frontier lines.The changing deployment under Trajan and Hadrian introduces for thefirst time the idea of a linear frontier in certain regions. The creationof a road and forts south of the Aures was inaugura ted in A. D. 105 byMinucius Natalis. 30 -The main outlines of this deployment are relativelyclear. Not all forts were placed on the frontier, the legion and some unitsremained on the routes of penetration to the rear and there were a few"outpost"forts.31In Mauretania Caesariensis the line of the Sebkha d'Oran, the Chelifand the Sahel-Sounman valleys were increasingly I used for a lateral deployment32of forts along a road. Two points need stressing: firstlys this was notthe limit of Roman control, which must have been exercised well to the southand west. Secondly, the choice of a lateral line was decided by the nature_of the terrain. When the frontier was advanced under Severus to the via novapraetentura south of the Ouarsenis mountains, it was not a venture into terraincognita but one which, for logistical reasons alone, would have beendifficult at the earlier date, prior to the economic development of theprovince,335: 4

-189-By contrast the garrison of Mauretania Tingitana never seems to havetaken on a linear aspect. This was partly the result of. the peculiar topo-graphy and human geography of the area. The Rif and Atlas mountains borderedthe triangular province on two sides and as a consequence the garrison wasdistributed throughout the region, mainly in relation to the two main'roadaxes.34In all of these examples, however, the systems that developed were theproducts of successive additions. 11ýe detailed infilling of fortlets andtowers was still continuing under Commodus and Caracalla. 35 The most signi-ficant departure came in the reign of Severus who greatly extended theterritorial frontiers in Caesarlensis, and Numidia (including Tripolitania).This entailed massive building schemes to erect new forts, roads and smallerinstallations. 36 The tactical deployment reflected the nature of the terrainin these areas. The Mauretanian redeployment was able to utilize the southernline of the Tlemcen, Ouarsenis and Titteri mountains along which most, butnot all, the units were stationed,37 In the Saharan Atlas, the distributionof forts and fortlets relates to the main lines of approach towards Numidia.38At the same time,, there were still forts in the Aures passes and some of theforts on the old frontier road were probably retained.39 Clearly, there wasno primac-y given to a linearor 11cordon" deployment and the reasons relateto two main factors: the terrain and the pattern of transhumance andtransborder movement. Control of mountainous and pre-desert regions dependsultimately on control of passes, wells and the main approach routes. Thelogistical problems of maintaining a true cordon deployment in these zonesare immense. 40 The main defensive function of, a system of preclusivedefence was fulfilled equally well by a non-linear deployment, providingthat the individual forts were reasonably close to one another and connectedby roads for rapid mobilization.415: 4

-190-Although the frontiers in Africa bear little physical resemblance tothose in Britain or Germany, in that they were not constructed as sharplydefined and heavily garrisoned front lines,. there are nonetheless. strategicand tacticalsimilarities.42- The linear earth-works (fossata and clausurae)43are integrated elements of a network of roads, forts, fortlets and towers.These linear earthworks in North Africa were not, as sometimes assumed,elements of a continuously defined frontier line, But they can be closelyrelated geographically to the major transhuming routes and it is reasonableto infer that their function was connected with the policing of such move-ments in antiquity.44 The small size of the barrier and associated towersand gates emphasize that these were not defensive lines, but points ofcontrol and customs regulation. Dating is difficult and they are not allthe work of one period. The earliest clausura are probably early secondcentury in date45 and some parts of the more substantial fossata wereinaugurated by Hadrian. 46 They continued to be built, elaborated andmaintained from then on until the Vandal conquest and it is even possiblethat the Byzantines considered reactivating some parts of the system. 47As the frontier advanced, some of these linear barriers were left wellinside Roman territory, but they could function in exactly the same way inthat position if it is accepted that their primary duty was to-monitor normaltranshumance and manpower movements in the border region as a whole and notto ward off raiders or invaders.The defence of the frontier zone was provided, by the cohorts and alaein individual permanent forts in the frontier region and by the legion(established in its best known fortress at Lambaesis by A. D. 124 at the latest).Unfortunately, too little is known about too many sites and this situation isall the more frustrating in view of the wealth of material to have come from48the few extensively excavated sites. Our knowledge of the development ofdefences and of the internal layout of Roman forts in Africa is rudimentary5: 4

-191-in consequence. In general though, their development seems to have beenbroadly similar to the rest of the eupire.Another impo rtant development of the second century was theAfricanisa-tion of the armies in the African provinces. From the time of Hadrian, mostIrecruitment for both the legion and the auxiliary units was done in theprovince itself and by the third century, there was a marked Berberisationof the army. 48 In the longer term auxiliary units such as the XVI Corrma-genorumlor I Chalcidenorum care to have no relationship with their area oforigin, and they lost the special fighting qualities of the original units.Apart from differences in training and battlefield discipline there waslittle to distinguish these troops_from the tribes they were designated tocontrol. In time even these distinctions were blurred and the downgradedtroops were less effective than native militia. That, at least, was theopinion of Synesius of Cyrene in the early fifth century when he bemoanedthe cowardly lack of response from the regular troops to invaders. 50Just as the frontier was created over a long period so its decline wasspread over many generations. Somelof the outpost forts in the SaharanAtlas were evidently abandoned prior to the disbandment and damnatio, Yneynoriaeof the Third Legion in A. D. 238.51 But the controversial theory that Romeabandoned the southern region of Mauretania Tingitana, the western part of.Caesariensis and southeast Tripolitania before the end of the third century52is no longer acceptable in the face of better evidence. Courtois had apoint that these areas became less Romanized, but there is precious littleevidence'to show exactly when garrisons were withdrawn from particularforts and in any case, the transfer of a garrison did not necessarily meanthat Roman control was renounced. From the mid to later third centuryonwards the frontier zone was the subject of further fractionalisation intoregional limites under the command of praepositi' limites. 53 The exactdates of the 'entries in the Notitia Dignitatum are debateable, but it is5: 4

-192-clear from the names of the regional sectors that many old forts weremaintained in the new disposition. 54 So were the fossata, and most newforts or quadriburgi were built in relation to them or the existing roadnetwork-55 The initial intention at least would appear to have been themaintenance of the earlier system. -The departure from this intention wasnot a sudden event or due to any single factor. A change in the status ofthe troops stationed on the frontier was occasioned in several stages.Payment in cash was replaced by payment in kind and later service was simplyrewarded by tenure of lands attached to the frontier post. 56 The timing ofthis is uncertain but over a period of, time the remnants of what had oncebeen regular units were downgraded to militia status. By the later fourthand early fifth century, the recruitment en masse of native gentiles forborderdefence was accepted practice.S7 Matthews' analysis of the relation-ship between the revolt of Firmus and the l1res system recorded by the58Notitia is illuminating in this respect. Epigraphic evidence shows thatNubel, father of Firmus, Gildo, Zammac and others, as well as being velutregulus per nationes Nauricas potentissimusS9, was also praepositus equitemarnicerorum iuniores (one of the units in the field army of the Comes .Africae. 60) After his death it was the murder of one of his illegitimatesons Zammac (or Salmaces) which sparked conflict between Firmus and Rome. 61The reasons were made clear by the discovery of the Fundus Petrensis (describedby Ammianus) with its acrostic inscription recording the Praedium Sammacis:Praesidium-aeternae firmat prudentia pacisrem quoque Romanam fida tutat undique dextraarm! praepositum fix7nans zmznimine monteme cuius nomen vocitavit nomine Petramdenique finitimae gentes deponere bellain tua concurrunt cupientes foedera, Sammacut virtus comitata fidem concordet in ozymi62munere Romuleis semper sociata triumphis.The fortified site was expressly built to help preserve the Roman peaceOn the eastern fringes of the Kabylie ranges. In his role of local potentateand intermediary, Saynmac concluded peace treaties on behalf of Rome. If this5: 4

-193-is the clearest example we have of the introduction of tribal politicsinto late Roman frontier defence, it is certainly not the only one. Gildofought with the Romans against, his brother Firmus and when he fell out withthe western empire, another brother, Mascizal, opposed him on behalf ofRome. 63 The account of Firmus' revolt given by Ammianus is filled with thenames of native chiefs, but the action is clearly centred in the old limes64zone. By implication, the murder of Sammac must have led to the defectionfrom Rome not only of the renegade Firmus, but other tribes in the frontierzone and other chiefs associated with frontier defence. Theodosius wasseveral times obliged to storm and capture native fundi in the frontierregion and these can perhaps be identified with the fortified farms of, theregion. 65 The fact that "Roman" security in the region had come. to-rest onthe effort and goodwill of these native "princes"' indicates that the timewas approaching when the incentives ofýremaining inside the empire becameless than the dangers of pulling out. This is perhaps what Firmus wastrying to do, though prematurely as it turned out. Within the final fiftyyears of Roman rule, however, substantial berber kingdoms had developedwithin the former frontier zones, as well as in regions beyond the frontiers.66Even before this time it is justifiable to ask to what extent Rome was handingout empty titles to legitimise the barely controllable power of tribalwarlords in some frontier sectors. The last praepositi, limites in otherwords probably had little to do with Rome or indeed with the origins of thep. raepositus system in the third century A. D. Whilst Rome did not renouncecontrol of these regions, as Courtois suggested she had, it is evident thatthe means of her control changed gradually from a territorial to a hegemonicbasis.-Peace and policing came to be enforced in some areas by local tribalchiefs or magnates, in the name of Rome but often in their own interests.The exact points at which the frontier garrisons changed in status andcharacter probably varied from area to area. Quadriburgi were still being5: 4

-194-built for regular units under the Tetrarchy in certain regions, such asNumidia. 67 'In the fourth century key tactical positions were no doubtmaintained with better quality border troops, 'but the main strategical rolewas played by field arny units well removed from the frontier zone. Onlyincreased knowledge of late Roman fortifications in Africa will help improveour understanding of the transition from the organised army of the earlyfourth century to the tribal clients of the fifth.5: 5 Conclusions and some n7odelsMany of the theories outlined in the previous sections receive supportin recent articles by Rebuffat and Trousset. 1 Their conclusions, which Iwholeheartedly endorse, outline a new framework for analysing the frontiersof Roman Africa. In examining the evidence for these frontiers we must notconcentrate wholly on the history of wars and revolts or on the limitedevidence for deployment and typology of fortifications. These are all rele-vant to the study of the frontiers but the analyses can proceed a littlefurther. The evidence of Roman diplomacy and the exercise of hegemony wellbeyond the garrisoned area reflects a complementary side of Roman strategy(Fig. 16).One of the most important facts to appreciate about the Africanfrontiers is that they were not static creations. The territorial empirewas expanding up to the early third century at least. 2 The first formalisedfrontiers were not created until the late first century A. D. and because ofthe nature 3of the terrain these were mainly non-linear deployments. Thelinear aspect of the frontier of mauretania Caesariensis is a reflectionof the ribbon-like character of the province itself and of the need toreunite troops deployed in different sectors by road to allow for rapidmobilisation. Both there and south of the Aures in Numidia, the frontierroad was not patrolled or observed in detail all along its length. Frontierpolicing in Roman Africa was concentrated on mountain passes, watering5: 4/5: 5

-195-places and traditional transhuming/invasion routes. There were large areasof impenetrable massif and waterless desert which could be almost totallyignored. The placement of forts can, in the majority of cases, be relatedto key strategic locations. 4 In the Julio-Claudian era the troops weredeployed in large, mobile battle groups near the inner termini of the maininvasion routes down which they operated to periodically reinforce Romanhegemony. The change from Flavian times onwards, was that small auxiliaryforts were established at various points down these routes. The firstfrontiers in Roman Africa were, thus, "limites de pen6tration".5 From thetime of Trajan and Hadrian the construction of clausurae and fossata began.These linear earthworks and walls were not designed to form a continuousfrontier barrier, but were utilised rather as points of control across the6main transhumance corridors. Even though the frontiers achieved a linearappearance in certain sectors the policing work of the garrisons wasconcentrated on key points, as, for instance, the region of Volubills orthe triangle of land between the El Kantara pass and the wadi Djedi. 7The distinction which existed between the fines imperli and the limitesis graphically illustrated in Roman Africa. 8 Up until the later third centuryA. D. Rome successfully controlled and manipulated a vast array of tribes throughhegemonic treaties. The expansion of the Numidian frontier in the late firstand early second century A. D. was apparently generally peaceful and thisreflects the success of Roman diplomacy and suasion in preparing the wayfor annexation. It is possible that some tribes may have actively soughtassimilation because of the incentives offered to their elites and theirneed of protection against other tribes. 9 The dynamic combination ofhegemonic and territorial control, backed up by, military force when necessaryvcreated a "rolling" frontier. when active campaigning and manoeuvres beyondthe frontiers were more or less abandoned in the Later Empire, the frontiersbecame static and then gradually contracted.IThe developmental sequence of the frontiers of Numidia and Mauretania5: 5

-196-N 0ý4ß4N4a) m10,Iti Ici' 4j tu 440 ., 4 0 'ä M 4j 4-4041gi 4-1 (U.014 0 0 rA 0 44 0 0 0u4 >m0r0a 4.H v>% 0901 20 rnA r. Q) r.CL) 4) 44 4)., 4 4jc i 0c j A uJ., P-4 -4 "4 u2 gi -4 $4r4(U 0 4j i ei r4 0) -, 4 *ei :J A 4121fi toCo mP»4f0 Co V-4 W (L) Co 4j r.. r4 M wf4ci 0 0 k4- 4 41 29) - 4U rýw i-4 4j > 41 4-4 >xý 1-4?t2. 00f-: gicu ai w 2 :3Dc 0--, 41 m V-4 4j r, t2 $4Uxj.. 4 0 0 r. 0Co.0 r, äur 0 440 U:jý2. a ., 4 0) 002ce4 -ci 2fir. 0 412ce 0tzo 42;. 4Q) 0 u:, 0gj 4) w 0. 4ýJ., c4bi 6 41 a)0) W-4 r4 r-4 Uc:ý40,$. 4-F4CZ r 41 000 0 .93 , 0 :1 , 0.w-r4wc- f -1 0 4. 4cu u 0 41 i4j P-4Mto 0 zu92.u r. 94-4w 01--4r-4 p4 - 0 (1) 01-4 U %-,*0. -, 1 4.. 0tl ý4-rl rd 0 U) 4j r: (L) 0- ci 41tu e 0 ID 0 ICJ =0c: Co ba 4.1b 92U0r4 A Q)wp04j 0 44j mrý 0 9)ec gi cn4j -"4r, bof j:iJ.,0 41fu 00 V»4 44 W P-4 C) -, -1 0 g: cn :jtn CDW 41 4r 0 9-4 u -0 41 410zQ) 0 cn gl. Co> 9 0*-0 A1 -,nmm "',u*"4 9 0 ýI J9W-4U)4 92 44 4) 0 4 cd'F4 c)00 14j > 41414j 0)(L)CL) 0u lý = PQ (L)-r4 gi 0 w 0) . "40f-4 4-4 ce rj V-4. 90 ý-f V -4 0 Z 4)05$. 4444-4 449) P-4E-4 41e000 4)J.,>w41 cu0 w iäb. 4 0r,a:2 00r.tn1 14 40) 4j44 0J.,0$-§ to-, 4*, ,R R U, *ýN 4j > tu >, Q):1 4141 C j2 g) Co -4 -iCo 41qi r., r4tur4tl> Q) a)4j '0 'IJwci0 ß-a0"CJ0)1 :sk0 q) 04-44jce j2 Co 14"Ndg `00 to Ji 'öo41wFiCO>4j., 4cu :i0E-4 4-4 w 0 '-, ý cu 0 COAr,9 ÖO9u 40- m :x e to ' J 4 Q) r.,9v--41--4.4101--4Ici 41g) Aj(L)-, 4to 41 41ed>'ýIß m4,1 r.r4 'KJ 24001000 w(L) tf) 40 0 :j a) 4j V-4 4-4 93,.Ac: 44ý0) 4 ce 0 tice 4-141 r, r. cd J. rn ce41 41 p 4:-,:j 104tu '0 0 -A - r 4 t1 :j0r4 u-4 0 >vi-4 0 W Ir M 1,4 . -1 -0 r4 0 r.r-4 th 00 cn 0) -, e1 Pb%rA 04 0 410rý 10 c2 4) w 4j c) 41 43 >4a) r 0 . %-, 00 4) r li rCe r. 0 p4 CU Q) " tu 0 ce 0 -4 CZ > to Sb bi r 41 w, , 9 3u0 &1 01 , d .tu P-4 0 6 $. 4 9--4 6 tu (L) W0 CL) .,FCO ýw410. ., 4 0C.24jA41 ei0 c) >4405>%1-- 4 0Po &ä tH r4 tl 9: p4 4j H 4) -0-40)1.10. ,.4tu r--1 C, 4 tyl_Tr-4*PIIti (L) -0M 'U r4$. 4e0 u2:i b4 0 41 -? 4 - r . 1-444cd P-4 w Q) 0 0 ur4 Q) C10c: m I e 004 tuZ>0) 41 w Wutz9 P-4 &i-r4 0 0 4j(L)Ici 41 r40 to 41 41 p4 10 93 r..044 ni ul0o-A 0 0 0 u10 41IJtoP-4 ý-1 4j 1 44 -p-4 to 44 0Me 2 4) 10 to Q) 0 0 0 w > 0 (L) OP4r. ci 00 r: 'tu (U M0fýW fA 4) 0cer4 0p4 r4 j210 tu 0g0 0cu r. ., 4 cn rA 0 "4 g: 44 2 > -4 Ce2 0 cu 4j U M f40g 0 Co 1.4Ici 0. -, 4 cu 4>4) 0V-4 0W0 410Z 00 0 < r4 U041 tn wl41 tu , l l''0 44r: 0Ici 41 k44j 4 tu 041 ch 0m 93(L) 2 -"1 P-4 4jbo Q)U) 0 gi 0 Q) 0c3rAcu umce (L) 00 k4 gi:x 41 w 41 44 "4 41 0rýI W 4j 0%4r44) 4j W Co 44 0) tu 1-4 -, 4j;1 E-4 H =1 (5 E -4 AU' gLý0-%ýz"40-%Ntu 44zn 0 410. - 4 u2 W. 4 AZ > to rd < Co 41 .8 0 w" 44 PN4-N0-%rioý%d-.1-%-týLM_o %--%0r-%-10 %_o %_d---i

-197-Caesariensis can be used to illustrate some of the points made above (Table5: F). One important point to note is that, contrary to the views of Courtois,the contraction in the frontiers in the late Empire, was a gradual procedureand the withdrawal of Roman troops from an area did not mean the end ofRoman control.10 Alliances were still maintained, where possible, withtribal groups and, particularly in the frontier regions, loyal tribesmenwere sometimes recruited for border defence in return for land or subsidies.Even in areas where regular forces were maintained, the Berberisation of thearmy meant that the frontier regions became progressively less Romanisedagain.Secondly, the last phase of frontier expansion under Septimius Severusseems to mark a major turning point. The massive redeployment involvedextensive road and fort building along with some campaigning.11 But therewas also restructuring of the garrisons and, because of the limited auxiliaryforces available, in lvuzrddia this involved the outstationing of legionaryvexillations.12 There was a danger that by doing this the efficiency of thelegion as a strategic reserve was seriously diminished over a period of time.The effects may not have been obvious at once, but when the legion wasdisbanded in A. D. 238 a gap was created in Roman strategy. The defence ofthe province was evidently not seriously threatened until the A. D. 250's(when the legion was reformed) but in the interim it seems likely that theuse of offensive diplomacy became much harder. After A. D. 211, then, therewere no more territorial advances and the hegemonic alliances beyond thefrontiers became more difficult to maintain. It is possible that theadditional territory annexed under Severus overstretched the manpowerresources of the armies in Africa to the extent that frontier strategy waslater forced to become more defensive.We have seen already that the Roman army became increasingly involvedin policing activities from the later first century A. D. onwards. This isanother area where =ch more work needs to be done, but the armies in Africa5: 5

-198-were clearly involved with customs work, the control of transhumance andpopulation movements in the border regions, and of policing markets and thefrontierzone in general.13 The need to provide a certain level ofprotection and control within the occupied territories was another factor,therefore, in the distribution of the garrison, in addition to the need forrapid mobilisation in the event of an invasion. The development of astrategy meeting both these requirements by the late first century A. D.has empire-wide applications, as we have seen. Differences in the tacticaldeployment reflect the topography (desert, steppe and mountains in Africa),the nature of the enemy (light-armed and mobile) and the size of the garrison.In a truly linear deployment the African garrison would have had to be spreadvery thinly indeed, and the logical compromise adopted was to concentrateresources on certain key routes and positions.Towards an abstractview of 'the *African 'frontiersOther more abstract approaches are possible. In order to analyse thebalance between hegemonic, and territorial systems of control I have con-structed some diagramatic models (Models 1.2,3 below). These flow diagramsare highly ýchematic and generalised, but they are a valid attempt to con-ceptualise the Roman and native interaction at several stages in thedevelopment of frontier strategy, (see below, pp. 202-204).In Model 1. which relates most closely to policy under Augustus, thesystem adopted is similar for both the area of territorialand for thearea of hegemonic control. Roman expansionism is achieved in both areasby the use of force (rarely at this early date merely by the threat offorce). Although there are no defined frontiers, some tribes are treateddifferently once subdued, with troops being based in their territory andthey are placed under military supervision. Isolated acts of. injustice orreaction to Roman military levies, taxation and interference in traditionalland use can provoke revolt. But at this stage relatively few tribal groups5: 5

-199-became sufficiently pacified and Romanised for their lands to be demilita-rised. Tribes under Roman hegemonic control have treaty terms imposed butparticularly during the early years of alliance there is a high risk ofrevolt. Some attempts are made, therefore, to conciliate native elites.Revolts can be sparked off by the growth of an anti-Roman faction in thetribe, sometimes precipitated by the outbreak of revolt in another tribe.Native resistance, either within the hegemony or to Roman occupation ofterritory, shows a propensity to cause widespread disruption of the system(as in the Gaetulian and Tacfarinan revolts).In Model 2, early second century and later, the chief difference isthatfrontiersnow being defined and high levels of local policing-areintroduced. The army still maintains its earlier capacity for transborderpatrols and campaigns in order to maintain Roman hegemony over neighbouringtribes. The increased Romanisation of tribes, both inside and outside thefrontiers (even though it is superficial), allows for a much more rigorouspolicy aimed at the political and socio-economic developmentof the tribessubdued. The appointment of praefecti to regulate tribal affairs, thedelimitation of lands and the organisation of native civitates are part of,a policy of pacification which seeks and enjoys the support of nativeelites. The exploitation of farmland, the development of towns and municipaloffices were golden opportunities for them to accrue wealth and higher pres-tige. Roman imperialism here plays a major role in the development of someregions and accelerates processes already in train elsewhere. Nonetheless,some. areas (and notably mountainous or desert regions) remain less Romanisedand tribal structures survive. In general terms, the further developmentproceeds, the less chance of revolt later.The hegemonic alliance is maintained by diplomacy, deterrence and anoccasional show of force. There is still a danger of anti-Roman factionsseizing power and leading a tribal confederation to rebel from Romanauthority. Other threats to the peace are a Roman breach of her agreementso,5: 5

-200-or her attempted annexation of tribal allies (though this can be acceptedpeacefully in certain circinn tances), or as a result of clashes in theborder region over controls on transhumance, assembly and so on. There isstill a high possibility of a territorial revolt spreading to the hegemon-ically controlled, tribes or, vice versa.Model 3 deals with the changing pattern of late Roman control. Whereaspreviously Roman defeats had never resulted in. more than the temporary lossof hegemonic control or territory, now the losses can be permanent. Insome cases the tribal defections are not even opposed by force. Nor isthere any further expansionism on the part of Rome, whilst the growth ofnew tribal confederations and kingdoms can destabilise sectors of the frontier.Control of the old hegemonic empire is now much weaker and less extensive;the rewards, for loyalty are in some cases equivalent to straight cashsubsidies.Within the defined frontiers there is a gradual decline in efficiencyand status of the border troops., (The creation of field army units early inthe fourth century should have provided an adequate deterrent, but its effectwas weakened by the virtual isolation of some frontier sectors and by theunwillingness of the Comes on several occasions to commit his forces indefence of the frontiers). The model deals mainly with the frontier zoneitself, where the progressive removal or downgrading of troops necessitatesthe recruitment of tribal groups in these regions. Some of these groupsbecome semi-autonomous, although still carrying out policing activities andconcluding treaties with other tribes in the name of Rome. Eventuallysections of the frontier return to a sort of hegemonic status with thechiefdoms. and kingdoms merely guaranteeing the security of the core agri-cultural regions of the Roman provinces. Some tribal groups actuallybreak away entirely from Roman authority without provoking a response (thoughthis was not so in the well documented case of Firnus).5: 5

-201-In these last phases of Roman Africa, cheaper,. means of control thanmaintaining standing armies were resorted to. As a frontier system thisreturn to hegemonic alliances seems a debased and crude variation of theearlier strategies. Yet although the main agricultural areas were eventuallyaffected, 'one cannot judge the late Roman frontier system entirely as afailure. Even in the early fifth century Africa remained one of the mostprosperous and peaceful regions in the Roman Empire, though there had beena relative decline in the value of that wealth. The weakness of Romanpower, force and strategy was partly brought about by the tribulations ofthe rest of the empire and the increasing unavailability of resources. Itwas the failure of the central authority to maintain an adequate input intoIthe frontiers which eventually caused their breakdown.Although these models have been construed mainly with relevance to theNorth African provinces, they also have a more general application to otherRoman frontiers. I have resisted the temptation to use them in a truly"predictive" sense in the following sections, MY intention being rather toprovide a graphic and simplified explanation of the conceptual frameworkwhich is fundamental to my analysis of the Tripol itanian frontier. Thesimilar format of Chapter 6 should allow easy cross-reference to be madewith the comparative data assembled in this Chapter.5: 5

-2o2- MODEL 1040Z44mE2 ýHrn.4RC 0H t; Z E-4F-40!ýZ.-< Zrz 4 u8P2 2 9414 cxýrjr400z0E-4 Zu P-4z0NC.,-4z-4oz NE4p-4c4z2cn25NO DEFINEDFRONTIERS0z5!zu>71o>z00En oE-4 4: 4ZZ0i F! RPC%P0Z t-40E Z E-4 = E-4 0N0U zwLojt4'4Eq404El gIzE-4 1-4 W0 C4 w0 pq1-4 0k C- E-4 1-48m ýE-4 0E-4uOFrmu E-40S2ý1>E-4z1-4 P4 H P4>z1-4

-203- MODEL 2E-4 pq0-4 ý--l -0 cn> 0wz -1>1-4 0cn 04 C) P0 FQ ý1: zF-4 0zU'o1-4ýE.>-Io&-V45c!ýH44zzoE-4 E-444cl. Nr 00ig 0940N 101: ý(P404aIzvaP400 P404"A>4 P429r,P. W444IF1-41-4 H04 NE-4 wwZ 94(n FX4fý14iý Z0E-4 44HH0 cn! ý w/rT4 ;Q 0-4-,,,E-4oEAP4E-4 I,cE5 UlEEVC:3nPd-4 Pz0E-411 ý80W--j D09: 1w E-1-3ý! x54.W E-4zE-4 zzP-4 1-4zZE-4 0ZEn>i4zw440'IleE-4z 004-40400E-4I NIýIMUR! Eý114 c?>UOZM2=PwzwuQ6,N>t. IZ4P-4 H0I-rz:PQ 1-40H0Er-Ir-ý upWPý 040 uW'A ýi of-4%-ýP E.. 4 r-I 00 P-IuEn 043 N04 wWWP4E-1 E-4 0-4E-4amIoUIZ404Cz,C) w E-4 z0upzzw !2 ")C44 1-4o0C4 PW E-4 94 ZPd P.. o rA E-4 C,441-4zE-4 H>

-2o4- MODEL 3E-40z001.4E--izW pwý!02ME-4 z10PQ z0u2E-4 E-4 0ww 01-4FZ4 W AQ ý1: z0W 1-4 0U1-4zP4U) 0U Nr 0 P4 w-0E-4 2 E-4 : 3:V.zw cz 0 1-4>41-4z ME:121, M ýpV3E-4 z En.4'14F-4 E-4 HE-4 Ppq -R4 1-44400cnUE-4 U E-4E-4E-4>azE-4 0HzE- PH cQ>.. N 2, Pl Z cq NWuIup0P140 ElE-4 E-4 pq 00 P-4 (D04 < Pr4 0U E-4 E-4 >4w Rl 0 P4 0P-4 1.4 W00.4ge. z zo P-4 pq44440HHý0Z0 44E-4 Zu2m60zP4NI0u0 cn ýH0 P4 0PHW1,4ti gN PC' !2ý!8ý0cdCJ L)6ftE-4.0>4pq 0-4 0 E-4rX4 00E-4En(nHofral0 ;Q04 1-4 U00 'Z'ppp ýa E,zzz-4 "M W_4 En P-4 z P-4En -40 mggm ýiPk04 0: 3rn9: 1 P E-4 z40.4 pq 441-4EnO; A 000pq i tA P... N144z,H E-4 IZ ZE-4.zE-4 E, 4z0zEz''oE-4 120w00Z0HrZ4 8 1-4 6 C4 ý E-4ZýPw >814 E4 o ýaq zE-4 Z HwzwI E-4 E-4 -4 P4> 04 E-4 U3 -04> E-4 P4 HP4 rnz1-4 P4 PQ 0 P4 PW Ho :0zP4 914 ALzwý W. ý P-4ý-4 E-4B w0. -- -+i-YlEA RETURNED TOrd0.40wI TERRITORIAL EllPIRE ýEGEMONICCONTROL

-205-CHAPTER 6 TRIPOLITANIAND THE ROMAWARMYwARFARE mDREvoL! rsIn the previous chapter we have examined in detail the evidence forelements of a consistent Roman strategy, notably in the other Africanprovinces with which the history of Tripolitania was to a greater or lesserextent linked. The inductive approach was necessary because of the incomplete-ness of the data from Tripolitania. In describing the information relatingspecifically to Tripolitania I hope to demonstrate that in functional termsthe frontier which developed was formulated within the same overall strategicframework. Broadly speaking, the subsections of this chapter repeat those ofthe previous one to highlight the_comparative nature of the analysis.Gazeteers in the next chapter deal with the archaeological evidence for themain military sites under several broad headings. Because of the lacunosenature of the evidence I have deliberately emphasised functional comparandarather than attempting to point out parallels for the form of the frontier.In any case the form of. the frontier deployment was conditioned not simplyby strategic considerationspbut by the tactical situations created byregional geography and tribal society. In chapters 3 and 41 showed thatRome was confronted in Tripolitania by several large confederations orregional groupings of tribes: Garamantes, Nasamones, macae and Gaetull.The Garamantes were probably the strongest of these super-tribes and wereruled by a king with centralised authority. In the early Principate it islikely that they also maintained an hegemony over some of their northernneighbours, including some of the Gaetull and Macae. Confederation seems tohave been much weaker or more localisedamongst these two groups as one candiscern from the relative independence of some of their tribal sub-groups(Phazanil, Nybgenli, Cinithi and Cinyphi).These tribes utilised two distinct types of tribal centrej, hillfortsand oases. An analysis of potential population densities suggests that theoasis centres posed the greater threat to Roman securityq though hillforts6: 1

-2o6-were potentially a source of policing problems. The existence of majorpopulation centres in the Nefzaoua, at Chadames, in the Giofra and Fezzanoases and further east at Augila required the implementation of controlmeasures both military and diplomatic. The nature of these societies andtheir close associations with the more settled and sedentary areas requiredthat no matter where a frontier line was established political and militarycontrol had to extend well beyond it. The early history of wars andrevolts indicates the establishment and maintenance of a Roman hegemony inthe region. Incidents involving the Garamantesl, the various Gaetullgroupings2, the Masamones and Macae3 attest the high level of militaryactivity in the region. But comparatively little new territory wasactually annexed; the more important aim would seem to have been thedismantling of the Garamantian alliance and the creation of tribal pacat!and foederati from Syrtica, to Fezzan, to Nefzaoua.The social, political and economic development of those tribes andlands which were annexed by Rome depended on this initial act of pacification.There has been a reluctance to admit the rapidity of economic development inTripolitania, but recent new evidence demands a reappraisal.4 The wadis ofthe Sofeggin and Zem-Zem systems were being developed by the later firstcentury A. D. and olive cultivation was established as an important elementin the economy of this marginal zone. S The olive is significant becauseit is a long-term agricultural investment, with no quick return. Its wide-spread introduction in a marginal ecological region in the first and secondcenturies A. D. suggests that there was an expectation that the peacefulconditions then established would last. 6 The agricultural expansion wascarried out by Libyans and Libyphoenicians, but it seems to coincide remar-kably well with Rome's final achievement of hegemonic dominance.6: 1

-207-Roman CampaignsThe evidence relating to Roman campaigning in Tripolitania varies inqualityand quantity.7 There are some battles or wars about which we areIentirely ignorant. 8 The style of warfare was, as far as one can tell,mainly desert campaigning or combatting guerilla tactics. There were fewpitched battles, but perhaps more frequently cavalry skirmishes and sieges.9In the early centuries A. D. Rome could lose a battle, but never a war. 10Later this seems to have been not quite so certain.The first (? ) and most fam us of Rome's hegemonic campaigns in Tripolitaniawas that of L. Cornelius Balbus in 20 B. C. 11 Balbus celebrated a triumph inRome on 27 March 19 B. C., so it is probable that his military activity tookplace during the preceding year.12 The detail of his exploits provided byPliny has fuelled many hypotheses, but there is still little scholarlyagreement.13 It is certain, however, that Balbus himself led a campaignagainst the Phazanil and the Garamantes. He captured the Phazanian centresof Cidamus (Ghadames), Alele and Cilliba before crossing a stretch of desert(the edge of the Hamada el Hamra? ) into Garamantian lands. There he tookthe oppida of Debris (Edri? )- notable for its hot springs -, Theigae andthe capital Garama (Germa/Zinchecra). 14So much is clear from the first part of Pliny's account. But usinganother source, he then listed in detail the places and tribes which Balbusclaimed (in his triunphal procession) to have captured. Some further sitescan be credibly located in Tripolitania and Fezzan, 15 but others almostcertainly relate to the wadi Djedi area of Algeria. 16 Desanges was thefirst to elaborate the hypothesis of a further campaign or campaigns furtherwest. 17 The campaign in Tripolitania, alone (starting at Sabratha and endingat Lepcis) is estimated by Daniels to have lasted at least three months. Thismakes no allowance for a period of preparation or for mopping-up operationsand, therefore, it seems likely that the subsidiary action to the wadi Djediarea was delegated by Balbus to his lieutenants. 18 In any caseit is6: 1

-208-implausible that Balbus would have attempted to take all the forces at hisdisposal on campaign. The'logistics of desert campaigning require a smalland fairly mobile force, so it is unlikely that he took more than a fewthousand men to Fezzan. This would have left ample in reserve in case ofdisaster or for use in other sectors.19 It is doubtful that the Garamanteshad much stomach for pitched battles and the mere fact that Balbus hadsuccessfully penetrated their desert shield may well have demoralised themand fragmentedresistance.From the start Balbus' mission cannot have been aiming at territorialconquest, but, by enforcing Rome's authority, imposing treaties and demon-strating Rome's offensive capabilitiesjBalbus established hegemonicdominance. The Garamantes were clearly considered as part of Rome's imperium20thereafter. The subsidiary action(s) further west implies a concertedeffort by Rome to extend or exert her hegemonic control over other tribesof the desert fringes. It is inappropriate, however, to credit Balbus witha desire to open up the supposed trans-Saharan trade routes.21 Nor is thereany reason to followLhote and extend the scope of the campaign south of theFezzan. 22During the so-called "Gaetulian war" (c. 3 B. C. - A. D. 6)', Tripolitania wasagain the scene of serious fighting. It was suggested above (pp. 163-64)that the causes of this revolt were largely linked to the exercise ofhegemonic control. The tribes involved probably included Gaetuli, Nasamonesand Garamantes. 23 Dio mentioned some Roman defeats and the situation wasserious enough for Augustus to intervene in the appointment of a generalfor the normally senate-controlled province.24Moreoverg Desanges has suggested that a-proconsul was actually murdered by25the Masamones at the height of the crisis. If the ivasamones were indeedinvolved then the disruption of Roman hegemony spanned the entire zonebetween Mauretania and the borders of Cyrenaica. 26 Two factors offer6: 1

-209-independent support for Desanges' theory. Firstly, there is the inscriptionerected to Cossus Lentulus by the civitas Lepcitana recording that he hadliberated the province from the war (bello, Gaetulico, liberata)27,Thepresence of this unique inscription at Lepcis sugges ts that the region hadbeen the scene of serious fighting and had something to be grateful for.The lands of Lepcis are much more vulnerable to attack by tribes from thesouth or east than from the west towards the Lesser Syrtes.The secondpoint concerns the campaign of Quirinius against Marmaridae and Garamanteswhich is mentioned by Florus. in connection with the Gaetulian war, but whichis not securely dated. If as suggested above (pp. 163-64) it relates toa Roman reprisal campaign against the desert tribes c. A. D. 1-5, the term MAzmaridacould be interpreted as a reference to the Nasamones of Augila and there wasa well established route from Augila to Fezzan. 28In the aftermath of this revolt, the territory of some of the tribesclosest to Rome was annexed, at least in part (so for the Musulames andCinithi). Some troops probably remained in the region to act as a deterrentand to see through the pacification. The road link between Ammaedara andthe Empoxia which was marked out in A. D. 14 implies that the region remainedone of the major "fronts" and it is likely that a vexillation of the ThirdLegion was based there in an aestiva and hiberna. Resistance was by no meansquelled as the Tacfarinan revolt was to show. For the Cinithi this was aterritorial revolt, but for most of the other Tripolitania tribes it wasanother opportunity to reject Roman authority.29 The Garamantes, for instance,were certainly involved, 30 When the Legio XX Hispana was sent to Africa asreinforcements, it was posted to Tripolitania in order to prevent raidingaimed against Lepcis (and her territory) in which the Garamantes played arole.31Little else is recorded about the fighting in Tripolitania; it seems to6: 1

-210-have devolved into raiding and guerilla warfare and the most sigaificantvictories'were eventually won elsewhere. Nevertheless, having ended the warin'A. D. 24, Dolabella was honoured by two inscriptions from Tripolitania. 32After the death of Tacfarinas the Garamantes sent peace envoys to Tiberiusand this presumably saw the resumption of Roman hegemony in the region.33The seriousness of the fighting in Tripolitania is shown by the inscriptionsset up in Lepcis eleven years later recording the paving of the streets ofthe town with revenue from lands restored to Lepcis after the war. 34 Thissuggests that in the early stages of the war parts of the town's territoriumhad been overrun.The causes of the revolts were plainly more complex than a simple questionof resistance to Roman expansionism or defections from her hegemony. TheCinithi had renewed their resistance some years after their lands had beenannexed and were evidently joined by many of the other Tripolitanian tribesin following the leadership of Tacfarinas. Whatever the specific causes forcomplaint of Musulames and Cinithi, there must have been other contributoryfactors to account for the more widespread disaffection. One possibility isthe expansion of the territoria of the Libyphoenician Emporia well into theGebel, which must have been encouraged or at leastcondoned by Rome and whichwould have affected the traditional land and pasture rights of many tribes.The recent discovery of Flavian boundary stones has solved the enigma ofthe road built by Aelius Lamia (A. D. 15-17) in mediterraneum m. p. XLITV- 35The forty-fourth mile from Lepcis is coincident with the southwesternlimit of the territorium of Lepcis where it met that of Oea (Fig. 19). Bythis date at the latest then, the Emporia were exploiting enormous areasof the Gebel for agriculture and arboriculture and these lands were recognisedby Row. Some of the Libyan elite shared in the new opportunities and wealth.The Ammonium of Ras el-Haddagia (near Tarhuna) was dedicated during Lamia'sTTproconsulship by tNKSF son of Shasidwasan son of Ivamrar of the sons of Hasinkaw.6: 1

-211-Although the inscription was in Neo-Punic, the names are those of a man36of thoroughly Libyan descent. But not all the Libyans could expect toshare in the advantages of development. The Arab historian Abd el-Hakam,stated that the Libyan peasantry were exploited by the Roman (that is Romano-Libyan)seign*eurial class and other evidence suggests that slave-run estates37were not unco n in the region. It is possible, therefore, that thelands overrun during the Tacfarinan war and later restored to Lepcis may havebeen an important underlying cause of tribal discontent in Tripolitania.A second point concerns the exercise of Roman hegemony and at this stageit was probably concentrated on the problem of dismantling the traditionalalliances and dominance exercised by the major oases based tribes, such asthe Garamantes.'Inspite of the carpaigns of Balbus and Quirinius, theGaramantes continued to flout Roman authority when it suited them, as38Tacitus and Pliny made clear. The long term solution to the problems ofhegemonic control was not achieved until Flavian times. In A. D. 17 the emer-gence of a suitable leader in Tacfarinas was the catalyst which triggeredtribal resistance in a confederation of enormous size.In A. D. 69 when Lepcis and Oea quarrelled over land ownership in the Gebeland then turned to war, Oea as the weaker side called in the Garamantes.Because of the uncertainties of the Civil war the Roman response was slow andLepcis was besieged for several days before the arrival of alae and cohorteswho put the enemy to flight. 39 These troops seems to have arrived ahead ofthe main force under. Valerius Festus and may have been based in westernTripolitaniaor the CapsalTacapae region.40Festus subsequently set out on a raid against the Garamantian heartlandsusing a faster route than previously known (probably the so-called "Centralroad" via Mizda and Gheriat). 41 This was clearly a reprisal attack, designedto prove once again the Roman ability to pierce the desert shield of theGaramantes and to inflict "unacceptable levels of damage" as punishment. 426: 1

-212-However, Festus, may also have been motivatedby a de - sire to impress his newmaster,Vespasian.43The power of the Garamantes seems to have been largely destroyed as aresult of this campaign. Their northern influence, which had put them in aposition to interfere in the affairs of the coastal cities, was broken forever. At least one further military campaign to Fezzan is known about, butthe ultimate objectives lay further south towards Sudan, which implies thatthe Garamantes were no longer the threat they had once been. The date ofthis campaign is uncertain depending on whether one identifies SeptimiusFlaccus with the known legate Suellius Flaccus (see further below), 44Ptolemy, quoting Marinus of Tyre, stated that Flaccus took 30 days to reachGarama with his army and then marched south to the land of the Ethiopians. 45A few years later he was followed on this route by a certain Julius Maternuswho set out from Lepcis and reached Garama in only twenty days. He thenproceeded south in the company of the Gara=ntian king on a journey of fourmonths to the land of Agisymba "where the rhinocerosis to be found. ot46The circumstances of this second expedition have led some commentators toconclude that Maternus was not on a military campaign. There is no mentionof an army with him, nor is his name known in the provincial faSt#'7, -Inall probability Maternus was a negociator and the mention of the rhinocerosmay give a clue as to his mission,47 Desanges has suggested a connectionbetween Maternus' expedition and the first appearance of a rhinocerosbicornis in the arena at Rome and on Domitian's coinage c. A. D. 92.48At all events the expeditions of Festus, Flaccus and Maternus mark adefinite turning point in Roman relations with the Garamantes. There wereno further recorded outbreaks of revolt until the early third century A. D.and we cannot be absolutely certain that the Garamantes were involved then. 49The military activity of Festus and Flaccus heralded a period of peacefulcollaboration and cooperation and made possible the mission of a civilian tothe deep south (see further6: 2 below).6: 1

-213-The exact date of Flaccus' campaign is a complicated issue, bound upwith the scant evidence concerning the Nasamonian revolt of A. D. 85-86.50The Nasamones were in the unique and possibly unfortunate position of havingterritory not only in Africa, but also in Cyrenalca and well to the south inthe desert oases (notably Augila). Normal levels of tribal resistance werethus compounded by the fact that the tribe was divided into three adminis-trative categories by Rome. The revolt was sparked off by the activities ofRoman tax collectors, who were presumably operating along the Syrtic coastwhich had probably already been "provincialised" to create the road link toCyrenalca. The Nasamones of the coastal region were notorious pirates andthe activity of the tax collectors may have been simply a part of a policyaimed at tightening controls over them. Delimitation of lands to provide abasis for the tax assessment was another potentially provocative issue which51may have been at stake. For whatever reason, the tax collectors weremurdered and the revolt spread throughout the Nasamonian confederationgpossibly involving other tribes as well. When the legate Suellius Flaccusarrived to quell the rebellion, probably in A. D. 86, he was surprisinglydefeated in a pitched battle. The Nasamones failed to follow up theirvictory, instead looting the Roman camp. There they found a quantity of foodand wine and celebrated their success until Flaccus returned with his regroupedarmy and massacred the inebriated tribesmen. He clearly went on to exactfurther gruesome reprisals as Domitian was to claim that he had annihilatedthe tribe (though that was an exaggeration).52 In the aftermath of therevolt Flaccus was active in neighbouring Macae territory delimiting sub-tribal lands and this strengthens the suspicion that the revolt had notbeen simply over the question of tax or tribute payments. ' 53As we have noted above a campaign was made by a Septimius Flaccus againstthe Garamantes at about this time and it has been speculated that the twoFlacci were in fact one and the same man. S4 Had there been any Garamantiansupport for the Nasamonian revolt this would obviously have demanded a firm6: 1

-214-response. Alternatively Flaccus may simply have wished to reaffirm Romanhegemonic controlover the Garamantes and to round up the Nasamonian fugitiveswho would have been potential trouble makers. Flaccus had to make somedeviations on his journey south from Lepcis but there is no reference tofighting in Fezzan itself. Since he then proceeded south of Garama for aconsiderable distance it is clear that the Garamantes had been eager toconfirm their treaty and were not considered likely to turn hostile when heextended his lines of communication and retreat.55 In the sequel to this afew years later, Maternus actually joined the Garamantian king who was goingon an expedition against his Ethiopian subjects and thus enjoyed Garamantianprotectioir.56 If Suellius and Septimius are accepted as the same person thenthe following outline chronology, can be proposed:A. D. 69 Garamantes join Oea against zepcis. Defeated by Roman advanceguard.A. D. 70 Campaign of Valerius Festus to Fezzan. Major defeat inflicted onc. A. D. 85-Garamantes and new treaty terms imposed.86 Revolt of the Nasamones. Suellius Flaccus active in Syrtica andTripolitania.A. D. 87 Delimitation of lands of Syrtic tribes and campaign of Flaccus toFezzanand beyond.Between A. D. 88-92 Expedition ''of Maternus.The alternative interpretation that Suellius and Septimius were separatelegates of the Third legion still merits close attention. The campaign ofSeptimius then has to be fitted in to the chronology either before theNasamonian revolt-or into the same short date bracket as that of Maternus(A. D. 88-92). 57 One minor detail which perhaps fa'vours the separate identifica-tion is the origin of the name of the Lepcitanian Septimii who acquiredcitizenship in the late first century A. D. The presencein Lepcis at aboutthe right time of a military governor with this nanp-' is an attractive possi-bility. 58 However, in the absence of independent evidence it is. perhapIsslightly more logical to assume that Ptolemy or a later copyist confused thename and that the Nasamonian and Garamantian campaigns of Flaccus followed onfrom each other and were conducted by the same man. 59'6: 1

-215-During these wars of the first century A. D., Rome had eventuallysucceeded in smashing the power of two of the most powerful tribal confedera-tions. Garamantian hegemony which had once extended well to the north ofFezzan, was henceforth limited to her heartlands alone and tribes like thePhazanil were now separately bound to Rome as hegemonic allies.60 Althoughour knowledge of warfare and revolts in the first century is limited tothese few incidents, there is some evidence that troops were also activein the Djerid and Nefzaoua during the Flavian period.61 These oases are ina key strategic position and Roman control of them seems to have extendedto military occupation. If there was armed resistance, as is likely, weknow nothingof it.Although there are no records of revolts or wars in Tripolitania in thesecond century A. D., it would be unwise to assume that no troops were neededor deployed there. The evidence presented below for diplomatic policy andfor the existence of a garrison in the pre-Severan period will have demandedsome deterrent tactics. Manoeuvres and patrolling-in-force to tribal centreswell beyond provincial territory can be postulated even though detailedevidence is lacking. 62There was certainly renewed trouble in the early part of SeptimiusSeverus' reign. Barbarian tribes were threatening the area:Tripolim.... contusis bellicosissimus gentibus securissimam reddidit...63Tripoli culus Leptl oppido oriebatur, bellicosae gentes submotae procul.ý4The breakdown of Roman diplomatic control of the tribes can perhaps beattributed to the uncertainties aroused by the civil wars in the A. D. 190's.The date-spanof the campaigns is unknown, but they seem to have been inprogress when the fort at Bu Njem. was established in A. D. 201 and may havecontinued to 205.65 It has been suggested that Severus himself took p- art incampaigns early in 203, when an inscription records both his imminent returnto Lepcis (his native city) and his victory.66 These protracted military6: 1

It I-216-operations saw a necessary overhaul of Roman diplomatic control, but alsothe strengthening and forward movement of the garrison (see below 6: 2,6: 3). 67Information for the rest of the third century is equally imprecise andproblematical. Damage done to the fort at Gheriat during a war (bellum) wasrepaired under Gordian III, but there are no other clues as to the nature orseverity, of the trouble.68 The construction of Gasr Duib in A. D. 244-46 wasspecifically to watch one of the routes used by barbarian raiders ( ... viamx ncursib(us) 'barbarrojium constituto novo centenario, .... prae [cll useru [n tj.)69The centenarium at Gasr Duib is obviously too small an outpost to have dealtwith any major incursions and its function should be seen as essentially oneof policing rather than to act as a blockhouse. 70The uniquely valuable archive of day records, reports and letters dis-covered at Bu Njem provides an interesting comparison. Although the fullpublication is still awaited, the accounts which have appeared so far suggestthat Bu Njem was'a relatively quiet garrison post in the mid-third century.71The appearance of a solitary Garamantian riding a donkey, the capture of arunaway slave', the arrival or recruitment of tribal spies and informers areincidents typical of the generally humdrum life and work of the garrison.72Apart from a single reference to a fight, the surviving information seems todetail only peaceful policing work and there are no indications of heightenedtensions nor that the garrison felt threatened by hostile tribes.73 TheAbando nment of the fort took place c. A. D. 263 (the year when a new fort wasestablished at Ras el-Ain) and was evidently a peaceful withdrawal. Thevicus continued to be occupied into the fourth century.74The LateRoman SituationBy the end of the third century, however, a new threat to the region hadunexpectedly emerged. This was the Laguatan confederation (known in itsearly phases as the Austuriani). Their progress can be charted along thegreat east to west chain of oases on the line Siwa - Augila - Giofra. 756: 1

-217-During his military expedition to Africa, Maximian apparently made twoexpeditions against these new tribes who had obviously destabilised Rome'shegemoniccontrol.76 The tribe was not conclusively defeated but the basisfor treaty relations may have been established.77 At any rate we have norecord of further trouble until the mid-fourth century. In the A. D. 360'sthe Austuriani unleashed a series of great raids against Tripolitania, theinmadiate causus belli of which was the execution by burning of one oftheir chiefs. This man, Stachao, had been arrested within the provinceand accused of spying out the land and inciting trouble. His punishmentwas defined by law. 78 Under the terms of normal frontier control he hadprobably been able to enter provincial territory under the pretext oflegitimate business (transportation of goods, flock or crop-watching, oras an harvester). 79 The fact that Stachao was stirring up trouble amongstpeople within the frontier shows that the breakdown of treaty arrangementshad already begun before his execution.Indeed there is epigraphic evidence to suggest that the build up oftension had been going-on for some time and this makes the Roman authoritiesall the more culpable for their failure to anticipate the invasion or toremedy the situation when it happened. Flavius Archontius Nilus, who wascows as well as praeses provinciae Tripo2itanae c. A. D. 355-60, already hadmilitary as well as civil responsibilities." He is known on inscriptionsfrom Lepcis,, Gigthis and the fort at Ras el-Ain (where major repairs wereundertaken).81 Another governor at about this time was Flavius Nepotianustthough his tem of office is imprecisely placed between A. D. 355-370.82 Hetoo was comes et praeses and the style and wording of the honorific inscrip-tion erected to him at Lepcis is very close to those erected to Nilus. Itis possible therefore that he was governor before the great Austurianinvasions beginning in A. D. 363.83 This supposition receives support fromthe wording of the Lepcis inscription, which has a smug and self-confident6: 1.

-218-tone which would have been entirely inappropriate in the aftermath of thedisasters of the mid-360's. Ifs as I believe, he was governor betweenA. D. 355-362, then there was a harsh irony in the claim that, having defeatedthe barbarians, he had made the frontiers secure even against future attacks( ... quod limitis defensionem tuitonemq(ue) perpetuam futuris etiam temporibusmunitam securamq. ab omn! hostili incursione praestiterit ...)ý4As civil governors, Nilus and Nepotianus were granted extraordinary mili-tary powers in a period of rising tension and Nepotianus evidently took thefield and gained a minor success. They were credited with strengthening bothcity and provincial defences. But it appears that comnand of both the troopsbased permanently in Tripolitania and any temporary reinforcements was returnedto the Comes Africae in the period immediately before the first invasion.Also in A. D. 363 a new Comes Africae was appointed, the Romanus whose infamy85was, recorded in some detail by Ammianus. It would appear that this was themoment when the Stachao incident occurred, andibefore the province could be, reinforced, it was overrun. Rome had badly misjudged the situation by takingpressure off at a crucial moment and removing troops and overall command to4 newly arrived general based in Carthage. The Austurian! raids were swiftand fierce and were apparently not opposed by any significant body of troops.In 363 they reached the fertile hinterland of Lepcis(presumably the GebelTarhuna and Msellata regions) where they remained for three days pillagingand burning. Some time later, Romanus arrived at Lepcis with the field-armybut refused to launch a retaliatory campaign unless the Lepcitani providedsupplies and 4000 camels. When these were not forthcoming, he simply marchedaway. 86 Lepcis began a long series of appeals to the emperors for justiceand, temporarily, some troops were returned to the command of Ruricius, thepraeses. But when Romanus once again assumed comnand of these in A. D. 365,a further raid occurred and this time the death and devastation was sharedby the tezritorlum of Oea. The following year and still unopposed by aRoman army they came again and actually besieged Lepcis for eight days and6: 1

-219-laid waste and looted numerous estates.87 The corruption of Romanus andother imperial agents contrived a cover-up for a number of years and littleseems to have been done to repair the damage done to the province and toRoman deterrentdiplomacy.Having got away with it once,, the AusturianilLaguatan repeated theirraids againstbothTripolitania and Cyrenaica in the late fourth and earlyfifthcentury.88 Plavius Victorianus, Comes Africae between 375-378, wasactive in Tripolitania but his forces were fighting a defensive action ratherthan launching an offensive campaign against the tribal centres ( ... quoddefessa territoria nimia incursatione ba[r]barorum... )P Whilst Tripolitaniaremained without field army units permanently on station and its few regularborder troops remained subject to the Comes Africae it was at a severe strat-egic disadvantage in this sort of warfare. Slight changes in the commandstructure indicate that there was an awareness of the problem, but the adjust-ments may have been largely cosmetic. In A. D. 393 a certain Silvanus wasdescribed as dux et corrector limitis Tripolitani, but he was still dubordi-nateto the Comes Africae.90 By A. D. 406 though, a separate and independentcommand had been created, that of comes et dux provinciae Tripolitanae.91One of the men to hQld tkis office, Flavius Ortygius (between 408-423) was,comn-emorated for having repelled an attack ( ....Austurianam furore repraessaWBut the Notitia listing of the troops of the dux provinciae Tripolitanae,which probably dates to this period, shows that he had no field army unitsat his disposal and only three or four regular units of border troops(limitanel) (see Table 6: D below). All the available evidence, thereforetsuggests that Rome made little or no attempt to wrest the initiative back fromthe Laguatan by launching campaigns against their centres. -, The installationof a garrison at Lepcis is evidence that the zone of effective military controlin east Tripolitania had retreated towards the coast. 93 In these circum-stances the best diplomatic arrangement that could be hoped for was to tryand buy off some of the tribes and to persuade them either to defend the6: 1

N-220-province against their compatriots or simply to refrain from further attacks.The situation in Cyrenaica at the same time was recorded in some detail andseems to have been remarkablysimilar.94 The inability and unwillingness ofregular troops to take the field against the enemy had severe repercussionsin both zones. Agricultural territory was lost to the cities, 'treaties bet-ween Rome and both the enemies and the guardians of the frontiers becameincreasingly expensive and the Laguatan confederation grew by absorbingthe populations of the previous frontier zones. 95Under loose Vandal authority, the Laguatan grew even more powerful andthe remaining Gebel lands of the cities were lost. 96 The Vandals themselveswere defeated in battle and Lepcis abandoned and sacked in the early sixthcentury.97 Similar advances were made by the Laguatan in Cyrenaica and theByzantine government was forced to concentrate its military effort on thecoastal cities and on maintaining diplomatic relations with the interiortribes.98 In Tripolitania, . the Byzantine reoccupation was virtually limitedto the coastal region. Most of John Troglitas' battles with the Laguatantook place close to the coast. His one attempt to campaign into the desert(down the Dahar corridor) ended in an ignominious withdrawal when his suppliesbecame suddenlyexhausted.99 His problems were similar to those of the lateRoman period. The reaction to a regional threat was generally slow, by whichtime considerable damage could have been done., and although fairly proficientin battle his troops were not markedly superior to their native opponents*The Roman failure of will which prevented a repeat of the audacious long-range campaigning of earlier years was the crucial weakness, however, anderoded the basis of Roman deterrent diplomacy. In Tripolitania the lateRoman decline of the frontier was aggravated further by two factors;firstly, by its isolation from the command centre and base of the fieldarmy and secondly by the unforseen and unchecked rise of a new andpowerful tribal confederation.6: 1

-221-6: 2 DIPLOMACY; TRIBAL 'CONTROL 'AND 'TRIBAL 'DEVELOPMENT'IN'TRIPOLITANIAIn the preceding section we have seen that the evidence from Tripoli-rtania suggests that it was one of the key battlegrounds during the estab-lishment of Roman hegemonic. and territorial control in, Africa during thefirst century A. D. It was also one of the first areas where those controlsstarted to break down in the fourth century A. D. The history of Romandiplomacy, suasion and tribal relations is complementary to this picture.The policy behind the long-range desert campaigns of Balbus, Festus andothers was not designed to inflict maximum damage and then simply towithdraw. Military action was always followed by the imposition oftreaties and diplomatic controls. These were maintained by the. exchangeof envoys, by military deterrence and on occasion by direct interference.The evidence is sparse but it is consistent in showing the importance of thehegemonic control or direct supervision of peoples overcome in battle.The-treatment of the tribesThe Gazamantes provide a good case study. As a consequence of thetribe's success in establishing its own political dominance over itsnorthern neighbours, it became necessary for Rome to extend her politicalcontrol to their remote heartlands in Fezzan. 1 One purpose of Balbus'campaign of 20 B. C. seems to have been to detach the Phazaniifrom Gara-mantian control. Pliny treated them as distinct tribal groups and this istypical of Rome's policy of "divide and rule".2 The Garamantes continued toresist Roman suzerainty and were prominent in several revolts against itunder Augustus and Tiberius. But when the Tacfarinan war ended in A. D. 24they anticipated Roman action against them by sending envoys to Tiberius*3The lessons of the campaigns of Balbus and Quirinius had clearly been learnt.At this stage treaty relations were probably of a simple nature, involvingonly the recognition of Roman supremacy and a promise not to attack herterritory or that of her other allied tribes. There is precious littleevidence for the existence of trans-Saharan trade on a large scale in the6: 2

-222-early Principate and Rome's motivation is best interpreted as hegemonic. 4, The campaign of Festus in A. D. 70 marked a turning point in relationsbetween Rome and the tribe. From this period can be dated the start of themass importation of fine wares from the Mediterranean to Fezzan. 5 LaterRoman expeditions proceeded south of Garama, indicating that the Garamantesthemselves were considered pacified and friendly. It is tempting to speculateabout how this transformation of a tribe previously described as warlike andungovernable was achieved. The installation of a pro-Roman king and theencouragement of the elite by gifts and aid are reasonable possibilities. 'Excavations by Caputo, Ayoub and Daniels in Fezzan have recovered vastquantities of luxury goods (fine wares and glass) and amphorae from latefirst 6and second century burials. Buildings with ashlar footings on thesouthern side of Zinchecra and under Cerma, also date from this period and7attest the presence of skilled masons at the Garamantian capital, The"Roman" tomb at Gasr Uatuat near Germa is now paralleled by at least fourother examples providing further evidence for Roman influence and artisansin the region.8However, there is no evidence that a Roman garrison was ever permanently,,installed in the Fezzan, so it seems likely that the presence of skilledstonemasons at this early date is accountable as part of a package of technicalaid provided by Rome. The quantity of pottery reaching Fezzan is difficult toexplain in, terms of trade alone and some of these prestige goods may have beensent as part of a conciliation or subsidy progra 09The expedition of Flaccus may have been made to reaffirm these far-reaching arrangements; perhaps even to support the king against an anti-Roman faction which had grown up because of the Nasamonian revolt. Thesouthward campaign of Flaccus suggests that he was primarily concerned withextending Rome's hegemonic. influence in that direction. A few years laterMaternus accompanied the Garamantian king on this routeswhich was under hisauthorityjand this implies that the tribe may have been entitled to act asIýmiddle-men! ' for Rome in this particular sector of her Saharan hegemony.6: 2

a,-223-It is not entirely certain whether the Garamantes were involved inthe early third century disturbances, though the positioning of the forts atBu Njem, Gheriat and Madames suggests that they were. But apart from thisoccasion the relationship between Rome and the tribe appears to have beenone of friendship and cooperation from the late first century onwards.Roman diplomacy and supervision still continued to operate in the Fezzanin the later third century. Ostraca from Bu Njem refer to the dispatchof a soldier cun Garamantibus (perhaps to Garama itself? ); 10 otherGaramantes passed along the desert tracks, presenting "letters of passage"at Roman outposts.11 The possibility that individual soldiers were postedto Fezzan in some sort of supervisory role is not inconceivable. 12 Romanluxury goods were still present in graves of fourth and fifth century date,though in general these later graves are poorer than those of the earlierperiods.13 Nonetheless, even as late as the sixth century A. D. theGaramantes made a treaty with the Byzantine rulers of coastal Tripolitania.14It is significant though that the treaty was made with Garamantian envoysrather than being imposed by a Byzantine expedition to the Fezzan. 15 Fromlate Roman times the Garamantes had probably been allied to the Laguatanin the first instance.The Phazanii were another of the major tribal groupings south ofTripolitania, but unlike the Garamantes they did not remain outside thefrontier throughout their history. Their main population centre atGhadames (Cidamus) received a Roman garrison in the third century A. D.,However, prior to that their treatment by Rome strongly resembles thatof the Garamantes. There are a number of indications that they wereclosely allied to Rome in the first and second centuries. Rebuffat hasreported finding large quantities of second century Roman fine wares inthe Chadames oasis (across an area c. 1.5 kmz). 16 The ancient necropoliswest of the oasis extends for over 2 km in length and within this area thefamous "asnam! ' ("idols") have been identified as tombs of Romano-Libyan6: 2

-224-type.17 Continuous and continuing occupation of the oasis has obscuredmost of the evidence, but as at Cerma, fine pottery and ashlar masonry in anative context outside the territorial limits of the empire imply theexistence of treaty relationships.18Rebuffae supports his assertion that Ghadames'was a Roman protectorateby reference to additional finds of second century fine waresassociatedwith native style fortifications at-minor oases between Ghadames and Nalut. 19The most likely context for pottery to be reaching these sites is as part ofdiplomatic arrangements. 20Rome supervised her hegemony over the Phazanil either from the Gebel orvia the Dahar. The establishment of a fort at Remada (Tillibari) at theprobable northern extent of their territory suggests that a visible and closedeterrent was considered necessary.21 The later establishment of a Romangarrison at Chadames itself implies that some sub-tribal groups may havebeen involved in the disturbances of the early third century.22 In'A. D. 244-46 the construction of the centenariun at Gasr Duib was specifically towatch over one of the approaches from Phazania towards the Gebel because ofraidingparties.23 Perhaps already by this'date the Chadames garrison hadbeen withdrawn and the Phazanii had returned to the status of hegemonicallies whose loyalty was sometimes doubtful. On balance though, the Phazaniilike the Garanantes seem to have been relatively stable and long term allies.Procopius recorded that the people of Cidanus had been allies of Rome fromancient times. Their treaty was renewed under Justinian, probablyinthe wakeof the great Laguatan revolt of A. D. 544-48, in which they almost certainlyparticipated,24The division of the Nasamones tribes between two provinces and the zoneof hegemonic control has already been mentioned. The different treatmentof the various sub-tribes that this demanded may in part explain theNasamonian revolt'. The regions closest to the Syrtic shore in both cyrenaicaand Africa were probably incorporated within the provinces at an early date6: 2

-225-and it is likely that in the Flavian period the tribes were beingincreasingly regularised and perhaps their territory delimited for taxpurposes. But transhumance between the coast and the interior oases wascomm n and any attempt to regularise tribal movements or land and grazing25rights was liable to be resisted. Roman diplomatic control was exertedover the oases as Quirinius' campaign26 and Mela's account of the Augilaeshow. 27 The failure of territorial control and diplomatic coercion inA. D. 85 has already been described. Defeat for the tribe must have beenfollowed by reprisal campaigns against the oases and the imposition of harshterms on the survivors.28 But in spite of the catastrophe the Hasamones didsurvive and gradually recovered, Au7ila was recorded in Byzantine times asa populous and importantcentre,29 These desert dwelling Nasamones were nodoubt bound to Rome'as pacati but a lapse in Roman authority in the thirdcentury allowed the infiltration of the Laguatan tribes from further east.By its position Augila must have been one of the bases from which the Laguatan,having assimilated the Masamones, launched raids against Cyrenaica and Tripoli-tania. 30 Following the Laguatan defeat of A. D. 548,, Justinian imposed a treatyon the oasis once more. It is difficult to assess the importance of this,agreement which may simply have restored the diplomatic situation, with theLaguatan paying lip-service to Byzantine supremacy. 31To the south and west of the Greater Syrtes were the Macae tribes. Theirproximity to the Libyphoenician Duporia accounts for the early absorption andsocial development of some of the sub-tribes; the Cinyphi, for instancet wereassimilated by Lepcis. 32 The predominantly Punic culture of many of theLibyans in the Cebel and the Sofeggin and Zem--Zem basins shows that directRoman influence may have been minimal.33 Some elements of the Macae remainedtruer to their traditional lifestyle, as the study of hillforts reveals andas does the Libyan graffiti at Bu Njem. 34 Rome reacted to these different-groups in different ways. The presence of terra sigillata and early ARS on6: 2

N-226-the hillfort sites demonstrates friendly contact between those groups and35the Roman authorities. In at least one case there is reason to suspectdirect military supervision of a hillfort by a Roman military post.36The rapid agricultural development of Gebel and pre-desert must havereceived Roman approval and perhaps supervision. The delimitation of thelands of the main towns was an essential first step and this seems to havebeen done as early as A. D. 17 in the case of Lepcis at least. The lands ofLepcis and Oea were resurveyed by Rutilius Gallicus after the war of 69-70.37On the-Syrtic coast the association between the Seli tribe and the towns ofMarcomades and Digdiga suggests that these may have been designated ascivitas centres, The Seli were evidently a sub-group of both the Macae andthe Masamones tribes, so the existence of two civitates need not surpriseUS03 8 There is further evidence for the delimitation of tribal lands nearMarcomades (Sirte). A boundary stone was erected in A. D. 87 between theHuducivvi and Zamuci slib-tribes after a conference and it is unlikely to havebeenan isolatedact.39 One can infer that there was a more widespreadpolicy of tribal delimitation and political development in the late firstand early second century (see further below). Most of Macae territory seemsto have come within the province between the late first and late secondcenturies, though the Ze=-Zem and Kebir wadi systems may have been a bit ofa grey area until the establishment of forts at Bu Njem and Cheriat inA. D. 201.40Another aspect of Roman diplomacy is illustrated by one of the Macaesub-tribes. The Cissipades were recruited to form a cohort which served inHoesia in the late first century. Although this is a'unique Tripolitanianexample, the levying of recruits from some of the other pacified tribes isa possibility. 416: 2

-227-The Gaetulian-tribes of the western Gebel, the Gefara and the Nefzaouawho were also absorbed into the territorial empire show a similar pattern ofdevelopment to the macae. Assimilation by the Libyphoenices continued though.now to the established Roman formula. The Cinithi were placed under thesupervision of a praefectus gentjs42 and Gigthiswas almost certainly, madetheir civitas capital.43 Their territory was defined from that of Tacapaeand, though the earliest evidence for the delimitation is two milestones ofCaracalla, it probably took place along, with that of the Nybgenil underTrajan. 44 The early history of the Cinithl had been one of resistance andrevolt, but in the long term, Rome's policy of closely supervised developmenttransformed them into a peaceful and prosperous comunity based on an urbancentre,An even clearer example of the meta rphosis from "unruly" tribe toself-governing civitas is provided by the Nybgenii. The strategic positionof the Nefzaoua oases between Numidia and Tripolitania makes their neutralityin the Gaetulian and Tacfarinan revolts improbable and Roman campaigns to thearea are likely to have started early.45 In A. D. 29-30, Vibius Marsussurveyed part of Nybgenll territory, presumably as a basis for tribute assess-46ment in the aftermath of the Tacfarinan revolt. The establishment, of firsthegemony and then territorial control over the oases of Nefzaoua and Djeridwere vital (and underestimated) stages in the Roman pacification of Numidiaand Tripolitania. Garrisons were probably established on both sides of theChott Djerid under the Flavians. By A. D. 83-84 a native civitas was organisedat Thiges (Gourbata? ). 47 The first reference to. the civitas Nybgeniorun is.48under Trajan in A. D. 105, and its lands were delimited from those of ncapaeand Capsa at about the same time (Fig 19), 49 Trousset's recent and excellentstudy of the Trajanic delimitation has shown that it utilised the frameworkprovided by the survey of Vibius Marsus from 75 years earlier.506: 2

from beyond the frontiers on his estate where they were used as crop-watchers,-228-In another way the timing of the Trajanic delimitation was important,since it may well have marked the demilitarisation of the area and the forwardmovement of the garrison. A boundary stone was erected between two tribes atBir Soltane at this same time, so technically the territorial frontier laywell to the south of the Nefzaoua in the Dahar (fig. 19). The pacificationand social development of the Nybgenil continued behind this rolling frontier.Although we lack the precise evidence of praefecti gentis or about the tribalelite, it is clear that the Nybgenii fit into the general framework fordevelopment outlined in the previous chapter. The seal of success in thiscase was the elevation of the ci-idtas capital to the rank of municipiununder Hadrian. 51In these few brief examples I have tried to show how Rome pursued arelatively consistent policy, on the one hand towards tribes outside theterritories she annexed and, on the other, towards tribes which fell withinher territorial empire, In both cases an initial display of force andbrutality was often followed up with policies affecting conciliation anddevelopment whose main advantages were aimed at the existing tribal elites.Diplomacy in the Late RomanperiodThe policies towards hegemonic allies were continued in the late RomanEmpire as I have indicated, But a crucial difference then was that thecharacter of the garrison and the frontier policy had changed and the avail-able troops were generally inadequate to undertake punitive or intimidatorywarfare. Rore resisted renouncing her claim to empire, but when thegarrisons were withdrawn from Bu Njem, and Chadames some territory must have52returned to the trust of tribal foederati or pacati. Even in areas stillcontrolled by official troops the relationship with the tribes beyond thefrontiers was changing. ' The situation described by St. Augustine andPublicola in their exchange of letters gives a valuable insight. S3 InPublicola's letter, he expressed anxiety about the employment of barbarians6: 2

-229-shepherds, harvesters or transporters of goods. They were allowed to passthrough the frontierin the regio Arzugum upon swearing pagan oaths beforethe decurion or tribune of the border guard, who then provided them with aletter of passage. S4 Publicola was worried about the possibility of commit-ting a sin by employing men who had sworn pagan oaths on his land. ButAugustine in his reply concluded that it was a worse sin "to swear falselyby the true God than to swear truly by the false gods .e.for not only onthe frontier, but throughout all the provinces, the security of peace restson the oaths of barbarians. "ss The trans-border movement described in theletters shows that treaty relations continued to exist with the deserttribes, who still migrated to fulfil a symbiotic role with the sedentary1farmers. Taken literally, though, Augustine's comments show a singular lackof confidence in the ability of the Roman garrison to cope if the barbariansdecided en masse to break their oaths. There is certainly no suggestion thatpeace was maintained because of Roman military superiority.In some sectors the official troops were downgraded and ultimatelyreplaced by native recruits dignified with Roman names and titles who perhapsreceived small stipends. This would appear to be the most likely explanationfor the Bir ed-Dreder tribuni. 56 Goodchild suggested that these were nomadicfoederati patrolling ahead of the main 11mitanel settlements.57 Recentresearch has shown that there is no reason to disassociate the cemetery fromthe zone of gasr-settlement in the Bir Scedua area just to the north .58Itnow looks as if a Libyan tribal group living in an homogenous group offortified farms and clearly the dominant faction in a feudal society wererecruited en bloc for frontier policing work. At the same time it is alsoclear that the majority of the gsur in the pre-desert as a whole had nothingto do with military settlement, but were built by the established population59of the zone for motives of prestige or self-defence. Whilst the Drederevidence shows that some of these people did play a role in the late Romanfrontier defence many others may have maintained their neutrality or sympath-6: 2

F-230-ised with and joined the Laguatan confederation, In any event control ofthose regions from which official troops were withdrawn probably devolved60to a form of defensive hegemonic alliance. Even the Laguatan were giventreaties and recruited as allies when possible.The works of the Byzantine authors, Corippus and Procopius, provideample illustrations for the continuation of a policy of employing Libyanchiefs as subsidised allies, and of "buying" loyalty from tribal groupswith gifts and regalia.61 These practices were specifically stated to havebeen a continuation of Late Roman policy.62 Yet in spite of the inherentweaknesses of a system based more on good faith and bribes than on a credibledeterrent, it could work fairly well. The main problems for the Byzantinesin fact arose out of their own breaches of agreements, duplicity and oathbreaking. 63-. 3 2WE FRONTrER AND -XTS -GARRISONThe Tripolitanian frontier developed to meet the needs of hegemonic andterritorial control. Its form was further affected by the geography and bythe nature of tribal society in the region. But its development can be bestunderstood in relation to an overall Roman frontier strategy. Septimius Seve-rus has sometimes been credited as the creator of the first frontier in theregion.1 However this interpret - ationis based on an argument from silencebecause of the dearth of hard evidence and it would be in contradiction ofwhat we have established about Roman strategy in Chapter 5* Furthermorethe existence of an open frontier without any garrison until the thirdcentury seems inconceivable in the light of what we have establishedin the two previoussections.2 In short, one must accept that the archaeo-logical evidence is not good enough to allow definite conclusions to be drawnabout the frontier development. 3 Nevertheless there are abundant hintsabout a pre-Severan garrison even in the available evidence.6: 2/6: 3

-231-Early studies of the 11mes Tripolitanuff placed a great deal ofemphasis on the linear aspect of the limes road from Tacape to Lepcis.But, as we have seenthe early frontiers in Roman Africa were not linear, butbased on lines of advance into tribal territory.4 These "Jimites de penetra-tion" were well suited to the situation in Tripolitania, where the mostimportant consideration was control of the access routes to the major tribalcentres in the oases. The development of such frontiers was achieved by theprogressive advance of garrison positions in what can be termed a "rollingfrontier. " In western Tripolitania, for instance the pacification of theNybgenli almost certainly involved the placement of a garrison in one of theoases of the Nefzaoua. 5 When the native civitas was organised under Trajanit is likely that the garrison was reduced in size or more likely advanceddown the Dahar. Euzennat and Trousset have convincingly argued that theoriginal fort at Remada (Tillibari) was an Hadrianic, foundation. 6 It ispossible that there is another early second century fort, as yet unrecognised,marking an intermediate advance between Nefzaoua and Gebel Demmer. The boun-dary stone from Bir Soltane, for instance, shows that the Dahar was "provincial-ised" as far south as the wadi Hallouf under Trajan. 7 The fortlets establishedby Comm dus can be seen not as remote outposts, but as part of a policy forpolicing in greater detail an area already controlled.8 Under Severus furtherfortlets and road stations were established down the Dahar corridor and a newfort established in Phazanian territory at Chadames. 9The significance of the road from Tripoli - Mizda - Gheriat in CentralTripolitania has long been recognised. This was probably the route exploredby Festus in A. D. 70 and an hypothetical developmental sequence can beproposed. Some pre-Severan military posts on the Gebel Garian are likely andrecent observations at Ain Wif suggest that there was a fortlet there at somepoint during the second century.10 The position of Mizda at the junctionof two Roman roads (marked by Caracalla) and two caravan routes impliesthe existencethere of a major site.11 Barth recognised extensive ruins6: 3

a-232-extending into the plain, but the site of the presumed fort probably liesunder the western oasis.12 Northwest of Hizda a possible fortlet near theHadd Hajar clausura has produced abundant late first and second centurypottery.13 South of Mizda are a series of small buildings, one in ashlarmasonry, associated with first and second century pottery.14 If these aremilitary outposts (and they are certainly too small to be farms) then thereis every reason to suspect that Mizda may have been their base fort and waspre-Severan in origin. Finally, recent work at Cheriat el-Garbia hasidentified pre-Severan activity at the oasis.15 Prior to the constructionof the main fort c A. D. 201 an L-shaped enclosure of military appearance wastacked on to one side of a native style promontory fort and is probablyevidence of a temporary camp. 16 It is also arguable that the fortlet atGheriat esh-Shergia was pre-Severan in origin917Further east in the hinterland of Lepcis and the Greater Syrtes thefrontier development is harder to trace. Some troops must have remainedtied down in the area following the wars of A. D. 69-70 and 85-87.18 Thereis a known fortlet at Tugulus (Gasr el-Haddadia) near Arae Philaenortn butpottery from the site spans the period from the first century B. C. to fourthcentury A. D. It could well be pre-Severan for want of any clear third centuryhistoricalcontext.19 In the Sofeggin and Zerrr-Zem basins several possiblefortlets at important locations or wells have normally been assumed to beSeveran for no better reason than that they are on the routes leading northfrom Bu Njem. On the basis of pottery scatters at several of these sites,their origins may lie in the second rather than the third century-20Whilst much of the hard epigraphic proof is lacking, there are strongIhints concerning pre-Severan antecedents for the frontier in TripolitaniasSeptimius Severus must be credited with a major reorganisation and strength-ening of the defences of the region, but it is clear that the basis for thedeployment was already established on the major routes of penetration toPhazania and the Caramantian lands.6: 3

-233-A second crucial element to understanding the Tripolitanian frontieris the role played by the clausurae. A full discussion is reserved forChapter 7: 3. But some suggestions can be made here about what these shortsections of linear barrier were and what they were not. They did notdemarcate provincial lands from those of "barbarians" nor could theyfunction effectively as defences against raiders. But the location of theseobstacles in major passes and across important routes shows that they wereinvolved with the movement of people. Although they lie behind the theoreti-cal line of the frontiers, they can be related in part to tribal territoriesand it is a reasonable supposition that they were erected to regulatetranshumance, seasonal labour and trading movements between the predominantlypastoral and predominantly sedentary zones. Policing of such movements waspart of Roman strategy from the later first century to the early fifth andthis brings us to the problem of dating the clausurae. Elements of the so-called Fossafto Africae further west were started under Hadrian andit isreasonable to suppose that an early second century date might be-extendableto some of the clausurae also. But the construction, use and reconstructionmay well have been spread over the next three hundred years and it would bea mistake to assume that they were all part of a unitary scheme. Since Ishall argue that some at least were constructed in the second century, theyprovide an additional reason for identifying the origins of the frontierthen.21(a) Frontier development and dated construction (Table 6: A)The earliest deployments of troops were on an ad hoc basis, such as thefour cohorts sent to Lepcis by Metellus in 109 B. C. or the army with Balbusin 20 B. C. 22 The evolution of the deterrent strategy under Augustus demandddsore rethinking of tactical deployments and in Africa (with a single legiononly) this involved dividing the army up into mobile battle groups. Therecord of wars and revolts in Tripolitania demanded the presence of a6: 3

pý-234-regional force. The fact that the fortress at Ammaedara cannot have beena full sized legionary base and that a road was marked out from there to theBnporia in A. D. 14, implies the existence of a "vexillation" fortress somewherein the region. Troops were certainly based near Lepcis during the Tacfarinanwar. 23 At this stage the empire was still expanding and we should not expectany frontier lines or frontier roads as such. Military occupation was probablylimited to Lepcis and to one or two key sites. Gabes (Tacapae) and el Hamma(Aquae Tacapitanae), for instance, control the Arad corridor between them and24are in good positions for the intimidation of the Nefzaoua tribes. In A. D.69-70 the slowness of the Roman response to the struggle between'Lepczis andOea suggests that the nearest garrison was some way away. But in the confusedsituation of the civil war it is likely that the army had been brought intobases which were closer together. 25Under the Flavians, the field army started to take on policing dutiesand frontiers became physically more significant even though they were stillexpanding. Some troops must have been left on station, even if only tempo-rarily, after the Garamantian war of 69-70 and the Nasamonian revolt of 85-86,26 It is logical that the Nefzaoua and Djerid were garrisoned at thesame time. They occupy the pivotal position between the tribes of southernNumidia and Tripolitania and earlier revolts had often spread across thisentire zone. 27 The construction of a castellus Thiges (sic) under Nervawas not the first act of the military garrison in this area as is sometimessupposed; in fact, it may well have been one of the last stages of theinitialphase of pacification.28The early years of the second century saw the completion of thepacification of the northern Dahar and the Nefzaoua and perhaps the construc-tion of the first clausurae in the Cherb range.29 The fort at Remada(Tillibari)was established close to or on the northern boundary of Phazanianterritory. It is certainly a pre-Severan foundation and the style of itsoriginal gates suggests that it is also pre-Commodan. Tumuli on the fringe6: 3

-235-of the vicus have yielded coins of Antoninus and Faustina the Younger and30others possibly earlier. Obviously such evidence cannot be pressed but anHadrianic origin is attractive, particularly in view of structural similari-ties with Gemellae.31 The belated recognition of this pre-Severan cohortfort has the important effect of showing up the defective reasoning behindthe assumption that Severus alone created the frontier.I have already speculated that there was another early fort at Mizda andthis can be supported on the grounds of strategic necessity. Apart from theconvergence of at least four major routes there, the double oasis is situatedat the probable boundaries of both Macae and Phazanii territory.32 Mostcommentators have agreed that Mizda was a garrison post.33 In view of theearly date now applicable to the development of wadi agriculture in theSofeggin system, Mizda would have been militarily significant in the secondcentury.34The recently discovered clausura known as Hadd Hajar, northwest ofMizda has not been accurately dated so far, but the best guess on the limitedpottery evidence is that it was constructed during (and perhaps late in) thesecond century A. D, 35 A few kilometres to the north of this wall lies thesite of Medina Ragda which Brogan cautiously interpreted as a farm. 36 Thedefensive features of this site might conceivably be found on a civilian siteof the third or fourth century, However the i1oreat of El Medina is indis-putably in the late first and second century A. D. 37 At this early date,these features suggest a military interpretation,Another site where pre-third century occupation is likely is Ain Wif(Thenadassa). Two visits to the site in 1981 coincided with the constructionof a road builders camp on the southern margin of the site. In this areatraces of two phases of military occupation were identified. 38 Potteryrecovered from the site, notably in stratified contexts in drain trenches,supported this interpretation and placed the initial phase within the secondcenturyG39 This discovery allows the reinterpretation of an inscription from6: 3

-236-the site which-mentions repairs to the bath-house. The style of letteringon this inscription is quite fine and not characteristic of the period c. 220-230 to which it is normally assigned. But if there was a second centurymilitary post with bath-house here then the repairs can be dated to theearliest years of the Severan reoccupation of the post, in the same waythat such work was undertaken at Remada in A. D. 197.40The earliest military sites attested epigraphically are two in westernTripolitania linked with the name of Commodus, Ksar Rhilane (Tisaler) andBir ]Rhezene (Bezereos)(See Table 6: A). Although Tisaier was most probably41constructed during his reign, this is not absolutely certain in the caseof Bezereos since the inscription in question was a Severan restitution of42a Co dan text and the site could be slightly older. The limitations ofthe epigraphic evidence are compounded by the lack of modern excavation andpottery analysis at these and most other sites. The establishment of thesesites was not a forward move into an hostile and unknown land, but rather theinfilling of an established framework because of a gradual increase inpolicing duties. 43A major phase of reorganisation of the Tripolitanian limes began inA. D. 197 when Anicius Faustus became legate of the III Augusta. Repairs toa temple at Remada were followed in 198 by the construction of a new fortlet44(P-raesidiun) at Si Aioun south of Remada. This work was carried out bythe Cohors 11 Flavia Afrorun and the nunerus collatU345. Trouble brewing inthe area for some time had perhaps turned into warfare by A. D. 201 when avexillation of, the Third Legion founded a new fort at Bu Njem. 46 The largerfort at Gheriat el-Garbia was probably established, at the same time.47Severan occupation and/or repairs are also attested at Bezereos in A. D. 201and at Chadames (Cidamug), Ain Wif, Ain el-Auenia, Gasr Zerzi and Bir Tarsinbetween A. D. 201-211,4 8 Between A. D. 201 and 205 the constructional programmewas accompanied by some active campaigning.496: 3

-237-TABLE 6: ADATED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR WORK IN TRIPOLITANIAModern new Ancient name Date and context ReferencesRamada Tillibarl second century (Hadrianic? ) origin of Euzennat and Trousset 1975fort,Eutennat 1973,143; Troueset 1974,A. D. 197 repairs to ae&4 annorun117-18vetustats d1lapsm.and fig. 36.Occ. XXV. 33; XXXI. 21.Notitia Dignitatum.Ksar Rhil&ne rise var Camodan establishment (A. D. 184-91) CXZ B. 11048Latest coins of Maximin Daia. Combeaud 1901g 91-92.Abandoned early fourth century.Bic Rhazene/ sozereos/ Commodan establishment. zw 26 - nr 56,58.Sidi Mohammed vagerel sev*ran repairs A. D. 201ban kiss& saveran garrison 209-211 ZLAf 27,28.Notitia Digmitatim. Oce M=, 20.Si Aioun praesidlus A. D. 190 fortlet constructed ZZAf 8-9. Trousset 1974,120.Gheriat *I- A. D. 198-201 (probably 201) Fort LA Supp 11,1966.107-11. Zit? 91Carbia ? constructed.Abandoned some time post-A. D. 240. Loriot i971.342-46- ZRT $96Repairs under Gordian.BU Njes Gholaial 24 January 201 start of fort Rabuffat 1973b. no. 74-94g 72-26.C2201/chosol construction 1973a.A. D. 202 compietion, of bathe Zitr 913,918,919.Doc. 205 return of part of vexUlation zitr 920; Rebuffat 1973b, inscripandconstruction of temple of Jupiter tion 74-94.Hammon.A. D. 222(Zlagabalus/Severus Alexander) Inscription 70-37/43.71-200repairs to south gate of fort by (unpublished)Porclus Zasuc-than 7. see Rebuffat 1970b. 133-, 1972&, 334-35; 1975b, 214-15.A. D. 225 Temple of Mars Canappharconstructed. Rabuffat 1975b, inscription 71-206Severus Alexander. Inscription inprincIpla. Rabuffat 1970b, inscription 70-49.A. D. 236-18 Ara cerel inscription Rebuffat 1982b, 912-14A. D. 244-49 inscriptions of Philip in Rabuffat 1967. inscriptions 67-67;Principia 67-75.67-68.Post A. D. 238 Repairs to baths by numerus Rabuffat 1970b io cription 70-46A. D. 253-63 Graffito by 7.:, :rJullus Cristo- Rabuffat 1970b n a iption 68-6n1anus miles in vicus.A. D. 259 Dated letter to praepositus Mariebal 1979,447.No. in App. 313S12-320-21383932.54o 5150,57-58.52-5359686063-64707276Sir TarsinCAsr ZarziChadamsALn WifAin *I-AuenL&tWasuslcvdmao213onadassaAurucherist al- burgusCarbLaCan DuibcontanarlusR" el-ALn relalati/rabalatlOn Tarcive contonarlumTlbubuclXIlIt&rVM construction under zitr 887S*ptimius SeverusTortlet built under SeptLmius Severus. Brogan and Reynolds 1964,43-44Erasure of tiftes of Ln rrZ Auq in Nos. I and 2.A. D. 238.A. D. 198-211 Fort built? ntr 909caracalla - occupation Continues ZA7 907 Reynolds 1958,134 No. ISoverus Alexander - repairs carried out zRr 908Occupation continues to at least 235 anýpossibly 238 (erasure of Alexander's zxr 908titles and possible erasure of Log zzz)A. D. 198-211 Severan occupation ofprobably earlier site. Reconstructionof bath-house.ritr 868ar 869A. D. 198-211 Hilitary buildings and Reynolds and Brogan 1960,51-52,temple. Nos. I and 2Reynolds and Siu9son 1967,45-47A. D. 222-233 Circular tower constructed zar 895*iorth of fort at Cheriat'A. D. 244-46novum centsn&. riLm constructed zRr 880in regionew liml[tis renItheltanipaztltamA-. U-, i&J New fort constructed opportuno, C. TZ 8.22765g zLr 3; Trousset 1974,loco a solo for cbh vrzz rida 101.A. D. 353-60 Major repairs to defences czz 8.22766,22767azzAf ligunder F. Azchontius milus praoses ot cxz S. 22768.cows pzov. Trip.The Propwnacula referred to in one Contra Troussat 1974,102;inscription relate to the fort or See Rebuffat 1980,113-114.vicus defences. not to clausurasNo" tia Dignitatum 6ca XXV; 31; XXXt, 18.A. D. 297-303. Construction of centen- czz S. 22763 - zLs 9352. 'arius by tvo of early praoside, ofPrOld=18 TriPolitanae. Occupation onVoin evidence continues to end fourth Trousset 1974.91.century.I3748-4924222323343326.272340311214116: 3

-238-This mass of evidence for the'input of troops and constructionalactivity was by no means all. For instance the sites of Hr Mgarine and HrMedeina in Tunisia can be proposed fairly confidently as fortlets markingthe road stations of Agarlabas and Thebelami, though there is no epigraphicevidence from either site.50 At any event Severus' frontier deploymentmust have at least doubled the troops in the region and it involved thepermanent outstationing of a considerable number of legionaries (see furtherbelow). But what Severus seems to have been doing was simply extending theexisting deployment to the south along the major routes of penetration whilststrengthening the lateral lines of communication. The actual creation of thislinear aspect of the Limes Tripolitanus is sometimes credited to Severus,sometimes to his predecessors. The evidence is too uncertain for firm con-clusions, though Severus certainly established some new fortlets along thelimes road. 51 However, parts of this route were in military use before this,serving sites such as Turris Tamalleni, Bezereos, VIlibarl, Thenteos (? )and Thenadassa. 52Modifications, improvements and reconstruction work continued atmany of the Severan sites up to A. D. 238. A burgus was built at Cheriat inthe reign of Severus Alexander. 53 Although the inscription referring to thiswas for a long time associated with the construction of the fort itself (untilthe discovery of the early third century inscription in 1965), Barth statedthat he found it built into the circular tower about a kilometre north of the54 fort. It was still in place over the doorway, but he concluded from thestyle of masonry that the tower was post-Roman and, therefore, that theP1 9b55inscription had been brought there and reused. Goodchild made the sameerror of interpretation though he admitted that the term burgus could beapplicable to such a tower. 56 In fact there is no reason to think that theinscription was out of context. The masonry of the tower is paralleled bPf Ilathe recently identified southwest gate of the fort which was rebuilt withsemi-circular projecting towers some time after the initial construction.576: 3

-239-The burgus, thus refers to the circular tower which served as an importantlook-out post for the fort.In A. D. 238 the Zeglo XXX Augusta was disbanded with dannatio memoriaeand the effects must have been profoundly felt in Tripolitania where so manytroops were outstationed. The archaeological evidence is simply not refinedenough for us to assess the full effects, but some important sites clearlycontinued in occupation. This is certain at Cheriat, Bu Njem and Thenteos58and almost certain at others such as Bir Rhezene, Remada and Ksar Rhilane. 59At Bu Njem the garrison was a numerus, probably to be identified with thenune. rus conlatus who had been there in combination with a legionary vexilla-tion in A. D. 236-38.60 An auxiliary unit took over the garrison duties atCheriat and is perhaps identifiable as the Cohors (X) Syrorun Sagittariorum(see below)61,In A. D. 244-46 a novun centenarlum was built at Gasr Duib in regionemlimi[tis Ten]theitani partitam by a man described as praep(ositus) limitis. 62This small fortlet or outpost was placed in advance of the known Roman roadsystem in order to watch for raiders moving out of the Phazanian pre-desertzone intothe Gebel.Bu Njem continued to remain an important command base into the 250's.The outpost positions of Boinag,, Eguba, Hyeruzerian and Secedi are mentionedon ostraca and a great deal of communication passed between them and theirhome base. 63 Much more detail concerning the life and work of this unusualand perhaps atypical garrison will be known when the archives of ostraca andinscriptions are fully published.64Rebuffat has suggested that the abandonment of Bu Njem more or lesscoincided with the foundation of an entirely new fort at Ras el-Ain Tlaletin A. D. 263.65 The reasons for the withdrawal are unclear, but nativepressure seems unlikely in the light of the contents of the ostraca.66 Astrategic retrenchment for political reasons or to economise on deployedforces are possible alternatives. Not all the outlying positions were6: 3

-24o-abandoned at a stroke though. Either Gheriat or Mizda was still occupied inA. D. 275 (the year of the last dated milestone on the central road south ofGarian). 67 Excava tionsat Tisa%ar produced a coin of Maximin Daia below theburning level left when the departing garrison fired the post as part oftheir orderly withdrawal.68The frontier system recorded in the Notitia Dignitatun shows thedivision of the limes into regional sectors each under the command of apraepositus limitis. (Table 6: D) As we shall see shortly, the origins ofthis system date back to Severan times and the fully fledged system wasprobably in operation before the end of the third century. The survivinglist, however, includes corrections and updatings down to the end of thefourthcentury.69 So although some of the limites named in the list areidentifiable with earlier frontier positions many are entirely unknown. Theproblems with the Notitia are discussed further, below (c).The last securely dated new structure on the limes Tripolitanus is thecentenarian Tibubuci built between A. D. 297 - 303 and occupied for about acentury thereafter. 70 Although there are in addition a number of suitablefourth century type quadriburgi none of these has produced epigraphicevidence of their exact context,71 The comparatively small size of allthese forts, however, indicates that in the late Roman empire one is dealingwith far smaller garrisons of official troops and the forts/fortlets them-selves are fewer in number.72 This is of importance with regard to thequestion of limitanei and gentiles dealt with below (d).(b) Command structure (Table 6: B)The first period where there is adequate evidence for the nature of theco=iand structure is the Severan reorganisation (Table 6: B). The militaryzone of Tripolitania fell under the jurisdiction of the legate of theLegio XXX Augusta, who was governor of N=Idia as well from the early thirdcentury, Some of the earliest known subordinate commands were clearly of an6: 3

-241-TABLE 6: BEVIDENCE OF THE COMMAND STRUCTURE OF UNITS BASED INTRIPOLITANIA IN THE THIRD CENTURY.rotc/post Detachomachait Approx. no 'title of C. O. (c. o. 's) References No. inIApp. Iof we1. Ramada Cob. zz Plawts 4" or 608 preoApetus co0wreis guseneat 1973.143 is1714-11"ZI) fact Atzorue eq2. r1s4vor -fectlet vw. ZO-F. ZXZ Aar 41. Wt &)S. Ulpius Pauumus 7 Z*q. ZXz Withb)VIALA"Iss at Myra optio"s3. chadamns - fort vow. : 41. ZZZ Aar. 480TI &)X. Aur*, Uum XAnuacluz 7 tag ZXZ Reynolds 1958,134, no-l. 23b) 7 Up ZZX Aur I ...XXT 900 234. sesexace-fortlatl 1011K. tar. UX Aup. 0.1601 &)C. ZLLL1u9 SatucmLaus 7 Lot XZZ Aur ZLAt 26b)C. O. 's name lost. Presumably 7S. checist - fort ww. Zdq. ZZZ Aur. Soo6. Lis WEE -tattlerand possibly a Praepasitue vorZZA9 27; Lassece 1980. 2Zaj. ZZZ Aug with 956.e)zAnuazlus optle as daPVtT. Other? Is in military list fromoutpost$ A. D. 209-11.. 4)... 7.. (fragment) ZAZ 29 4G)zu. Uus Slam opelo (personaldedication). met necessarily C. O. MAt 28 3- 4)? or pramopositue vW. z4q. XZX Aug ar 893 40,ýA. D. 2121-35(c". Svzozum Salt? 0.480 b) .... unknown auxiliary commander z3tr s96 - AS 1973.373j..under Gordian. tArtec 1971 342-46 39Z0V. ZXZ AuW. C. 80-120 a) X. Canialus AdLuear PaustlitlanuePraef. coh XX Vaho(lortumi Pza*P.wm. ZA1. XXX ntr 868 34b) X. Cam" us .... alnue ....... -.1ar $69. Spoidel 1981.11-13 35These two ran are arguablyexpeditionary or sectional C. O. 'sThe fortlet itself was bald by ýc)runio Sucesso 7 ptincipe Low. = nm $69 337. SL Aiour-fortlat detachment of Oak 0. W-100 &)The recorded C. O. AmslUumZZ rl. Ae. and/of asocitue was responsible =rely Zz" 9 20,21numerus collacum fair the expeditionary fareswhich constructed the post. Asdaa. ala at praepositus Coft ZZfl. Af. *9 A. Col. he would nothe" been based then himself.though he my have boom atRamada fag a time. No lessecofficers are kmown on the woi0@Criptia%* frota the post. AD191.8. au $Jos - fort vQW.: Aq. = Aur 480a)C--'U-L1Uff Afgaud 7 Z-01 ZZX A. D. 201 Rebuffac 1973b, no. 72-26 34100-200? b)0. Avz4Uua guintlanus I ZaW = zXr 91"19 37-51400 Oruluus ficaujus 7 or astlarazio nT 920. Rabuffat 197A, 32pzsoposlcus mIllatlojUs A. D. 205 Lose. 74-94QN.lasucch" 7-ForclueA. D. 222 Imbuffat 1972&, 334-35,1975b. 214-13 No. 70-45 unpub.*)T. J'IAV30 Apronlano I Ley olumdes Imbuffac 1975b, Lost. ? I-PraePosito verilIat-Loals. A. D. 225 206 39Oyftglud Vacua 7 ZAJ ZZZ AUW p. p.'"I tabuffac 1967, inte. 67-89 62Vmff. Lsj. ZXZ AuW. a. 480-500S)M-CA*cU1u* FoUx 7 tag TZZ ALV Rabuffac 1967, insc. 67-13 - 60at sumfus'P. W. JawriaAms, P(rao)p(caltus) 19 M1 912-14caulacus, vorl. L. L. Por qW1.1.14tionsm rAl ZrzAugr. at numerum, canlacLm6A. D. 236-238.ruverus or *that ? Post - A. D. 238acsiliary unit WT1 lulluo Malls docur. Sabuffac, 19? 3b. inse. 72-23 53i)Dacurion of in &I& (Philip) Rabuffat 1973b. inse. 70-64 unpub.J)praepoml cue llaitls rripalitastj Rebuffat 1977.406. uspub.(probably the superior of theofficer in charge of Su Nj*u)A. D. 244.k)octavla, Postho doo. p. p. A. D. 239 Withal 1979,447 76UtIbrazius ac head of day list. Marickal, 1979,440--41 77but reference ca ad p(raspip(asi-tus) suggests that he was$operate and superior.u)Zunlus Asicus sesquIpLLoarjus Isbuffat 1970b, inse. 70-46 70qui at 14braclus9. cast DWI ? A)"fersuce to Praspo"tue 11ARICIS zirr 880 31Cmatomzlmwho oversaw constructionWatt Occupied 804 commad@41 by atrIbtnue A. D. 244-46.10. Lin at-ALMi4 information Reynolds and grosaft 1960.3 1 27-3011. Cast ZarxiStages and Rayttol4s. 1964,4 3-44 48 - 4912. Kaor Tarciso, La&A"U&ta= A. 22763 it13. Sao @I-&ia cohaiv VZrZ A doewlan And cavalry smation4d at marichal 1979,430 uspub.Pide zu 4jes *ad one of its outpost$ inA. P. 230's. No evidence from Us 41.6: 3

-242-extraordinary nature. Aemilius Emeritus, a decurion of the Ala I Panno-niorm was appointed as praepositus of an "expeditionary" force comprisingthe Cohors XX Flavia Afrorun and a nunerus collatus (perhaps speciallyrecruited from existing units? ) which built the praesidium at Si Aioun.73M. Caninius Adiutor Faustinianus prefect of the Cbh. XI Havlorun andIpraepositus Vex Leg XXX Aug*may have been entrusted with a similar missionto establish a series of garrison positions in the Gebel. 74 In both casesthe unit to which their command normally related was not necessarily presentand the slight available evidence suggests that they remained in Nunidia.75This type of appointment for serving auxiliary officers is paralleled byNumidian examples of special expeditionary columns.76More significant for the future development of the command structuresin Tripolitania was the practice of appointing prappositi to some of thepermanent garrison positions established in the early third century.Tullius Romulus 7 ex maiorario praepositus vexillationis Leg III Aug at Bu77Njem in A. D. 205 is the earliest known. More is known of legionarycenturions holding this post under Severus Alexander whilst commandingvexillations of the 111 Augusta at the same fort and at Gheriat el-Garbia (seeTable 6: B)78 These were two of the major forts of the zone whose combinedgarrison was initially intended to be between 1000 and 1,500 men. From thelater records at Bu Njem it is clear that these were not established asremote "outpost forts"jbut were centres for observation and patrolling of awide area, across which outposts were established and manned. 79 Archaeologi-cal evidence for sites such as Gasr Zerzi and Gheriat esh-Shergia shows thatfortlets dependent on the major command centres also existed from the outsedoThe prappositi at Bu Njem and Gheriat were not simply in command of a singleremote fort, therefore, but coordinated a regional network of policing andobservation points. At an early date, the Severan system contained manyof the ingredients of the limites command sectors of the Notitia. It islogical to assume that other parts of the limes Tripolitanus also functioned6: 3

-243-in thisway under the Severans.The site of Bezereos (Bir Rhezene) is an enigmatic one. As describedby Trousset it is at best a "small fort" and "fortlet" would be a truerdescription since it is only c. 0.33 ha (0.81 acres) in area. 81 Yet calcul-ations from the military list found there suggest a garrison size of c. 300men. 82 This seems impossibly high unless a larger site remains unrecognisedamong the sand dunes or unless Bezereos was the. regional centre for a praepo-situs with responsibility for a nunber of small posts in the Dahar. Recentstudies of the text of the inscription have shown that the last survivingline on the principal face contains the start of a man's name who was almostcertainly a centurion of the Third Legion and possibly also praepositus.83There is space on the stone for considerably more detail concerning the cir-cumstances in which it was erected, presumably on a special day in themilitary religious calendar when all the outpost garrisons were temporarily84reunited at the command centre. This interpretation is supported by aconsideration of the military lists on the sides of the stone. The list isheaded by an optio, who I believe was second in command of the detachment atBezereos itself. In smaller letters followed c. 300 names of which c. 112can be reconstructed with some certainty.85 At least eight centurions arementioned amongst the men and some of these must have been the commanders ofother outposts, Tisavar could have been one of these satellite bases. 86 Itis perhaps significant that Bezereos was later the headquarters of apraepositus in the Notitia. 87Remada (Tillibarl) as a cohort fort was certainly a major garrison postand a number of fortlets can credibly be associated with it. Si Ai-oun wasconstructed by men from the Cohors XX Flavia Afrorun in 198 and probably88manned by troops outstationed from Remada. One can speculate in a similarWay about the fortlet at Hr Medeina (Mebelami? ), the now destroyed site atDehibat and a possible outpost at el Magen. 89 Although Aemilius Emeritus6: 3

-244-commanded the garrison in extraordinary circumstances in 198 as we haveseen, it is likely that the Prefect of the Cohort was the normal corunandingofficer of the sector. It is not certain at what date he was acknowledgedas prappositus, but one is known for the limes Tillibarensis in the Notitia.90In summary then, there is some evidence for the existence of regionalcommand centres with associated outposts commanded by praepositi from the yearsfollowing the Severan reorganisation. Their command sectors were notinnediately called limitespbut the system recorded in the Notitia was a logicaldevelopment. The following elements can be suggested for a tentative recon-struction of some of these sectors.1) Bu Njem; troops: c. 480; outposts: Zerzi, Zella, Waddan, el Fascia.2) Gheriat; 800-1000; Gheriat esh-Shergia, watchtower at el-Garbia. plus.3) Chadames; ?;?.4) Remada; c. 500-600; Si Aioun, el Majen, Dehibat, Hr Medeina.5) Bir Rhezene; c. 300; Tisavar, Hr Kranfir?. plus.6) Nefzaoua; ?; Hr Mgarine; Ad Templun?7) Zintan (Thenteos); 500+; Auzu, Gasr Duib, plus.8) Mizda7; 100's (? ); Bir Tarsin, Medina Ragda, Saquifah, Wames,perhaps also Ain Wif.I would suggest, therefore, that the origin of some of the limitessectors listed in the Notitia can be traced back to the increasinglyregional command structure initiated under Severus and based on the majorgarrison posts. For this reason I am inclined to identify Thenteos (nearZintan? ) as the base fort of the Cohors I Syrorm Sagittariorun known onan inscription from one of its probable outstations at Ain el-Auenia (Auzu)? lThenteos, of course, was later the centre of the prappositus 11mitis Tenthei-t, an. i. 926: 3

-245-The origins of the system of regional limites has normally been datedto A. D. 244-46 on the basis of the Gasr Duib inscription mentioning a prae-positus limitis and the regionem limiftis Ten]theitani partitam.,93 This isnot necessarily evidence for the existence of the praepositi limitis of theNotitia as has normally been assumad. 94 An as yet unpublished-inscriptionfrom Bu Njem refers to a praepositus limitis Tripolitani in the year 248 andthis must affect our interpretation slightly.95 Whilst it isclear that theregional framework did exist by then (and I have tried to show that it wasa logical development from the command structure established by Severus) theexistence of an overall prappositus for the limes is a new and excitingdiscovery. One possible interpretation is that this office was created inA. D. 238 following the disbandment of the legion, when, with fewer troopsavailablelgreater cooperation between sectors became necessary. It isunclear how long this command survived; some of the Bu Njem, ostraca referto a prappositus without making it clear whether he was a regional or zonalcommander. 96 The next highest officer at. Bu Njem appears to have been alibrarius. 97 On balance it is likely thatfor only a short period after 238both regional praepositi limitis and a praepositus 11mitis Tripolitani existedinthe command hierarchy.The entries in the Notitia Dignitatun record the praepositi under theoverall command of either the comes Africae or the dux provinciae Tripoli-tanae (see Table 6: D below). This should date the last revisions of thelist to the late fourth or early fifth century. Although some of the sectornames are recognisable from earlier periods, it is mistaken to imagine thatthere were many regular troops left by that date. 98 Many of the praepositiwill have been Libyan chieftains recruited to continue the appearance ofthe earlier system, though the realities were completely different.6: 3

-246-(c) Units attested in Tripolitania (Tables 6: C, 6: D)It is a difficult if not impossible task to suggest reliable figures forthe size of the Roman garrison in Tripolitania at various periods. ' It canbe estimated, however, that the sites known to have been occupied underSeptimius Severus would have required c. 3000 troops to " have been fullymanned. Of these perhaps 1,500-2,000 were outstationed legionaries of theLegio XXX Augusta (equivalent to about one third of its total strength).99This suggests that when Severus wished to strengthen the frontier in Tripoli-tania there were few auxiliary troops available for redeployment. Le Bohechas recently suggested that the nunerus collatus (or conlatus) known at SiAtoun and Bu Njem. is not the title of a single unit but rather the name fora special type of unit which he suggests was recruited from the existingauxiliary units in the province for use in particular circumstances.100 Theuse of legionary vexillations and this sort of nunerus in Tripolitaniaboth attest the special circumstances of the Severan reorganisation.Two units are known, however, which could well have been in the regionearlier. The Cohors 1. r Flavia Afrorun (equitata? ) was the garrison unitat Remada to where it may have come under Hadrian from the Nefzaoua region,101It was most likely assigned to the Tripolitanian region throughout its careerand may even be recorded in the Notitia (Table 6: D). 102 The unit was alsoinvolved in building work at Tisavar (Ksar Rhilane) and Si Aioun. 103The second unit which I tentatively suggest was in the region in pre-Severan times is the Cohors (1) Syror= Sagittariorun known on an inscriptionfrom Ain el-Auenia (Auzu). 104 This unit probably arrived in Africa in themid-first century but little is known of it thereafter until it ismentioned at Auru (A. D. 198-211). 105The fact that the garrison left atAu. ru was legionary and the proximity of el-Auenia to the suspected site ofThenteos near Zintan suggests that the latter site may have been thecohort's base under Severus and probably earlier. Another possibility ofcourse would be the supposed fort at Mizda. 106 Le Bohec did not include the6: 3

-247-TABIE 6: C UNITS ATTESTED IN TRIPOLITANIA IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES A. D.UNIT Secondary references Location and primary refs. No. inApp. 3Cohors ZZ Flaida A&Orus Cagnat 1913, 200 1. Ramada Ulllibarl)(*qultats) Euxennat 1973.143; 1977c 231-331 Daw 1919, CLVIII (stuv*d tiles) 16Euxennat and Troussat 1975,60-61. Zuzennat 1973 143A. D. 197 inscription isTrousset 1974.94.114-120. Troussot 1974: 117 _ 182. SL Aioun (prae, sidlus)ZZAf 9 A. D. 198 213. Kier Rhilene Msaiez)Czr. S. 2263t. 33 (stantped tile) to4. mot. Dig. occ. XXV, 33. -Cohors ZZ Hamlorun Ward-Perkins and Coadchild 1949, 1. Ain Wif (Thenadassa)(doubtful) 21-241 Le lohec 1978,114; Zar 868 inscription recording presence ofSpsid4l 1981,12-13; praefectur A. D. 201-211 34Mattingly 1982,77.Cohors SjizorLw Reynolds and Brogan 1960,51-32 1. Ain el-Auenia (Auru) 26sagittazlorun Reynolds and Brogan 1960.51, no. 1.2. Possibly at Charier at CarbLa. Loviot 1971. 39Cohors VZZZ Me L* Bobec 1978,121; Cagnat 1913, 1. BU Njem (Gholata)(Oquitata) 202; Trouss*t 1974,98-102; Marich&L 1979,450, cavalry frou cohort at lu YjamMarichal 1979.436-32. in A. D. 250's.2. Outpost of Bu Njem (S49cedl)Marichal 1979,45)9 decurion of cohort at outpostin A. D. 250's.3. Ras al-kin (Talmlatl)= S. 22765 - n? 3. Two identical gate inscriptionsfrois fort constructed a solo in A. D. 263 12NLMOTUB Collatuff, Le Bohec 1978,113-116; 1980. 1. SL Aioun (praosl&ua)numezus Conlatus 945-55; Isbuffat 1967.97-98; ILA19. A. D. 198 211982b. 911-19.Numeruff col(onarm) Marlim 1909,96; Cagnat 1913,205. 2. Bu Njem (Gholals) 60(does not exist) Rabuffat 1967. inscript 67-13 a Rebuffat 1982b,pp. 912-14. A. D. 236-38Sufferur, Isbuffat and Marich&L 1973,281-86; 1. Bu NJ*= (Cholal, s)mussrull conlatuff? Marichal 1979,436-52. Marichal 1979,439.447. Post A. D. 238Isbuffat 1970b, inscript. 70-46.70vexIllationes uglords Caper 1913,140-94 1. Xssr RhLlsne Msavaz).ZZX ALqustas Saxer 1967.30-31; 100-110., CrZ S. 11048 (Commodan)Goodchild 1954s, 46-58. CZL B. 227596Merlin 1921,236-48. * 2. Bit Rhazene (oBerozooslVeseroos)Lassirs, 1980,955-75. ZLAf 26,27.28,29. A. D. 201 to 209-11 at least. I-43. Charier at-G&rbL& (? )Supp LA 11,1966, pp. 107-11 and nos. 1.4.8,38,42-A. D. 198-201f.44,46-Zjtr 895 A. D. 230-35. $till occupied in A. D. 2133. 47,40.4. BU Njam (Gholala)ZXT 913-915,918-19,920. A. D. 201 f.50-54Isbuffat 1967, inscriptions 67-89,67-1557-62Rabuffat 1973s, pp. 99-120; 1973b, inscr. 74-94; 641975b, inscr. 71-206; 1982b, pp 912-14.Under Maximinus Thrax 235-238 with nunerus conlatus.Further fragments and additions to be added afterfull publication.S. Ain Wif (Thensdassa)ZxT 868,869. Early third century34-356. Ain al-Ausnia (Auru)Reynolds and Brogan 1960,51-52, nos. I and 226-27(inscriptions).Reynolds and Simpson 1967g 45-4728(stamped tiles). Severan.7. Chadsms (cidmus)ZA7 908, Reynolds 1958,134 no. 1. Severan 23,23.0'6: 3

-248-TABLE 6: D THE NOTITIA DIGNITATUM AND TRIPOLITANIA,lText (after Seeck 1876)- ITypeoftroopsI IdentificationOcc XXVCaneS Africae19 -22 Sub dispositione virispectabilis canitis Africaeii Limitanei:prappositus limitis Thanallensis.praepositus limitis montensis in castrisLeptitanis (or Neptitanis)....31 prappositus limitis Tablatensis33 praepositus limitis Secundaefdrum iftlimi taneilimitaneiI. imi tanellimi taneiTurris Tamellini(Telmine)Lepcis Magna orNepte(Nefta)?Talalati / Tabalati(Ras el-Ain)in castris TillibarensibusTillibarl(Remada)Occ XXKr Dux provinciae Tripolitanae2- 16 castella: Talatensis (or ! ralala-tensis), Thentettani (or Tenthettani)Bizerentane, (or Bizerentani): - Tillibarenses(or Tillibarensis): Madensis(or Maclensis): macccmadensis. -Tintibertani (or Tentiberitani):see belowmamucensis(or manucensis):Balensis (or Basensis): Uarensis:Leptitanis: Hadensis: Sarcitani(or Sacritan! ).17 Sub dispositione viri spectabilisducis provinciae Tripolitanae18 praepositus limitis Talalatensis19 praepositus limitis Tenthettani(or Tentheltani, Thentectan! ).limitanei?gentiles?Talati Mas el-Ain)Thenteos (Zintan? )20 praepositus limitis BizerentandBezereosorVezerei(or Byzerentane)21 prappositus limitis Tillibarensis22 praepositus limitis Madensibusgentiles?limi tane! ?4mitanei?(Bir Rhezene)Tillibari (Remada)see30 below.23 prappositus limitis maccanadensisgentiles?Macomades(Sirte)24 praepositus limitis Tintiberitanitv25 praepositus limitis BubensisitI26 praepositus limitis Manucensis27 praepositus limitis Balensis28 praepositus limitis Uarensisit Eastern Tripolitania?itto29 Milites Fortenses in castrisLeptitanis (or milites Hortenses)limitanel I Lepcis Magna?30 Hilites munifices in castrisMadensibus31 praepositus limitis Sarcitaniitgentiles?Secundaeforumis normallycontinued presence of theSecundae Afroruzi is surelycorrected to Secundanorun and may reflect thedowngraded remants of the second cohort.also possible.6: 3

-249-unit in his recent study of the auxiliaries of the Third legion but its longterm presence in Tripolitania would help explain the epigraphic lacuna in itshistory. 107 It is possible that the unit retained its -associations withTripolitania beyond A. D. 238. A fragmentary inscription from Cheriat recordsthe name of an auxiliary unit in garrison in A. D. 239 whose titles end withthe letter G. 108 The expansion [Coh X Syrorun sa]g. is an attractivepossibility in view of the unit's known association with the area earlier.109These two units it can be argued formed the core component of the garri-son prior to the influx of legionaries under Severus. The recorded presenceof a prefect of the Cohors 11 WaWiorun) on an inscription from Ain Wifis not proof that any soldiers of this unit were posted to the region, asalreadyexplained,110 But the uncertainty about the location and movementsof most of the garrison units of the Numidian army make estimates of theupper or lower limits of the troops in Tripolitania difficult. It isapparent though that there was a dramatic increase in numbers between A. D.198-211 and an equally dramatic decrease (by implication) post A. D. 238. Itis uncertain whether elements of the Third Legion were returned to the regionafter it was reformed in A. D. 253.One additional unit is known in the A. D. 250's. the Cohors V111 Fidae"'A decurion and cavalry from this unit are recorded in the Bu Njem ostraca aspresent at the main fort and at one of the outposts (Secedi). 112 In A. D. 263a new fort was built for the unit at Ras el-Ain Tlalat. 113' This fort wasstill garrisoned by regular troops, perhaps the remants of the cohortsin A. D. 355-360 when repairs were carried out,114The most detailed evidence for the later third century garrison is fromthe Bu Njem. ostraca but the nunerus they deal with is of very peculiar size,compositionand organisation.115 It is conceivable, howeverg that some Ofthe day lists which give a garrison strength of only 50 - 60 men may relatenot to the entire garrison but to some subdivision of it. Further specula-tion on this would be pointless until the full publication of the relevant6: 3

-250-texts. The chain of command has been established as decurio (et prae-positus), librarius, optio, proculcator.116Finally, the significance of the Notitia DignitatLm entries must beconsidered (Table 6: D). This gives information in several categories: fieldtroops, under the command of the comes Africae; border troops (limitanei)under his control; border troops (limitanei) and militia (gentiles) under theoverall command of a dLzx provinciae Tripolitanae. 117 There were no fieldarmy units allocated to Tripolitania, so only the latter two categoriesare strictly relevant here. There is some overlap between the lists of thecomes Africae and the dux which suggests that they are not exactly contempo-rary*118 Since both comes and dwc are described as viri spectabilis-Ahe listof the dux must relate to the period when his command became independent ofthe comes Africae c. A. D. 408.119 It follows then that the list of the comesrepresents the situation a few years earlier when he still had overallcontrol. There is a major distinction, however, in content between the twolists. In the list of the canes all the units are described specifically aslimitanei and only three or four can be located in Tripolitania. In thelong list of the dux, only two units of limitanei, are mentiondd (the militesfortenses or hortenses and the milites munifices), although two more canperhaps be inferred from the recurrence of names from the list of the canes.The following interpretation can be suggested. The list of the canesdates to the mid - late fourth century and records only the limites whereregular border troops were still maintained and paid. This list itself maywell have gone out of date by the end of the century as a result of the down-grading of further troops*120 The praepositi limitis in command of regulartroops in Tripolitania according to this list were those of Turris Tmalleni(Telmine), Talaiati (Ras el-Ain) , Tillibari (Remada) and Lepcis or Nepte(Lebda or Nefta depending on whether one accepts a proposed corruption ofthe text). 121 Late military occupation at both Ras el-Ain and Remada isproved archaeologically and the garrison at the latter is recorded in the6: 3

-251-Notitia.122 The reference to the praepositus limitis Secundaeforun in castrisTillibarensis is obviously corrupt and is normally rendered as Secundanortm.Although the syntax is problematical, the meaning would be clearer if it werecorrected to read milites Secundae Afrorun. This would give us continuityof the name of the garrison from the second century onwards although itscharacter must have changed somewhat.123In the list of the dux, ' apart from the prappositi limitis Talalatensis,Tillibarensis, Hadensis and the milites in castris Leptitanis (presumablycommanded by a prappositus) there are no indications as to the grade of thetroops on the frontier sectors. In view of the proposed dating it isunlikely that the other commands represent newly formed or transferred unitsof regular troops. A more realistic interpretation is to see them as thenames of sectors whose troops had been downgraded to militia status (gentiles)or for which native Libyan potentates were recruited (as foederati). Whilstsome of the names recall earlier limes centres, others are entirely unknownand might equally be the name of a Libyan chief, village or gasr. The smallnumber of official troops emphasizes the shift back towards treaty relation-ships with the tribes and chieftains'of the zone and helps to explain whywhen such agreements broke down the Laguatan were able to raid with irgunity.Behind an elaborate facade of frontier continuity, economic cut-backs hadseriously diminished the military strength of the limes rripolitanus.Once the weakness was exposed the structures were gradually undercut andeventually swept away.(d)The limitaneiA few points should be made here about the views of Ward-Perkins,Coodchild and others concerning a class of soldier-farmers who they describedas limitanei. 124 A. H. M. Jones made the point long ago that limitane! isinapplicable in the sense in which they used it. The limitanei were in factthe official troops maintained inproper forts with pay, rations and armsprovided by the government. A soldier militia recruited from veterans or theindigenouspopulation would have been in law gentiles or wterani.1256: 3

-252-A second criticism concerns the developmental sequence proposed by Goodchildfor his "limitanei" settlements. He believed that most of the settlement inthe Sofeggin and Zeur-Zem was of third century or later date and that ittherefore followed the creation of the frontier by Severus. Furthermore heinterpreted a passage in the largely spurious life of Severus Alexander asreferring to land allocations to border troops in Tripolitania. 126 Even ifthe story were true, the Historia Augusta linked it to events in the after-math of wars in Mauretania Tingitana, Myricum and Amenia.127A third unfortunate aspect has been the tendency for British and Frencharchaeologists to identify any defended buildings as "postes militaires" oras of "essentiallymilitary character. ttl28 Yet many of the Libyan gsur weredemonstrably constructed by the indigenous population and although Goodchildwas aware of many of the pitfalls he ended up being too much influencedby the few genuine military or paramilitary examples. 129 Without excavationor further detailed study it will not be possible to disentangle military gsurfrom the fortified farms which were erected for reasons of prestige and defenceby a civilian population who had been in the zone for a hundred years or morebefore the Severan frontier was created.130 One thing is certain though, therewas no officially organised mass settlement of the pre-desert in order tocreate a class of soldier farmers. On the other hand it is equally certainthat scme of the Libyan elite were either recruite d or simply left by Rometo see to the defence of their locality when the official garrison wasthinnedout or withdrawn.1316: 4 COIVCLUSIONS : THE WORK'OF'THE*GARRISONI have argued that Tripolitania wa's "garrisoned" throughout the periodof the Principate in accordance with changing threats and changing strategy.Much of the hard evidence of documentary or epigraphic sources is lacking andsome of my conclusions are based on circumstantial evidence or on hypothesis.However, when set against the background of Roman frontier policy generally6: 3/6: 4

I-253-(as outlined in Chapter 5, above) it should be clear that there is cause fordisquiet with some conventional views. Whilst it is true that Tripolitaniawas a remarkably peaceful region in the second century, it was also a verydisturbed one in the first and early third. , It would be contradictory to allwe know of Roman frontier development in the second century if a zone likethis was left without troops to back up diplomatic pressure on neighbouringtribes and to supervise the development of annexed territories. It would benaive to imagine that the Phazanii, Garamantes and Nasanones were so suddenlyand so completelypacified.1 In any case the Roman army became far morethan a mere strike force during the first century and garrisons were notmaintained only on high risk sectors.2The policing of the frontier zone and the need for customs control ofpopulation and merchandise became of equal importance in areas where physicalfrontiers were vague and transhumance commonplace.3 The development of linearearthworks (fossata and clausurae) reflects the necessity of policing controland regulation of the movement of people, goods and services. They were notin the first instance defensive. 4 Other important duties of the garrisoninvolved information gathering, the regulation or supervision of tribalaffairs inside and outside the frontiers and the maintenance of formal linkswith foederati and pacati.5 The army also had to arrange for its ownprovisioning, normally done at local unit level. 6The detailed evidence now available from Bu Njem will help to fill outmany gaps in our appreciation of the work of Roman garrisons. For instancegprovisions for the fort were clearly obtained in the vicinity of Bu Njem fromLibyan 7producers. The economic interrelationship between fort and farmerswas no doubt reinforced by the growth of a large vicus alongside the fortwhich must have been a major consumer of agriculturalsurplus.8 Eventhough the fortified farms were largely built by indigenous farmers, ratherthan for para-military purposes, the economic impact of the garrison on thesociety should not be underestimated. 96: 4

-254-The army also patrolled and policed the area, recapturing runawayslaves, checking out suspicious tribesmen, issuing letters of passage toothers.10 Outposts were occupied on the main routes through the region andat the major wellsand cisterns.11 The caravan trade was carefully monitoredata Statio, camellariorum at Bu Njem. 12 Representatives from the fort were sentcLm Garanantibus (whatever that meant precisely) and there are other cluesconcerning diplomatic activity with neighbouring tribes.13The evidence relates to the mid-third century -a period of crisisand disintegration elsewhere in the enpire - and shows that Tripolitania wasan orderly and peaceful garrison sector at this stage. The policing functionsdescribed above are relatively typical of those that the garrisons would haveperformed over a century earlier or indeed a century later. St. Augustine'sletters provide evidence that-the same concern was felt in his day for theregulation of trans-border movement of seasonal labourers. 14 A system likethis could work in favour of those both inside and outside the frontier.In normal conditions the transhuming and migrating populations had theirrights protected as much as those of the sedentary populations and symbioticco-existence was possible. The more sedentarised zones probably dependedon a seasonal influx of labour at harvest time and this often came fromtribes which were partly or wholly extra-provincial. Even when Rome'sability to provide a credible deterrent was visibly weakening there werestrong socio-economic ties across the frontiers which delayed the breakdownof the frontier system.15Finally a few words must be said about the character of the garrison.The troops based in Tripolitania were almost entirely recruited in Africa.Even the Cohors Syrorun will have acquired a largely African characterthrough its second and third century recruits. The Cohors XX Flavia Afrorunalways had an African nature and the numerus collatus was probably recruitedfrom other units stationed in Nunidia and, therefore, will have been of largelyindigenous African origin.16 The Third Legion is known to have become6: 4

-255-increasingly Berberised from the time of Hadrian. By the third centurymost recruiting was done in Africa. 17 Recent analysis by Lassare of theBeze. reos military list suggests that the vexillation sent there in the earlythird century was almost entirely composed of men of African origin.18Similarly the commanding officer at Bu Njem in A. D. 222 bore the strikingLibyan name of M. Porcius Iasucthan. 19 The implications are that thegarrison of Tripolitania had a distinctly Libyan character from an earlydate and increasingly so thereafter. The defensive and policingstrategies were aspects common to most Roman provinces; the potentialproblems of the interaction between transhuming and sedentary communitieswere peculiarly African. The solution combined Roman strategic aims andlocal knowledge of the land and people in a flexible deployment. Theincreasing proportion of Africans in the army emphasised the regionalcharacter of the frontier at the tactical level. However, I hope that itis also clear that the underlying strategy of the Tripolitanian frontieris recognizable in the evidence for other limites of the Roman Empire.6: 4

-256-CHAPTER*7*-*THE'ARCHAEOLOGY OF'THE'FRONTIER1- FortsTypology and chronology were of little concern to the earliest investi-gators of the limes Tripolitanus. In attempting to trace the course of thelimes road, they made identifications between the stations of the AntonineItinerary and any conveniently located ruin, without regard for the fact thatsome were built long after the compilation of the itinerary. 1 Thus the twomost prominent quadriburgi, Benia Guedah Ceder and Benia bel Recheb2 or thefourth century centenarium Tibubucj3 were cited as forts on the limes road.The problem is more difficult for the large nunbers of fortified farms whosedates and military significance are harder to assess.4In this chapter I have not tried in most cases to class sites by theirLatin names, castra, castelltm, praesidlun, burgus and so on-5 Practice wasnot consistent enough in ancient times for this to be entirely satisfactory.Rather I have discussed sites under broad headings (fort, fortleto outpostotower) 6with size being the main typological factor. I have made an exception,however, in the case of the late Roman forts and fortlets, the so calledquadriburgi, which form a distinctive grouping regardless of size. Withthe other sites I have tried to make allowances for sites which are contem: -porary or have shared characteristics, but I do not believe that sitescan be assigned to type-groups solely on the basis of their physicalappearance. Roman practice could be both inconsistent and conservativeand, moreover, many of the older descriptions of sites, if taken at facevalue, suggest inappropriate 7parallels. Ultimately this analysis isrudimentary in the extreme because too many sites are unsurveyed,unexcavated and undated.7: 1

TABLE 7: A. -257-GAZETEER OF PRINCIPAL FORTS (sites over 0.8 ha (2 acres) in area)Area (acrossthe rarparts)Namia Unit GarrisonsizeApprox.daterange (A. D. )2.48 ha - Cheriat el-Garbia vex Leg ZZI Aug 800-1000 201-238(6.2 acres) Qýh X Syrorun Sag? ? post-2381.95 he - Ramada (71121barl) Coh ZZ Flavia c. 600 2nd -(4.87 Afrorumacres)w? ? 5th cent.1.28 he Bu Njem (Gholala) vex Leg XXX Aug c. 480 201-230's(3.21 acres) vith n=erusconlatus c.480? 230'snumerw ? post-2380.86 ha(2.16 acres) Ras el-kin(Talalatl) Coh VIZZ fida 3-4007 post 263? Zintan M anteos) Coh X SyrorLm SaT c. 480 2nd centor Mizda? (possibly c. 800 238M1211arla)? Ghadames (Cidanus) I vex Leg XXX A ug 100's 201-238?Forts of second to early third century dateRemada (TILLIBARI)Lecoy de la Marche 1894,405-06; Hilaire 1901, -104; Donau 1909a, 39;Cagnat 1913,530; Merlin, BCTH 1919, p. CLVIII; Brogan 1965a, 53;Hammond 1967,11; Euzennat 1972,15; 1973,143; Euzennat and Trousset1975 - 1978,111-89; Trousset 1974,114-18.Dimensions 157 x 124 m. Area : 1.95 ha (4.87 acres)Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 15-19 Figures : 20,21The presence of a fort at Remada was first reported by Lecoy de laMarche in 1894.8 Excavations were undertaken early this century by Co=anderDonau, but this work was interrupted by the first world war and during thecourse of the war the visible remains were obliterated by the constructionof a French barracks. 9 The results of Donau's excavation have only justbeen published, through the co=. Pndable actions of Professors Euzennat andTrousset. 10 In modern times little trace of the Roman fort remains, butone significant epigraphic find has been made. 117: 1

-258-Donau's excavations were concentrated on the gates, defences andprincipia of the fort (fig 21). The site,, of standard "playing-card" shapewith four gates, faced east. The defensive wall was 2.47 m thick comprisingtwo faces of small, mortared masonry with a sand and rubble fill. In placesit survived to 2-3m height, but there was evidence of considerable patch-ing and repair work along it. The gates also provided evidence of severalphases of occupation. In their original form they were all flanked by inter-nal rectangular towers. The east and west gates were later altered by theaddition of a projecting rectangular bastion, the north and south gates bythe addition of a semi-circular front. At a later date, further repairs andalterations took place at several of the gates and the north gate, for instance,was narrowed and finally blocked. 12 The parallels for the original internalgate towers are second century.13 for the second phase projecting towers latesecond and third. 14 (Fig 20).Donau also ran slit-trenches up the viae principalis and decumanaand opened a number of sondages in the area of the headquartersbuilding(principia). The principia trenches revealed a series of rooms and corridorswhose plan cannot be easily related to that of other African examples (Fig.21). 15 Two interconnecting rooms with columns and a raised earth platformsupporting a basin and small columns might be interpreted as a chapel, butit is in the wrong position to be the sacellum. Another room containedplaster fragments covered in graffiti (which Donau could make nothing of) andmay have been a scriptoz-um.16 It is clear though that Donau conf latedseveral phases of building on his plan and his excavations were far fromcomplete. Trousset suggests that as many as . five phases were involved. 17In the retentura Donau examined at least one room of a building hedescribed as a quaestorlum. This building was evidently over 23 m. long,flanking and partly impinging on the via decumana. It is therefore notan original structure and the evidence for metal working from the excavatedroom suggests that it was in fact a fabrica. 187: 1

-259-The earliest epigraphic evidence from the site is an inscription ofAnicius Faustus of A. D. 1979 referring to repairs to an aedes which hadcollapsed through age. 19 The original form of the gates suggests that thesite originated early rather than later in the second century and there areclose similarities with the Hadrianic fort at Gemellae (A. D. 132). 20 Theaddition of the projecting fronts to the gate towers was probably done aspart of the Severan refurbishment of A. D. 197.21 Occupation of the fortapparently continued into the fifth century.22In the southeast comer of the fort, Donau noted an enclosure ofc. 60 x 70 m built in rough style with its foundations. c. 1m above Romanground level. This is normally referred to as a "camp Arabe", but a sub-Roman date is possible. The people of Tillibari were mentioned by Corippusin his account of the Laguatan revolt of A. D. 546.23Gheriatel-GarbiaBarth 1857,, 121-25; Cagnat 1913,553-55; P4Goodchild 1952b, 77; 1954a - 1976a, 46-58;1967a, 51; Jones et al 1983,64-67; WelsbyBtragnarni 1928,96-97;di Vita 19669 94-111; Rebuffat1983,57-64.Dimensions 183 x 132 m (Goodchild) Area181 x 137 m (ULVP)Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 38-47. Figures: 2.48 ha (6.20 acres)22,23,24. Pl 7a, 8-11In 1850 whilst on his way to Fezzan, Barth recognised the northeastgate as "the well fortified entrance into the Roman station; but of thestation itself I was unable to find any tracestt24 He was misled by thepresence of a Berber village an the site and by the contrast between theashlar masonry used for the lower part of the gate and the much roughermasonry used for the rest of the fort's defences. When Goodchild flew overand visited the site in the 1950's he made out far more of the layout25and his plan has remained standard until the site was resurveyed as partof the ULVP work in the area (fig 23). 26 PI 7aGoodchild located three of the four gates but failed to find anytrace of the southwest gate or southern corner of the fort defences.7: 1

-260-His conclusion that the wall was never built here because of the naturalcliff defences must be doubtful following the identification of one side ofPI Ilathe largely robbed out southwest gate. The rest of the gate and the missingsection of wall were presumably used as a quarry for the Berber village insidethe fort. 27 Where it survives the fort wall is c. 2.4 m. thick and 3.5 m highto the bottom of the parapet. In many places the facing stone has beenrobbed and the rubblecore is exposed.The northeast gate is rightly fa us for its preserved triple archwayPl 8aand its southeast tower which stands almost to full height. 28 The gatetowers have obliquely angled fronts, a feature paralleled at Bu Njem andLambaesis, and were constructed in ashlar blocks up to the bottom of theparapet. The first floor rooms were lit by two large windows in the frontwalls and were probably constructed on a vault.29 Goodchild also plannedthe southeast gate and those to the northeast and southwest were recordedin 1981 (fig. 24). 30 The portae principales had rectangular, slightlyprojecting towers and these were faced with ashlars (robbed from theirprojecting face). 31 Analogy with Bu Njem would suggest that the fourthgate should have been of this type, but Gheriat is highly unusual in havinga third distinct type. The southwest gate was flanked by D-shaped projectingtowers and whilst there are good Severan parallels, several factors suggestthat this gate may not have been original. Unlike the other gates it was notfaced with ashlars, but was constructed entirely in small masonry. As wehave noted the mixture of three distinct gate types is unparalleled in Africaand this suggests non-conterporaneity. Finally, the circular watchtower1 km north of the fort, which is securely dated to the reign of SeverusAlexander (A. D. 222-235), is in a similar style and would seem to confirmthat the southwest gate was entirely rebuilt 20-30 years after the fortwas first occupied, 32 PI 9b, lla7: 1

-261-The major discovery of the 1981 survey was the recognition of eightPl 9aof the fort's original ten interval towers and three of its four angletowers (figs. 23s 24). Two of the interval towers stood almost to theirP1 10a,, bfull height of 9 m. The lower storey was filled with rubble in at leastone case and the towers were entered from the parapet at first floor level.There were no windows on the sides or inside walls of the towers so theywere presumably on the outer face at first floor level. These towers weregenerally c. 4.8 m sq.The angle towers were of unusually large type, filling the entireP1 8bcorners of the fort. They were built on a specially widened platform in thefort wall, a feature most readily paralleled at RapidLm in Mauxetania Caesar-iensis.33 Welsby has calculated from the evidence of the north tower thatthey were fronted by as many as five windows.34The interior buildings of the fort have been almost entirely robbedout or obscured by the Berber village which was built within the fort andoccupied until recent times. Columns reused in the mosque may have comefrom the principia and some traces of earlier wall alignments are visibleamongst the ruins of the village. In 1981 a small bath-house of militarytype was discovered by a spring on the opposite (western) side of theoasis. A number of isolated buildings east of the fort were possiblyP1 11btemples. Closer to the fort are traces of a vicus and a necropolis.35The epigraphic evidence from Gheriat shows that the fort was probablybuilt at the same time as Bu Njem in A. D. 201 and was occupied at least downto the reign of Gordian, when an auxiliary unit had replaced the disbandedlegionaries. A milestone of Aurelian (A. D. 275) shows that either Mizdaor Cheriat was still in commission at that late date, Pottery data are notrefined without excavation, but seem to confirm that occupation wasconfined to the third century. The size of the fort implies that it wasmore important than Bu Njem and it should logically have been the headquartersof the praepositus limitis Tripolltanlý67: 1

-262-Bu'Nj em'(GHOLAIA)Lyon 1821,65-66; Richardson 1848,443-53; Vivien de Saint-Martin 1863,119-21; Nachtigal 1974,47; Cagnat 1913,555-58 (from unpublished notes andplan of Duveyrier); Bartoccini 1928b, 50-58; Lavagnini 1928,416-22; Petragnarni1928,96-97; Merighi 1940,17-18; Goodchild 1954a - 1976a, 46-58 (esp.47-50); Haynes 1959,140-41; Rebuffat 1967a, 49-137; 1969,195-212; 1970a,9-105; 1970b, 107-65; 1972a, 330-39; 1973a, 99-120; 1973b, 121-34; 1973c,135-45; 1975a, 165-87; 1975b, 189-242; 1975c, 502-05; 1977,395-419;1979,225-35; 1982a, 474-513; 1982b, 911-19; Rebuffat and Marichal 1973,281-86; Marichal 1979,436-52; Barker and Jones 1981,12.Dimensions 138 x 93 m.Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 50-77.Area 1.28 ha (3.21 acres)Figures : 22,25 PI 7b, 12a, bThe site was discovered bythe British explorer Lyon in 1819 and hisdrawing of the north gate, thenstanding to full height, remains of great PI 12bvalue (see Frontispiece). 37 Otj ýer early travellers have left useful observ-tions.38 But it was the construction of the Turkish and Italian forts (whichdespoiled the site) which led to the discovery of the bath building in1928,39 However, the first detailed plan of the site was made by Goodchildon the basis of both field visits and air-photographs.40 Since 1967, aFrench team directed by Professor Rebuffat have conducted extensive excava-tions at the site and a good deal is already published.41The fort was provided with four gates and faced east'(fig. 25). Therampart wall is 2.40 - 2.50 m thick and according to Rebuffat it would havestood 5m high includingthe parapet.42 As at Cheriat it was constructedin small masonry, the use of ashlar blocks being reserved for the lowerportions of the gates. Most of the ashlars were given a rusticated finish,a distinctive feature of the site. The porta praetoria (east gate) wasflanked by obliquely angled projecting towers, but was only a single carriage-way wide. After the withdrawal of the garrison the gate was converted to adifferent use, possibly as grain silos.43 The other three gates were allflanked by square projecting towers and the north and south examples havebeen excavated. Lyon's drawing indicates that like the Gheriat examplesthese were not constructed in ashlar to their full height. Each of the gatetowers had two large windows at first floor and one or two at second floorlevel. 44 These towers must have stood over 8m high and this point is

-263-illustrated by a graffito found in the baths which depicts a fort whoseeight gate towers are very high in relation to the walls. Ideas on thereconstruction of Roman fort gates and towers in other parts of the Romanempire may need to be reconsidered,45 Rebuffat has also uncovered traces ofone interval tower and one can infer the presence of another and four angletowers of the same type as at Cheriat (on the basis of a kite air-photo ofthe southeast corner of the fort).. 46 Inaccurate Roman surveying of theouter defences led to the positioning of the north and south gates atdifferent distances from the eastern defences. This had the effect ofputting askew the buildings flanking the via principalis as is all tooevident on figure 25, The principia and four of the six strip buildings inthe praetentura were laid out in relation to this incorrect alignment.The principia has been completely excavated, along with the praetorlun,47the baths and a double granary (all in the latera praetorII)s Th e principlaP1 12ais of fairly standard type. Offices, armories and other rooms flank a court-yard, to the west of which a crosshall with tribunal dais separates thecourt from the rear range. The sacellLm is centrally placed in this rearrange, raised up a few steps over the military strongroom. An importantdiscovery was the identification of the scriptoriun in the southern rangewith its writing desk and benches still in situ. At least four phases ofcons truction/alte rations were identified in the principia as a whole and alarge quantity of ostraca (giving details of the last phase of militaryoccupation) was found in and around the building.The excavations of the baths have produced a wealth of detail aboutthis complex which is preserved up to roof level. Repairs and alterationscontinued long after A. D. 238, as, for instance, in the Room of Fortuna'48There was at least one well inside the fort and it is possible that the bathshad their own water supply.49 The reports on the commanding officer's houseand the granary are as yet unpublished, but their general plan is clear fromair-photo graphs. Although only a few sondages have been dug on the barracks7: 1

-264-their disposition is also apparent (fig 25). 50 Allowing two rooms percontubernim and assuming that some of the smaller strip buildings were storesor fabricae there is adequate accorn dation for 6 centuries or one cohort(c. 480 men).51Investigation of the cemeteries, of buildings within the vicus and ofthree satellite temples have been other important aspects of Rebuffat's work(fig. 22). 52 The epigraphic archive from the site is particularly richand dated examples cover the period A. D. 201-259. It is thought that thefort was probably abandoned c. 263.53 Structural and ceramic evidence,however, shows that some civilian "squatter" occupation continued into thefourth or early fifth century.54 By this stage the site was already partlyengulfed by sands.55Ghadames (CIDAMUS, CYDAMAE)Richardson 1848,211,355-57; Duveyrier 1864,249-66; Mercier 1953,17-47;Goodchild 1954a - 1976a, 56; Coro 1956,3-26; Reynolds 1958,135-36;Rebuffat 1969,194-95; 1972a, 322-23.Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 22-25.Little survives at Chadames which can be linked with the Roman fortconstructed by the Roman vexillation under the command of a centurion.Duveyrier described a square tower in the northwest angle of the town wall,built of small masonry with some brick courses. There was another collapsedtower adjacent.56 Roman columns and capitals have been found in the el-Aouina square and reused in the main mosque. 57 Recently, Rebuffat hasreported finding Roman fine wares over a large part of the oasis adjacent tothe necropolis. He has surveyed the tombs (Asnam) and an enigmatic circulartower nearby. 58Occupation can be presum d for the period c. A. D. 201-238. There isalso evidence for considerable contact between Rome and the oasis in thesecond century before the garrison was installed. S971

-265-El-Hamma (AQUAE TACAPITANAE)Privd 1895,84-93; Blanchet 1899,145-46; Toussaint 1905,63.Epigraphy : CIL 8.22784El-Haynma is notable for the Roman baths found there near the French"bordj". The strategic importance of this oasis, which controls the Arad andthe Tebaga gap, suggests that it may have been garrisoned in the Flavianperiod (compare Aquae Flavianae in the Aures). 60 It is possible that thebaths were a military construction, but little is known of the other ancientruins.61Telmine(TURRIS TAMALLENI)Tissot 1888,46,701-03; Toutain 1903a, 289-303; Toussaint 1905,71-72;Donau 1907,65-67; Cagnat 1909,277-81; Carton 1914,207-16,354-68; 1915,35-47; Trousset 1974,43-46; Euzennat 1977c, 134; Gascou 1982,189.Epigraphy : CIL 8.839 849 23157.The identification of Telmine as a Flavian fort is also circumstantial.The construction of a road between el-Hamma and Telmine under Domitian ishighly suggestive. So is the rapidity of the pacification and the develop-ment of the tribal civitas there under Trajan and Hadrian. 62 If not atTelmine itself a fort must have been placed at one of the neighbouring63 64oases. Some troops may have remained in the area tmtil the late empire.MizdaBarth 1857,99-103; Petragnami 1928,112-13,116; Ward-Perkins andGoodchild 1949 - 1976a, 29.There was undoubtedly a major ancient site at Mizda. Barth described65extensive ruins extending into the plain. When the Italian fort wasbuilt there it incorporated ancient stone and inscriptions from the regionand from Mizda itself into its walls.66 The site lies at the centre of anetwork of roads, tracks and routes and was probably close to the boundary67of the Macae and Phazanil tribes. There are no surviving structuralremains today, but the most likely location for the fort is underneath thewestern villagg in the oasis.687: 1

-266-Edref near Zintan? (THENTEOS)De Mathuisieulx 1904,11-16; 1905,82-87; 1912,53-54; Hammond 1964,10;1967,13; Euzennat and Trousset 1975,53.The discovery of the Gasr Duib inscription confirmed the generallocation of Thenteos in the vicinity of Zintan. De Mathuisieulx hadsuggested this, but the ruins he associated with the Roman road stationare those of the fortified olive farm and mausoleum called Gasr Romani.69An expedition from Cambridge in 1964 suggested a different site a few kmwest of Zintan at the Edref crossroads. ThoughLAWL64 by latertroglodytedwellings, Roman foundations extended along the ridge for c. 40C m. Thesite is exactly 30 m. p. from Ain el Auenia (Auru). 70The existence of a major fort here is admittedly speculation,I'basedonthe question of the whereabouts of the cohox-s I SyrorLm Sagittariorun. Theywere involved in construction work at Auru in the early third centurys butthe permanent garrison left there was a, legionary vexillation. The laterimportance of Thenteos in A. D. 244-46 and the Notitia suggests that it mayhave been more than a simple road-station.71Forts of mid-third century dateRas el-Ain(TALALATI)Lecoy de la Marche 1894,399-402; Heron de Villefosse 1894,472,475-76;Hilaire 1901,101-03; Renault 1901,429-37; Toutain 1903a, 351-54;Donau 1909a, 38-39; Cagnat 1913,202,531; Boizot 1913,260-66; Trousset1974,98-102; Rebuffat 1980a, 111-12.Dimensions 93 x 93 m. Area : 0.86 ha (2.16 acres)Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 12-14 Figures : 26,27. P1 13a, bFirst identified by Lecoy de la Marche in 1894, Ras el-Ain wassubjected to several attempts at excavation which produced two gateinscriptions of A. D. 263 but little detail of the fort's interior. Somebuildings of the vicus were excavated including a bath-house, 72 The siteP1 13bis still little changed and would repay modern examination.73 P1 13aThe fort is roughly square with rounded comers and faced east. Themain wall is only c. 1.50 m thick and survives to c. 2m height. The four7: 1

-267-gates were all apparently flanked by D-shaped projecting towers with thepiers and voussoirs of the arches being in ashlar. In figure 26 1 havetried to correct the impression given by the most recently published planthat these gate towers were simply semi-circular additions to the outside ofthe rampart. Detailed plans show that the gates were of normal type withthe towers serving as guard chanbers. 74 Late Roman, and possibly Christian,burials were made in the corridor of the west gate so, the fort may havebeen abandoned at some pointbetween A. D. 360 and the Vandal conquest.75Excavation of the southwest angle produced no trace of an angle tower,but instead a series of storerooms and corridors backing onto the rampart,In general the early excavators found the interior too full of rubble fortheir speedy operations and so turned to the vicus outside (see 7: 4below), 76The fort was built in A. D. 263 in opportuno loco a solo and regularmilitary occupation continued into the later fourth century A. D. followingrepairs in A. D. 355-60,77 Ceramic evidence from the site suggests that theearliest civilian presence may have been early in the third century. Thisis to be expected if Ras el-Ain is to be identified with the Talalati ofthe Antonine Itinerary, which must therefore have remained a civiliansettlement up to A. D. 263. The question can only be finally resolved bynew excavation.78C. Late Roman Forts (including fortlets)All the known late Roman forts in Tripolitania are very small in size,79particularly when compared to those of N=idia. I have treated them asa group here, though they are by no means all contemporary (none has yieldedany inscriptions), because they all share the late Roman characteristic ofprojecting angle towers. 80 Although some of the earlier forts (Ras el-Ain,Remada) continued to be occupied as well, I think that the small size of7: 1

-268-TABLE 7: B LATE ROMAN FORTS AND FORTLETSArea Name Unit GarrisonsizeDaterange1.95 ha Remada (7111ibari) remants of ? lower into early(4.87 acres) coh XX X. Afr. than in 5th cent.(secunda2nd cent.Afxorun)0.86 ha Ras el-Ain remants of ? cont to late(2.16 acres) (Talalati) coh VXXX Fida 4th cent atleast0.36 ha Ksar Tabria ? ? ?(0.9 acres)0.325 ha - Bir Rhezene(0.81 acres) (Bezereos) ? ? in Notitia? Thenteos ? ? in Notitia? Lepcis Ragna milites forten- ? in Notitiases(or- latehortenses) 4th centuryHades milites ? in Notitiamunifices? Turris Tamelleni ? ? in Notitiac. 0.27 ha Sdada east ? ? 3rd-4th?(0.66 acres)0.24 ha - Benia Cuedah 7 up to 100? late 3rd -(0.6 acres) Ceder 4th cent.?0.15 ha - Hr el Hadjar ? ? late 3rd -(0.38 acres) 4th cent,.0.14 ha - Benia bel Recheb ? ? late 3rd -(0.36 acres) 4th cent.?0.08 ha = Hr Temassine ? 7 4th cent.?(0.19 acres)0.05 ha - Casr Bularkan 7 ? 4th cent.?(0.12 acres)0.04 ha - Hr Rjijila ? ? 4th cent.?(0.09 acres)7: 1

-269-these fortifications does indicate a drastic reduction in the overallgarrison size by the fourth century. It would appear that ! rripolitaniawas being drained of official troops just when she needed them most.BeniaGuedah CederTissot 1888,689-90; Blanchet 1898,74; Toutain 1903a, 315-22,339-41;Donau 1904a, 467-77; Toussaint 1905,69; Cagnat 1913,542-47; Trousset 1974,67-68.Dimensions : 60 x 40 m. Area : 0.24 ha (0.6 acres) Figures : 28,38.Frequently mentioned by early French explorers of the Tebaga corridorand excavated by Ddhau in 1902 and 1904.81 The site is still in a remar-kable state of preservation today.82 The enceinte is built in high qualityashlar masonry with square bastions projecting at the south, east andwest corners. There is another in the middle of the southwest side. Thesingle gate in the southeast side opens on to a Z-bend corridor. Most ofthese ashlar walls are 0.60-0.80 m thick and have been robbed down to withina metre or two from ground level. It is possible that the upper wall wasoriginally constructed in smaller masonry.83In the interior of the site, the main building is in ashlar masonryand still stands 3m high against the northwest wall. Its single entrancewas defensible if necessary. One of the interior rooms was a stable.84Previous accounts of the site have tended to dwell overmuch on these ashlarmasonry structures. But from Donau's account it is clear that he uncoveredtraces of barracks and stores built against the inside of the enceinteusing smaller masonry. These buildings had been almost entirely robbed, ofcourse, and. little trace now remains.85 There-is no reason why these haveto be considered as a later addition to the site.The style of building in an African context is fourth century, but inthe absence of epigraphic evidence precision is difficult. Pottery identifiedon the site and at the nearby clausura might push its origins back to thelater third century (see 7: 3 below), 86

-270-Wadi TemassineToutain 1903a, 239; Toussaint 1905,69; Trousset 1974,53.Dimensions : 30 x 25 m. Area : 0.08 ha (0.19 acres) Fig: 28,38.This is a much smaller version of the quadriburgum type with foursquare comer bastions. The entrance is in the east side, but no traceof internal buildings survives and no dating evidence has been recovered.87Henchirel-HadjarTissot 1888,690; Toutain 1903a, 304,334; Toussaint 1905,70; Trousset1974,59-60.Dimensions : 38.80 x 38.80 m. Area : 0.15 ha (0.38 acres) Figures : 28,38.The site is situated between Benia. Buedah Ceder and Gabes (fig. 38) andits plan suggests broad contemporaneity (fig 28). The ashlar enceinte wasreinforced by four comer bastions and five more at the centres of itssides and flanking the gate. It was also surrounded by a ditch and counter-scarp. No trace of internal buildings has been noted. Some late Romanpottery including Christian lamps have been collected from the site.88KsarTabriaToutain 1903,324; Toussaint 1905,70-73; Trousset 1974,73-75.Dimensions : 60 x 60 m. Area : 0.36 ha (0.9 acres) Fig: 29,Trousset's plan of this site, taken from an aerial photograph, puts itin a different category from the other late forts. It is much larger andhad circular corner bastions and D-shaped gate towers. A central buildingis visible but the area described as intervallum was almost certainly takenup by barracks. Outside the fort to the north is an enigmatic triangularenclosure. Trousset dates the site as Constantinian following Petrikovits'analysis of fortifications in northwest Europe. 89 The bastions certainlysuggest fourth century occupation, but one would like to know about potteryfrom the site as some features suggest an earlier date (which is possible ifthe bastions are an addition - see further below).7: 1

-271-Benia bel RechebBlanchet 1898,78; 1899,142-43; Hilaire 19019 100-01; Toutain 1903a,348,354-60; Toussaint 1906,233; Cagnat 1913,532-34; Hamm nd et al1964,16; Trousset 1974,95-96,133-35.Dimensions-: 40 x 36 m. Area 0.14 ha (0.36 acres) Figures : 28,39.This site also presents many similarities with Benia, Guedah Ceder.Although there are no ashlar buildings inside the enceinte, Trousset ismistaken to suggest that the enceinte was completely empty. Barracks andstorebuildings were noted by early researchers (in particular in'the northerncorner) and these structures in smaller and rougher masonry were still visiblein 1964.90 As on riany other sites in the region, this smaller masonry hasbeen the first target for stonerobbers, whilst the large ashlars, being lesstransportab leg have tended to survive. The apparent emptiness of Benia belRecheb and indeed its allegedly unfinished state reflect the post-Romanhistory of the ruins, not their original construction." As with the otherBenia, the bel Recheb fortlet was built in relation to a sector of severalclausurae (see 7: 3 and fig. 39).HenchirRjijilaLecoy de la. Marche 1894,409-10; Toutain 1903a, 396; Donau 1909a, 50;Trousset 1974,105-06.Dimensions : 17 x 21 m. Area 0.04 ha, (0.09 acres) Figure : 28This is another very small example of the type. Little detail hasbeen recorded but the outline of the site with its bastions is clear fromTrousset'splan.92Gasr Bularkan(Mselletin- Md 2)Goodchild 1950a - 1976a, 38-41.Dimensions : 22 x 22 m. Area : 0.05 ha (0.12 acres) Figure : 28This is again a site producing the plan of a fourth century fort inminiature. The construction of a site of this nature, with its seven squarebastions,, is at least indicativeof the continued presence of some regulartroopsin easternTripolitaniaat a late date. 937: 1

-272-Sdada east (Nf 83)Burns and Mattingly 1981,30-31.Dimensions : c. 66 x 55 m Area : c. 0.27 ha (0.66 acres) Figure : 28The Italian fort on Sdada hill overlooks the major inland short cut fromthe southwestern edge of the Greater Syrtes towards Lepcis and 0ea. OppositeSdada on the east side of the N'f'd a possibly military site was located in1980. Its shape is owed to its position on an irregular spur, but the sitewas surrounded by a well built wall 2m thick. On the landward side thiswas augmented by a series of square bastions also built in small masonry.The regular layout of the internal buildings is also suggestive of a militaryinterpretation. 94i: 2 Fortlets and outpostsA wide range of sites need to be considered under this heading. Theyrange from signal towers manned by one or two men only, up to fortlets witha garrison of perhaps a century or so. It is presumed that most of theseinstallationswere built to house detachments outstationed from a permanentparent fort. 1 In the analysis below I have tried to take account of size,type and date when linking groups of sites together.A Road stations/fortlets (sites between 0.1 - 0.8 ha in area)It is clear that not all the sites mentioned on the limes road in theAntonine Itinerary were military posts. It is not necessary, therefore* tolink any suitably located defensive structure to a particular name from theItinerary. 2 But conversely, it appears that when troops were posted to aroad station or to watch a cistern or well, they were provided with someform of defensive enceinte, be it a tower or a fortlet. Undefended militaryroad stations are a myth in Roman Africa. 3 The earliest certainly datedfortlets are those of Bezereos and Tisavar (Co dan) and the network wasexpanded under the Severans. Some outposts might be expected to date fromthe early to mid-second century, whilst the construction of such postscontinued into the fourth century as we have seen in the last section.7: 1/7: 24

-273-Table 7: C FORTLETSArea Name Unit GarrisonsizeDaterange0.5 ha Ain Wif I part of a unit? 100-200? 2nd cent.?(1.25 acres) (Thenadassa)0.45 ha - Hr Mgarine part of a unit? C. 100? 3rd cent.(1.12 acres) (Agarlabas) vex 70.40 ha - IIr ISedeina part of Coh ZZ P to 100 3rd cent.?(0.99 acres) (Thebelaml) Fl. Af. ?0.36 ha - Gasr el Haddadia part of a unit? C. 100? lst? 3rd(0.9 acres) (Tugul us) cent.?0.36 ha - Ksar Tabria ? C. 100? 3rd cent??(0.9 acres)0.33 ha - Bir Rhezene vex Leg III A ug c. 300* later 2nd(0.81 acres) (Bezereos) 3rd cent.c. 0.16 ha - Ain Wif 11 vex Leg XXX Aug up to 1007 3rd cent.(0.4 acres) (Thenadassa)c. 0.16 ha - Medina Doga ? ? 3rd cent??(0.4 acres) (Resphe)? Ain el-Auenia vex Leg III Aug ? 3rd cent.(Auru)0.14 ha El fiedina Ragda ? ? lst - 3rd(0.36 acres) cent?0.12 ha - Ksar Rhilane vex Leg XXX Aug c. 80? Late 2nd -(0.3 acres) (V Sa va r) end 3rd cent.0.12 ha - Si Aioun part of Coh XX ? 3rd cent.(0.3 acres) ,FI. Af.IIA large proportion of the Bezereos garrison may have been normallyoutstationed at other fortlets, such as Tisavar.7: 2

-274-Ain WifI (THENADASSA)Ward-Perkins and Goodchild 1949 - 1976a, 21-24; Haynes 1959,138;Mattingly 1982,73-80.Dimensions c. 100 x 50 m (7) Area : 0.5 ha (1.25 acres)Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 34-36. Figure : 31 P1 14a, bThe site at Ain Wif was for long considered an undefended road stationgarrisonedby a few soldiers.5 This theory does not seem to take account ofthe fact that there is a large military bath-house here nor explain why a"few soldiers merely" were co=amded by a centurio princeps. A recentreexamination of the site revealed the presence of certainly one andprobably two phases of military compound. The larger of these has beententatively ascribed to the second century A. D., whilst the second, smallerfortlet probably relates to the attested occupation during the Severanperiod (fig. 31)*6BirRhezene (BEZEREOS)Tissot 1888,687,705; Hilaire 1901,97,99; Toutain 1903a, 324-25;Toussaint 1905,72; 1906,231; Donau 1909a, 35-38; Merlin 1921,236-48;Poinssot 1936-37,321-25; Trousset 1974,75-789 132, fig. 14.Dimensions 50 x 65 m. Area : 0.33 ha (0.81 acres)Epigraphy App. 3. nos. 1-4. Figure : 29.The recorded dimensions of the site of Bezereos (or Vezerei) do notcorrelate with the importance of the site as suggested by epigraphicdiscoveries. A fortlet of under an acre could not have accommodated theforce of 300 men suggested by a military list from the site.7 In Chapter6: 3 it was suggested, therefore, that either there is a larger site stillawaiting discovery under the sand dunes or else Bezereos was the commandcentre for a number of other small outposts in the northern Dahar.The outer wall of the fortlet was constructed in small masonry with asingle gate "h chicane" in the north side. No detail of the internal buil-dings has been recorded, but a similar arrangement to sites like Tisavar orHenchir Mgarine is likely*87: 2

-275-Hr Mgarine(ACARLABAS?)Toussaint 1905,, 70; Ha=wnd et al 1964,14; Trousset 1974,52,132, fig. 14.Dimensions : 67 x 67 m. Area : 0.45 ha (1.12 acres) Figures : 29,38.The fortlet is defined by a masonry enceinte c. 1.4 m wide. The anglesare rounded with no trace of external bastions. The single entrance wasprobably in the southeast side. A central building constructed in opusAfricantn is relatively well preserved, but the site has been heavilyrobbed of its smaller stonework. Trousset noted an internal wall runningparallel to the northwest rampart at a distance of c. 7m. from it. 9 In 1982I observed traces of similar walls in the same relationship to the southwestand southeastwalls.10 The site would appear, therefore, to be a largerversion of the Tisavar-type with barracks and stores built around the insideof the rampart and with a single freestanding central building (Fig. 29).Pottery from the site and its quite extensive vicus was predominantly thirdcentury in date but some indisputably second and fifth century forms werenotedoso civilian occupation of some sort may have been over a longer period.11.Hr Medeina (THEBELAMI? )Lecoy de la Marche 1894,407-08; Toutain 1903a, 401; Toussaint 1906,236;Ila nd 1967,11; Trousset 1974,109-10,132, fig. 14.Dimensions : 63 x 63 m. Area : 0.40 ha (0.99 acres). Figures : 29,30.Discovered'by Lecoy de la Marche in 1894 this site bears many simi-larities with that just described. The style of enceinte, the presence ofan opus Africantm building in the centre and the overall size suggest thatthe sites were broadly contecporary and constructed for a particular size ofdetachment.The barrack arrangements at Medeina are unrecorded but wereprobably similar to those at Mgarine. Trousset's recent plan of the sitedisagrees in important detailswith de la Marche's on the arrangement of thecentral building (figs 29,30) and further survey or excavation would benecessary to resolve this problem entirely.127: 2

-276-KsarTabriaSee above 7: 1 c. Figure 29As was noted above the small masonry, larger overall size andcircular bastions distinguish this site from the Benia Guedah Ceder type ofquadriburgi. The size and square shape of the site, the presence of acentrally placed freestanding building and barracks around the enceinte arefeatures which could apply to a fortlet of third century date were it notfor the external comer bastions (fig. 29). On Trousset's plan at leastone of these bastions looks as if it may have been added rather thanoriginal.13 A visit to the site will be necessary before this possiblethird century phase can be more than a tentative hypothesis.Ksar Rhilane (TISAVAR)Tissot 1888,706-07; lecoy de la Marche 1894,396-97; Gaukler 1900,543-47;Hilaire 1901,100; Gombeaud 1901,81-94 (with plan) ; Toutain 1903a, 373;Toussaint 1907,312-14; Cagnat 1913,558-61 (with plan) ; Trousset 1974,92-94,132, fig. 14; Rebuffat 1980a, 110-11.Dimensions 40 x 30 m. Area : 0.12 ha (0.3 acres)Epigraphy App, 3, nos. 5-10 Figures : 29-30,39.Tisavar is the most extensively excavated fortlet in Tripolitania*14Although this site is only a quarter the size of Hr Mgarine, it is clearlythe same basic type of construction, though presumably designed for a smallergarrison. The outer wall was 1.40 m thick with rounded corners. It wasconstructed up to c. 1.5 m in ashlar and above that in smaller masonry toa height of c. 4 m. The single entrance was in the east side. Twentyrooms of varying size were constructed round the inside of the enceinte, somepresumably barracks, others for stores. The parapet walkway was built on theroofs of these rooms and stairways in the corners of the fortlet gave accessup to it. The well-built central range of rooms included a chapel toJupiter and was presumably the administrative centre of the post. Extra-mural ancilliary buildings included stables and temples (one of which hada trefoil plan and was dedicated to the Genius Tlsavar). 157: 2

-277-Military occupation of the site seems to have run from the latersecond to the early years of the fourth century. The garrison may have beenequivalent to a century of c. 80 men as it was commanded by a centurion andtwo optiones. The fortlet seems to have been deliberately burnt afterbeing cleared out by the departing garrison.16Si AiounHilaire 1901,104; Toutain 1903a, 396; Donau 1909a, 40-43; Merlin 1909,98;Cagnat 1913,205,558; Trousset 1974,118-20.Dimensions c. 30 x 40 m. Area : c. 0.12 ha (0.3 acres)Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 20-21.I have been unable to visit this site and so I am uncertain whether itshould count as a fortlet or in the smaller outpost category* Attention hasnormally been focussed on the nearby mausolea and cisterns or on the centralbuilding. 17 But as Trousset notes the ruinous main building is surroundedby a masonry enceinte c. 30-40 m square, which would make the site overallthe same size as Tisavar, assuming that this outer wall was originally themain defensive wall, rather than an outer compound (as is the case withthe fourth century centenarlu3 Tibubuci).18The praesidim at Si Aioun will remain an enigma until a detailed planof the siteis published.Gasr el-Haddadia(TUGULUS),Cerrata 1933,220; Goodchild 1952d - 1976a, 157-58 and pl. 53;Bakir 1967,251.Dimensions : c. 60 x 60 m. Area : 0.36 ha (- 0.9 acres)Goodchild published an air-photograph of this site with an all toobrief description. The site is approximately square with rounded cornersand perhaps had more than one gate. Details of internal buildings do notshow on the photograph.19 The form of the site and the surface potterycombine to suggest a date between the late first century and early thirdcentury A. D. for its construction, The aftermath of the Nasamonian revoltis perhaps the best context, but its small size might suggest a later date.7: 2

-278-Ain Wif11 (THENADASSA) ,liedina Doga (MSPHE)_Ainel-Auenia(AURU)Ward-Perkins and Goodchild 1949 - 1976a, 21-24; Goodchild 1951b - 1976a,74-79; Hammond 1967,, 13-15; Reynolds and Brogan 1960,51-52; Reynoldsand Simpson 1967,45-47; Mattingly 1982,73-80.Dimensions : Ain Wif 11 and Medina Dogat c. 40 x 40 m.Area : 0.16 ha (0.4 acres)Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 26-30,34-36. Figure : 31.These three sites can be conveniently discussed together, since allthreehave been claimed to be undefended road stations.2-0 The recentidentification of a two phase fortlet at Ain Wif reopens the question ofthe form of military presence postulated for the other two sites.21 Nomilitary inscriptions have been found at Hedina Doga, but there is a c.40 m square defensive enceinte there, built in ashlar masonry. 22 Thesecond phase fortlet at Ain Wif is approximately the same size thoughPI 14abuilt in smaller masonry (and therefore almost entirely robbed out).Conversely at Ain el-Auenia a legionary vexillation was certainly presentin garrison and although so far their barracks have not been located,a fortified post is likely. 23 All three of these road stations possessedbath-houses and later were fairly considerable civilian settlements. PI 14bEl Medina RagdaDe Mathuisieulx 1904,, 16-, 19129 60-61; Cagnat 1913,557-58; Brogan1980,45-52.Dimensions : c. 38 x 38 m. Area : 0.14 ha (0.36 acres) Figure 29. PI 15a, bFirst visited by de Ifathuisieulx in 1904, the site was virtuallyforgotten until visited by Brogan when she discovered the Hadd Hajarclausura a few km to the south. She cautiously suggested that the sitemight be a fortified farm, but the subsequent visit by the ULVP favouredthe earlier military interpretation.24The site is surrounded by a defensive wall of large ashlars with aPI 15asingle entrance in the east side.The corners are square but there is notrace of external bastions. On the south and east sides there are hintsof a possible ditch. The only visible interior building is a rectangularrange in opus Africanun near the entrance (fig 29 About 50 m northeast7: 2

-279-of the fortlet is a huge double cistern with impressively constructedPI 15bvaults (fig. 40). 25The surface pottery scatter at the site included large quantities oflate first and second century finewares and at this early date the defensivefeatures of the site are more consistent with a military interpretation. 2.6Medina Ragda lies on a major transhuming corridor between the Dahar and theGebelpand the clausura just to the south shows that Roman policing of thiscorridor was considered icportant. The fortlet at Medina Ragda was probablyoccupied from an earlier date than the clausura, but a connection between thetwo is not inconceivable (see below 7: 3).B Outposts (gsur, "fortified farms", centenaria)Unlike most of the sites described above, fortified sites of 0.1 haarea and under are much harder to classify as military or civilian. Thecriteria applied in the past have proved unsatisfactory, particularly becauseof the tendency to identify any square or rectangular building with reasonablyneat masonry and some defensive features as military.27 Recent work in theLibyan pre-desert and Gebel has underlined time and again the indigenousorigins of most of the settlement and of many of the impressive fortifiedPI 17afarms (gsur). 28 The previous attempts to date the gsur in terms of allegeddifferences in their masonry construction have been discredited and withoutsome supplementary evidence the style of construction alone cannot be takento indicate that a building was built by the military.29 Nor are featureslike ditches solely restricted to military sites.30 In some cases theproximity of civilian mausolea can help decide whether a particular gsurisof"native type", but this cannot be infallible either.31Terminology is a complicating factor of course. Indeed the wholequestion of the centenaria in the later Roman Empire has often been mis-conceived. It has been argued that the centenarlun was a particular class7: 2

-280-of site and that the name related to the officer in charge (centenarlus)32,,Alternatively it may derive from the unit intended to serve as the detach-ment (centuria),, 33 But the archaeological evidence cannot be reconciled toeither view. Co=pare, for exa=ple, the size of centenaritm Aqua Viva (86 x86 m-0.74 ha) built in A. D. 303 with centenarlun Tibubucl (15 x 15 m-0.02 ha) also build A. D. 298-303,34 It is inadvisable, therefore, to readtoo much into the significance of the name in a late Roman context.Further confusion has arisen, as we have already observed, througherroneous links established between centenaria and gsur and between limitane!and the gasr-dwellers.35 Goodchild correctly observed that in a few cases,gsur built by native Libyans were also called centenaria, but his error wasto argue that the same was probably true of most of the other gsur as well,36We have no way of assessing exactly how many of the gasr-dwellers had adesignated status as border militia nor do we know what duties this entailed.It is interesting though that almost all of the epigraphic evidence suggeststhat the first concern of the gasr builders was protection for their ownfamilies and estates; there is no mention of a wider purpose. 37 The militaryorganisation behind the known Libyan centenaria was in all probabilityextremelyloose.Because of these uncertainties it is now necessary to treat each siteon its merits and with a good deal of scepticism. Of course some genuinesmall outposts and towers can be confidently identified by epigraphicmeans. There must have been some others which were military or para-imilitaryin origin, but it would be a rather futile exercise to list all the knowngsur since a high proportion were indigenous creations, built for reasons ofprestige and/or defence. 38 The earliest of the Libyan gsur seem to be latesecond and early third century in date and it is possible that the formfollowed a military model. But fortified towers had served as granaries in39the oases earlier, so an indigenous development is not inconceivable. Inview of these problems of identification I have limited my examples of7: 2

-281-TABLE 7: DOUTPOSTSArea Name Attached toGarrisonDatecomandatsizerange0.10 ha Cheriat esh-Shergia Cheriat el- up to 50? late 2nd? -(0.25 acres) Garbia 3rd cent.0.08 ha - Hr Krannfir Bezereos? up to 50?? 3rd cent.?(0.2 acres) (Khanefi)0.06 ha - Zella I Bu Njem ? 3rd cent.(0.16 acres)0.06 ha - Gasr Isawi (Banat) ? up to 50? late 2nd? -(0.14 acres) 3rd cent.0.03 ha - el-Faschia Bu Njem? ?- late 2nd? -(0.08 acres) 3rd cent.0.03 ha. - Zella 11 Bu Njem ? 3rd cent.(0.08 acres)0.02 ha - Gasr Duib Thenteos ? mid- late-(0.06 acres) third cent.0.02 ha - Ksar Tarcine Talalati? 22? 4th cent.(0.06 acres) (centenarlunTibubuci)0.02 ha - Gasr Wames Thenteos or ?(0.04 acres) Mizda?0.01 ha - Gasr Zerzi Bu Njem ? 3rd cent.(0.03 acres)"military" outposts largely to the certain and probable categories. Tofurther illustrate the problems a few highly dubious, interesting oruncertain sites are included at the end (Table 70).Some of the larger outposts were constructed in ashlar masonry anddespite the lack of epigraphic proofs, their strategic sitings favour amilitaryinterpretation.7: 2

-282-Hr Kra=fir(Khanefi)Toutain 1903a, 304,325-30 (fig 36) ; Toussaint 1906,231; Cagnat 1913,539-42 (with plan); Trousset 1974,79.Dimensions : 31 x 25.4 m. Area : 0.08 ha (0.2 acres) Figures : 34,38.The site was partially excavated in 1903 and comprises an ashlarenceinte, with a number of rooms inside flanking a central courtyard. Thefact that the building lacks bastions favours a second or third centurydate, but no clearer indications were noted in the excavation. One of theinternal rooms was a stable with acco dation for at least eight horsesqso the detachment was part mounted .40The site is also in a good positionfor observation and signalling towards Bir Rhezene (Bezereos) which waspresu=bly its command centre (fig. 38).Gheriatesh-ShergiaBarth 1857,, 125; Ward-Perkins and Goodchild 1949 - 1976a, 30;1954a - 1976a, 50; di Vita 1964a, 71-73.Dimensions : 38.8 x 26 m. Area : 0.10 ha (0.25 acres) Figure : 32i 34.Three sides of this iimpressive building survive to a height of c. 7 m,built throughout in fine ashlar blocks. The corners were cut round andPI 16aslightly bevelled, a feature exactly paralleled at Gasr Isawi (see furtherbelow). Goodchild thought the east wall had fallen away over the cliffescarpment, but examination in 1980, suggested that it may have beendemolished when the building was incorporated into an Italian fort and arange of offices or barracks were inserted on this side. The presence inthe entrance of one of these now ruined rooms of a pair of massive sill-stones, apparently in situ, establishes the position of the entrance andeast wall of the Roman post (fig 32), 41 On the much rougher internal faceof the enceinte wall there are signs that the rooms were built lean-toagainst it and that they were two-storied. 42PI 16bThe outpost was constructed at the top of a scarp overlooking anddominating the esh-Shergia oasis. Although assurted to post-date theconstruction of the fort at el-Garbia, it is just possible to argue thatit may actually antedate it. Of the two oases, esh-Shergia ts the larger7: 2

-283-one and perhaps lies on the better route southwards to Fezzan. If thesefactors applied in antiquity also one would expect the esh-Shergia oasis tohave been occupied first. It is a possibility which is worth bearing in mindin view of the evidencefrom Gasr Isawi.Gasr Isawi(Banat)De Mathuisieulx 1904,27-29; 1912,71-77; Ward-Perkins and Goodchild 1949=1976a, 30; Goodchild 1950a - 1976a, 41-43; Burns and Mattingly 1981,24-33.Dimensions : 22 x 25 m. Area : 0.06 ha (0.14 acres) Figures : 32,33,34.The existence of an almost identical building to the esh-Shergiaexample called Gasr Isawi, in the wadi N'f'd, was noted by Goodchild andothers and increases the likelihood that both are military.43 The ULVPsurvey of the N'f'd produced additional evidence in support of this theory.A native hillfort was discovered 400 m from the post and suggests a probable. raison dlftre for a military presence here.44The main ashlar walls of the building still stand 6-7m. high and werebacked on the inside by an inner "skin" of smaller masonry into which theinternal rooms were bonded. The layout was apparently based on ranges ofrooms around a central courtyard (fig 32). The well-preserved doorway couldbe strongly barred and bolted. There was no sign of the provision of adedicatory inscription, unless an exceptionally small text had once filledthe eliptical space below the arch (fig. 33). Additional support for amilitary interpretation is provided by ancill:. ary buildings round the main.. Igasr. The regular, rectangular ranges are quite unlike the normally irregularoutbuildings around gsur. 45As well as policing a tribal (and perhaps a market) centre, Isawi isclose to several major routes leading north across the Sofeggin. Datingevidence from the site suggests that occupation may have conmienced in* thelater second century, possibly in pre-Severan times,46A number of other sites exhibiting similarly fine masonry may be in thissame class, but care is necessary. A strong case can be made out for the site7: 2

-284-at el-Faschia on the Zem-Zem. This gasr with rounded corners and built inmassive masonry controls the important Roman cistern at this remote locationCfig 34), 47 One can be less confident about some other possibilities,notably in the Gebel region where the use of ashlar masonry was much moreco=onplace.48The Bu Njem outpostsBrogan and Reynolds 1964,43-46; Brogan 1965b, 57-64; Rebuffat 1970b,136-37 (with plan of Zerzi); 1970c, 181-87 (with plans of Zella); 1970d,17-18; 1972a, 324-26; 1975c, 498-499; 1982a; 1982c, 197-98; Marichal 1979,448-50.Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 48-49, Fig : 34.The ostraca from Bu Njem frequently refer to outposts and four areknown by name .Boinag, E. 4uba, Hyeruzerian, Secedi. Although the exactlocation of these is unknown, there are some good archaeological candidates.49There are two gsur (28 x 23 m and 18 x 18 m) in the Zella oasis with associ-ated third century pottery and both may be military in nature.50 Gasr Zerzi(12.8 x 9.2 m) to the west of Bu Njem is securely dated by inscriptionsto the reign of Severus (fig. 34). 51 Other sites remain only partiallypublished, but at most of them the pottery is consistent with the Bu Njemtypeseries.52-Many of the outposts and towers were sited at oases,wells or cisterns on the desert (and pre-desert) tracks. Their functionwould therefore seem to have been to regulate and oversee all movementthrough the frontier zone.53Gasr Duiband Gasr WamesDe Hathuisieulx 1905,88-89 (plan of Wames); Ward-Perkins and Goodchild1949 = 1976a, 24-25 (plan of Duib); Smith 1971,299-318 (esp. 300-03).Dimensions Duib c. 16.25 x 15 m. Area : 0.02 ha (0.06 acres)Wames 13.20 x 13.20 m 0.02 ha (0.04 acres)Epigraphy App. 3, nos. 31-33. Figures 34,40.These two sites are sometimes referred to as if both lay on the upperSofeggin road, but Duib actually lay some kilometres southwest of the knownalignment. 54 Duib was clearly an outpost associated with Thenteos (near7: 2

-285-Zintan), whilst Wames from its position was more likely to relate to Mizda.They are not necessarily contemporary, though their functions may have beensimilar.Wames is surrounded by a ditch and has a well preserved tower over theentranceeSS Post-Roman alterations and refurbishment of Duib make it harderto discern original features there, but the construction is dated to A. D.244-46. Another inscription, largely illegible, seems to use the Latino-Punic language. 56 At Wames, the space for the dedication stone is I visiblebut the stone has disappeared. It was probably also constructed duringthe third century. It is crucially important to note, though, that in manyrespects these two sites are indistinguishable from the mass of otherfortified farms in the region.Ksar Tarcine (CENTENARIUM TIBUBUCI)Blanchet 1898,93; Hilaire 1901,99-100; Gauckler 1902,321-41 (with plan);Toutain 1903a, 360-75; Cagnat 1913,535-36,738; Trousset 1974,90-92.Dimensions 15 x 15 m. Area : 0.02 ha (0.06 acres)Epigraphy App. 3, no. 37. Figures : 34,39.The gasr at Tarcine was surrounded by an outer hexagonal enclosure ofuncertain function. 57 The ground floor of the gasr itself was mainly usedfor stabling up to 22 horses. The garrison presumably lived on the secondfloor, reached by a staircase in the southwest corner. The presence ofcavalry indicate that the function of the post went beyond the mere act ofcontrolling use of the cistern there and of movement up the wadi Hallouf.Some wider patrolling seems to have been envisaged (fig. . 39). The postwas constructed between A. D. 297-303 and was still occupied in the 390's(following the coin evidence).58There are many other gsur in Tunisia and Libya which are possiblymilitary constructions. Since in most cases the evidence is unsatisfactoryfor firm conclusions I have excluded them from this analysis with only a7: 2

-286-few exceptions (see D below). But I would concede that the following sitesrecorded by Trousset (1974) are possibilities in view of their location (awayfrom the agricultural settlement) or structural pecularities: Trousset sitenos. 96 Ksar Chetaoua; 114 Ksar Chouline;134 wadi Ouni; 135 el Majen.C. Towers (sites under 10 x 10 m)Similarly, a large number of possibly military watchtowers can be cited,but the same difficulties of positive identification exist as for the largergsur. Towers were also built for crop and flock-watchers in the agriculturalareas.59 For a few, however, greater certainty is possible. These are thetowers associated with the clausurae (see 7: 3 below)60, the circular burgusPI 9bat Gheriat el-Garbia,61the towers acting as look-outs for the forts of BeniaGuedah Ceder, Bezereos and Bu Njem. 62Some of the towers were intended simply as observation posts, others63for both observation and signalling. Local tradition preserves the memoryof signalling between Mergueb ed Diab (the "eyes"of the fort of Bezereos)and Tamezrend in the Gebel Matmata (fig. 38). 64 There may have been a networkof such signalling stations in the Mizda-Gheriat corridor and near Bu Njem. 65Nonetheless, the Bu Njem ostraca show that the outposts sent frequentmessages by hand. 66 In those circum tances horse or mule transport betweenposts will have been necessary for speedy communication.The manning of the towers was the same as for fortlets, with detachmentsoutposted from the control forts such as Remada, Bu Njem and Cheriat.Incertae(i) The Bir ed-Dreder/Bir Scedua sitesWard-Perkins and Coodchild 1949 - 1976a, 26-29; Coodchild 1950a - 1976a, 41-44; 1950c - 1976a, 14-15; 1954d, 91-107 = 1976a, 59-71; Buck, Burns andMattingly 1983,42-54.Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 120-26; Reynolds 1955,138, S 20, Fig: 49.Goodchild developed many of his key theories about the limitane! from7: 2

-287-his study of the Bir Scedua gsur. 67 This remarkable group of sites sharesmany architectural characteristics and it can be suggested thatthis reflectsP1 17ba specific group identity. 68 Goodchild believed that the uniformity ref-lected the official settlement of soldier farmers, but a more credible casecan be made for a tribal explanation. The revived importance of tribalismin the late Roman period is evident at other sites such as Ghirza.69Though far more dispersed than the Chirza gsur, the Scedua settlement patternattests quite a large population and their Libyan character is indisputable.70The Bir ed-Dreder cemetery lies 15-20 km southwest of the Scedua basinand contained at least 80 burials of a distinctive type. Fine ashlar steleshowed that some of the dead men bore Roman as well as Libyan names and hadbeen given the title of tribunus. Although there is a total absence ofP1 18a, bmajor settlement sites in the wadi Dreder, Goodchild disassociated thiscemetery from the Scedua gasr-dwellers because he had already noted somecemeteries in the Scedua basin itself and because he felt that the Drederwells lay beyond the limits of wadi agriculture. He suggested instead thatthe Dreder tribuni were "nomadic foederati" patrolling the desert ahead ofthe agricultural zone. 71 This explanation is unsatisfactory and new evi-dence suggests a revised interpretation. 72 There are in fact many simila-rities in grave and tomb types between the Dreder and Scedua cemeteries andthe latter seem to be located only at the northeastern limits of the Sceduasettlement. Though unsuited for agriculture, the wells at Bir ed-Dreder wouldgive it a great importance in a mixed or pastoral economy. Since the Sceduagsur-dwellers seem to have practiced a mixed economy it seems likely that theDreder cemetery was a territorial "marker" at the southwestern limits oftheir primary grazing lands.73The Dreder tribun! can therefore be recognised as gasr-dwellers, forminga cohesive tribal group, The attested practice of conferring citizenship(names) and titles on allied tribes in the late Roman Empire is well illus-trated here. The military character and organisation of these people was7: 2

-288-clearly loose and their "recruitment" was probably long after theirarrival in the area and the construction of the gsur. The evidence here isconsistent with the proposed shift from the use of regular troops back to aform of hegemonic arrangement in the fourthcentury.74(ii)ChirzaBeechey and Beechey 1828,504-12; Denham and Clapperton 1826,305-09;de Mathuisieulx 1904,22-26; 1912,71-77; Bauer 1933,61-78; Brogan andSmith 1957,173-84 and full report forthcoming; Brogan 1975b, 268-76.Epigraphy : ZRT 898-903; Reynolds 1955,139-140, S 21-22.The concentration of 40 major buildings and numerous ancilliarystructures at Chirza constitutes the largest settlement of the pre-desert.The undoubted Libyan character of the inhabitants strongly favours theinterpretation that this was a, sub-tribal centre in the late Roman period,75The role of the settlement in the defence or overthrow of the limites isuncertain, but at some point it must have become involved in the Laguatanconfederation. Defections to the confederation were in many ways morecrucial than military defeats for the demise of the frontier. But, whateverits history, Chirza was clearly not created as an official settlement ofsoldier/farmers. Its origins were from a Romano-Libyan farming communitynot a veteransettlement.76(iii) Some Tunisian misfitsIn the Tebaga corridor, there is a series of sites exhibiting sharedcharacteristics, but whose interpretation is difficult (fig. 38). 77 Mostof these were constructed in opus Africanm or saxa quadrata and an thevisible evidence would have been single storey only. Their appearancewould be that of farmsjwere it not for the presence of large ditches with78counter scarp banks around some of them. French antiquarians unswervinglyreferred to them as military posts but this may be doubted for several reasons.Firstly, they are too large and too close to each other for them to beinterpreted as towers in a signalling chain. Nor would so many observationposts have been necessary in this flat corridor. Secondly, the case rests7: 2

-289-on the erroneous assumption that there was no ancient agricultural develop-ment in the area. 79 There is, however, abundant archaeological evidencefor this as well as civilian epitaphs from the Tebaga corridor.80 Theribbon-like siting of these sites show that they related to a route passingthrough the Tebaga clausura towards Aquae Tacapitanae, but obviously thereare economic as well as military explanations for such a distribution. 81The fact that several of this group of sites are not ditched suggest thatthe fortifications may not be an original feature, but a later developmentas happened with civilian farms in Libya. 82 "Fortified farms" is, therefore,a more acceptable interpretation of these sites.Similar conclusions can be argued for two other sites which have oftenbeen presented as military. Hr el Gueciret (Turris Maniliorum Arelliortm)has been interpreted as military on the basis of its ancient name alone.Yet the dedicatory inscription mentions only the extended family, friends, andservants of the man on whose estate (praedium) the gasr had been erected andno actual Roman officials are referred to at all.83 The building itself isparalleled by other civil fortified farms as well as by military gsur andeven the use of the word turxis is not exclusively military. In thisexample and others f rom. Libya, the construction of the f ortif ied f arm by theestate owýer-was pFimarily for the benefit of himself and his family. The, -economic development of the marginal zone lands had advanced rapidly-2 as weshall see, and the indigenous farmers were wealthy and status conicioud enoughby the third century to build fortified farms.84An equally dubious "military" site is that at Ras el Oued Cordab, wherea complex of buildings was, excavated- without turning up any, military (or -civil)dedication. " This site lies well to the rear of the limes and is in anarea of extensive agricultural settlement (fig. 39). In the context of LibyanTripolitania this site would be viewed as civilian on the available evidence.86One final point needs stressing with relation to the fortified farmsof the frontier zone, no matter what their origin. In the changing circu=-7: 2

-290-stances of the late Roman period, whether by accident or design, indirectlyor directly, the inhabitants of the zone became involved in the fate of thefrontier. The progressive withdrawal of regular troops did not lead tototal anarchy and economic collapse in the frontier region. In fact it wasthe urban centres whose economy crashed first, the inland region declinedmore slowly because it was assimilated into the Laguatan confederation.877: 3 ClausuraeSince I have attacked the inappropriate usage of Latin terminology,the use of the terms fossatum and clausura in this section requires explana-tion. Both these terms are commonly used in Roman African studies inreference to the linear walls and earth works of the frontier region, thedifference between the two being that a clausura is much shDrter than asection of fossatum and generally blocks a single corridor or defile. Ourknowledge of ancient usage is sparse and inconclusive. ' The word clausura,for instance, is only known in a few late Roman and Byzantine sources andin different contexts can be translated as "the defile". "the fort in thedefile" and "the fortification in the defile. "2 It is in the last sensethat it is normally translated. Nor is the use of the term fossatLm muchbetter known. 3 But the alternatives are equally problematical. Rebuffathas suggested recently that the linear barrier south of Sala in MauretaniaTingitana was in Latin terminology a bracchium, but the evidence is far fromconvincing.4 With more justification he has disposed of the suggestion madeby Euzennat and Trousset that one of the Tunisian groups of clausurae werereferredto as propugnacula.5Perhaps, though, one can invoke the case of the Valium in Britain andplead that at least the usage of clausura and fossattm has been consistent(even if some would claim incorrect) and that scholars relate the terms forconvenience with a particular group of monuments. 6 As stated already thebasis for my distinction between the fossata of Algeria and the clausurae is7: 2/7: 3

-291-that the former are significantly longer and were intended to control amultiplicity of routes In sequence the claus:.7-urae achieved the sainpresult, but each one individually controlled only a single route or defile. 8The idea that the fossata and clausurae were part of a complete cordondefence utilising "impenetrable" natural obstacles in the gaps betweensectors is no longer tenable.9 But there is a regularity in their patternof deploymentpin that many of the major natural routes and transhumancelines were obliged to cross one of these linear barriers. 10 It is alsoclear that these earthworks did not mark the official frontier of Rome inevery case. Many of them were erected behind the actual frontier proper,very close to the limits of the agricultural zone at a point where therewas a rapid transition from a predominantly agricultural to a predominantlypastoral way of lifePThis brings us to the question of function and date which are to bediscussed more fully at the end of this section. Early French antiquariansinitially identified the earthworks as irrigation canals or barrages. 12Since the recognition that they were elements of a Roman frontier systemthere has been a great deal of speculation but little agreement abouttheir function and date. 13 In terms of the analysis of Roman strategyoutlined in chapter 5, they could be assigned to any period between the latefirst and early fifth centuries A. D. Indeed one of the major errors of somescholars may have been to seek a unitary solution for their development andperhaps in future it will be possible to separate out several differentphases of construction.14THE TRIPOLITANIAN CLAUSURAE (figs. 35-42)A The Cherb clausurae (fig. 36)The Cherb range, north of the Chott Fedjedj, formed the boundary betweenthe territory of the Capsitan! and the Nybgenll and was probably equivalentlater to the division between Byzacitm and Tripolitania.15 The range is adifficult one to cross and in the nineteenth century only one or two routes7: 3

-292-were believed practicable for horses. Goetschy, therefore, poured scorn onthe local claim that the Romans had built walls in other passes as well asin these two major corridors across the Gebel Asker and at Bir Oum Ali. 16Nevertheless a recent French expeditlon has found evidence for ten or moreclausu, rae inthe range.17 As well as those in the Asker and Oum Alidefiles, these are located in the gorges of the wadi Halfaya Srhira'18the wadi Kerma, 19 the Khanguet Lefaia'20 on the watershed of the GebelBato=21and in the Gebel Sif el Laham (fig 36). 22Gebel'Asker' (Fig. 36)Privd 1895,102-04; Toutain 1906,245; Carton 1914,256-59; Trousset 1978,166-73.Privd, who was one of the first to report the presence of walls in theCherb, missed the one in the Asker defile, though he certainly passed throughý3Toutain later reported that Donau had observed a "barrage" in the wadi in thedefile. This wall continued up the valley sides limiting traffic to a singlepoint.24 Carton recognised this as a linear barrier, 2S The main Roman roadbetween Capsa and the Nefzaoua passed through this control point which in26antiquity was probably more significant than the Oum Ali one. Traces ofthe wall are still visible over its length of several hundred metres. Thesluice system on which it was carried over the wadi is of particular interest, 27Bir Oum Ali (Figs. 36,37)1 Pi 19-21aGoetschy 1894,593-98; Prive 1895,101-02; Carton 1914,359; Euzennat 1972,21-23; Trousset 1976,25-27,31; 1978,166-73; 1980,936-40.The wall at Khanguet O= Ali is in an astonishing state of preservation.In places it still stands to its full height of c. 6m and the neat mortaredmasonry has an extraordinarily fresh look. 28 It was built up and down a PI 20aseries of sharp gradients in order to limit movement down the pass and theP1 19a, bwadi bed below to a single crossing-point controlled by a gate. Likethe more ruinous example at Asker, the clausura was carried across the wadiover a rock-cut system of sluices. The actual wall was c. 1.5 m wide withtwo faces of small neat masonry and a rubble and mortar fill. On the steeper7: 3

-293-slopes the wall was topped by a triangular cap in the same masonry. InP1 I 19aother sections it was open to the air leaving a walkway 0.75 m wide withparapets up to c. 0.60 m high. The floor and walls of this were partiall F1 2 Obplastered (fig 37). 29' Goetschy made an imaginative interpretation of thedefensive utility of these features, but his vision of men fighting-offinvaders from the wallts parapet is patently absurd. To use the wall asa shield they would have had to f ight on hands and knees and in any caseone can question the efficacy of the clausurae as defensible lines. 30- The only evidence for a garrison associated with the wall is providedby the gate (probably flanked by two towers and, to the west, an enigmaticcircularstructure).31 Most of this has been obliterated by modem road PI 21aimprovements which have sliced through the circular feature (4 m internaldiameter), but the line of the ancient track and at least one ashlar pier ofPI 19bthe gate can still be seen just to the east (fig. 37). Goetschy noted thecircular structure in 1894 and interpreted it as either a tower or well-head. But since it is at the lowest point of the wall across the maincorridor and adjacent to the gate it is hardly likely to have been anobservation tower. An important feature of it is that it is plaster linedand this suggests another possibility, namely that it was a cistern, supply-ing the needs of the small detachment in the gate-house.32 This interpreta-tion suggests a possible explanation for the so-called "parapet walkway"which could obviously function as a catchment system for the cistern duringa torrential down-pour. Otherwise the nearest source of water is a fewkilometres to the north at Bir Oum Ali itself. 33Pottery is very'sparse in the vicinity of the gate, but one rim sherd34identified on site was of second/third century date. Other circumstantialevidence suggests that the clausura may have been built in the early secondcentury (see further below).7: 3

-294-PI 2lb-23aB The *Gebel Tebaga, clausura (Figs. 38,41)Tissot 1888,690,820; Blanchet 1898,71-74; 1899,147-48; Toutain 1903a,322; Donau 1904a, 472-75; 1909a, 32; Cagnat 1913,546-48; Carton 1914,266-67; Baradez 1949a, 146 n. 2; Trousset 1974,62-67 (with plans);Fentress 1979,98-100.At an early date the French recognised the Tebaga clausura as a linear35earthwork of the Roman frontier. It is over 17 km long, running from thecrest of the Gebel Tebaga to the foothills of the Gebel Melab. It thuscontrols the extremely important corridor linking Dahar and Arad (fig. 38). 36There was confusion in early reports of the nature of the obstacle, onedescribed it as a low dry-stone wall of four metres width, another as anearth bank. In reality both were correct in that it was constructed as aPI 21bbank and ditch across the alluvial f loor of the valley and as a wall on theGebel scarps. 37 The combination of bank and ditch produced an obstacle ofc. 15 m width. The change in constructional technique shows a perfectadaptation to local conditions and is paralleled on the Numidian fossataand on the Hadd Hajar clausura.38 In all these cases, the changes in con-struction need not relate to different phases of construction.A number of towers and a gate have also been noted in associationwiththe clausura. Two of the towers are of unusual type and design, beingcircular in shape (8 m. diameter) and surrounded by their own bank and ditchdefences (25 m diameter)which join onto those of the clausura proper*39The gateway through the clausura itself was excavated by Donau inPI 22ab1904, but Blanchet's account contains valuable supplementary informationon the state of the gate prior to this.40 Donau revealed a double tower ofseveral rooms, separated by a corridor. Several blocks from a demolishedmausoleum were reused in the ashlar walls including the inscription (civilian)in the corridor wall. Since his excavation was never fully published and theonly available plan is that produced by Trousset, his evidence is difficult41to assess. The current state of the site suggests that even a decentsurvey of the hilltop on which the gate stands would add considerably to our7: 3

-295-knowledge. My own plan differs from Trousset's in some important detiLils(fig 41). Firstly there is the question of whether the incorporation ofthe reused mausoleum blocks was an original feature. As the northern towerhad had its door blocked in a late alteration and the rooms extend furtherwest than one might expect, it is possible that the gate was substantiallyPI 23aremodelled in the late Empire. A second peculiarity is that the clausuradid not run right up to the gate, In fact the gate lies within an outercompound, as was noted by Blanchet (fig. 41) but ignored in Trousset's4Zaccount, Clearly more than one phase of construction and use is involvedin this particular case and we must be wary not to read too much into themeagre dating evidence. On the other hand the late second to early thirdcentury lamp allegedly found by Donau below the foundations is hardlyconsistent with the mid-fourth century date assigned to this clausura byTrousset. 43 For comparison, pottery noted on the site in 1982 was mainlythird. century in date.44C The Skiffa Group (Figs. 39,42)The presence of a group of clausuraein the Gebel Demmer has long beensuspected, but has only recently received the attention which it deserves. 45Four (perhaps five) are now known and more may yet be discovered along someof the other main west to east routes through the range (Fig. 39). 46 Allthese clausurae control defiles (or "passages oblig4s") which separate theDahar from the Cefara.Wadi bel Recheb (Fig. 39)Lecoy de la Marche 1894,396; Hilaire 1901,100-01; Trousset 1974,97.The existence of a clausura in the wadi bel Recheb west of the latefortlet at Benia bel Recheb Is uncertain because of a double confusion.Lecoy de la Marche was misled by his guide into believing he was in the wadibel Recheb when he discovered the Skiffa clausura in 1894 (which he believedwas a barrage in any case). 47 The account of Hilaire in 1901, however,contained an important double reference relating to this area, 48 Firstly,7: 3

-296-he correctly pointed out Lecoy' s geographical error, but he then went on tostate that there were two other "barrages" closer to the fort at Benia. Thefirst was in the wadi Zraia and is in fact a clamura, the second he placedin the wadi bel Recheb itself. Although it has not been relocated in moderntimes, Hilaire had differentiated this "barrage" from the one mistakenly loca-ted by Lecoy de la Marche, so it is- likely to have been a genuine feature.Given the topographic importance of the bel Recheb corridor, it is also likelyto have been a clausura rather than a barrage (fig. 39). 49Wadi Zraia (Fig. 39)Hilaire 1901,101; Toutain 1903a, 360; Trousset 1974,97.This clausura of c. 400 m length was constructed as a broad bank inthe bottom of the defile and as a roughly built and low stone wall on itsscarps. The original interpretation of it as a barrage is clearly inapprop-riate. There is a possible watchtower on a hillock just to the east. 50Wadi Skiffa (Figs. 39,42) Pl 23b - 25a, 27aLecoy de la Marche 1894,396; Blanchet 1898,76; 1899,140; Hilaire 1901,100-01; Toussaint 1906,234; Cagnat 1913,534-35; Trousset 1974,97,139-41.The clausura of wadi Skiffa is over a kilometre in length and consistsof a wall of 3-4m width near the sides of the valley and on the scarpswhich it runs up. In the centre of the valley it has the appearance ofPI 25aeither a broad bank or an extremely ruinous wall - perhaps there wasP1 24a, boriginally a slight wall on top of a bank. 51 Where it crossed the mainwadi bed it was built over sluices to allow the water to pass below during52f loods. Two supposed circular towers close to its southern end in a lowlying position are on close examination more probably Libyan tombs. AP1 23bcemetery of similar, though generally smaller, examples was noted in thevicinity in 1982.53 On the other hand there is a possible tower on aprominent hillock at the northern end of the clausura (fig-42. ). 54P1 24bThe modern track passes through the clausura adjacent to a ruined gate-house. This comprises a two-roomed tower separated by a corridor and is PI 27a7: 3

-297-built in small neat masonry with rounded corners.55 Trousset suggestedthat it might be a later addition to the clausura (presumably because itwas not built in ashlar masonry) but the gate is now paralleled by the betterpreserved example at Hadd Hajar (fig. 42). 56Skiffa'south (fig. 39) Pl 25b, 26a, bA new clausura was discovered in another wadi defile just to the southof Skiffa. in 1982.57 it is surely significant that a modern route is qignpostedto Ksar Rhilane (Tisavar) up this corridor. The central section of theP1 25bclausura has been badly eroded by the wadi and by later agricultural terraces,but the 3-3.35 m wide wall was easily visible running up the scarps on boththe north and south sides of the defile just to the west of the point at whichthe plain opens out. It is virtually identical to the Skiffa examplein itsconstruction on these steep gradients. Its total length was c. 200 - 300 mPI 26a, bwith no surviving traces of either towers or a gate in association.Chenini (Fig 39)Trousset 1974,102,139-41.Another clausura of similar type exists in the southerly corridorcentred on the wadi Chenini. It is described as a3-4m wide mound ofrubble with a total height of 1.5 -2m. There is a possible tower on thescarp at the northern end.58D Hadd Hajar (Figs. 40,42)Pl 27b-29bDe Mathuisieulx 1904,16; 1912,60-61; Brogan 1971b, 11; 19809 45-52;Holmes 1972,6-7.The discovery of another clausura northwest of Mizda is of majorPl 29asignificance. It is further valuable evidence that eastern and westernTripolitania were more similar in their frontier development than sometimesassumed. De Mathuisieulx actually visited the site of the gate (Gasr Saqifah)but failed to spot the associated wall and bank and ditch. 59 This omissionwas remedied through the intuition of Olwen Brogan. 607: 3

-298-The clausura is c. 6 km in length and crosses a major transhumingcorridor between the Dahar and the Gebel Garian (fig. 40). In characterit is very similar to the Skiffa and Tebaga examples, being in parts a dry-PI 27bstone wall and in its central sector a bank and ditch. Watchtowers coverthe central and western approaches to the obstacle, whilst the gate islocated in a subsidiary corridor to the east. The gate (12 x 5.5 m) wasPI 28aPI 29bflanked by two towers which are still preserved to 3-4m height. Tracesof the springing of the arch are visible (fig. 46). 61 PI 28bVery little diagnostic pottery has been recovered from any of thesefeatures, but that which has been identified suggests a later second centuryor pre-Severanorigin.62The function of the clausuraeThe defensive value of the clausurae has been greatly overestimated onoccasion. The original height of most of them was clearly not much over2-3m. Bir Oum Ali and perhaps some others in the Cherb were rather higher,63mortared walls but they could not serve as fighting platforms. The sortof garrison that could be accommodated in a gate-house could not be expectedto defend the clausurae against determined assailants, whether an invadingarmy or a small raiding band. Nor was this the way Rome defended her64frontiers as we saw in Chapter 5, The small size of the obstacles suggestsrather that the aim of the clausurae was not to prevent people using thenatural, corridors, but to persuade them to do so via the controlled crossingpoints.The alternative appraisal of the clausurae is therefore to see them ascontrol barriers involved in the policing and customs duties of the garrison65It is significant that the areas where clausurae have been discovered arezones where there is a rapid transition from a predominantly pastoral pre-desert region into a predominantly agricultural one. This is particularlyevident on figures 38-40 where there is a fairly dramatic increase in settle-7: 3

-299-ment density from one side of the clausurae to the'other. There could beno question of a Roman blockade along this line and it was argued above(Chapter 4.: 1) that transhumance and seasonal labour movement between thezones were considerablein antiquity.66 The symbiotic relationshipsbetween pastoralists, mixed farmers and agriculturalists were undoubtedlyaffected by the rapid economic development of the better land in the firstcenturies A. D. It can be argued that this was one of the main potentialcauses of unrest among the pre-desert tribes. ' On the other hand it wasequally important to define their grazing lands and water rights and toregulate their seasonal movements. The clausurae were a labour savingdevice in the policing of population movements in these sensitive zones. Theycould serve an economic function as well in terms of customs control of the,flocks and goods being moved between"desert and sown"which were otherwisedifficult to assess and tax. This interpretation is supported by the archae-ological evidence for controlled gates. In the Tebaga corridor, the 17 kmexpanse was no doubt difficult to police before all movement up it was focussedon a singlecheckpoint.67It has often been argued that the plausurae and fossata are entirelydistinct from the supposedly defensive frontier barriers of Britain andGermany. 68 In reality one can question whether the great provision ofgates through Hadrian's Wall, for instance, has a military rationale orwhether they were specifically intended to facilitate controlled civilianmovement across the frontier. In oppration, at any rate, all thesebarriers were intended to make border policing simpler and less labour-intensive, rather than to function as fighting platforms.69There is some documentary evidence which is relevant to the operationof clausurae as policing positions, where credentials could be checked out oraccreditation given to individuals passing through the frontier zone. Theseasonal influx of labourers into the agricultural zone for the harvest70seems to have been particularly significant. On the other hand there is7: 3

-3oo-little clearcut evidence for customs control or taxation.71The location of the clausurae need not have been equivalent to the limitof Roman territory. I have suggested that areas where there was a rapidtransition from desert to farmland and where different economic modes weretraditionally practised in symbiosis, required careful policing to maintainthe rights and property of all parties. It is noticeable that the areas whereno clausurae have been found relate either to the rain shadow area of thesouthern Gebel Demmer and Gefaraqwhere there was little agriculturaldevelopment, or to the zone of wadi agriculture in eastern Tripolitania. Inthe latter case the recent EMVP work has revealed thatswhilst agriculturedeveloped on a broad basis, many wadi-farmers practised a mixed economy andthe importance of pastoralism proportionally increased the further south onegoes. As a consequence the change from "desert" to "sown" was much moregradual in this area. All the same to the south of this area, in the desertproper, the location of Roman outposts at most major wells and cisternsprovided a level of policing commensurate with that which could have beenachieved by clausurae.The Dating of thelclausuraelThis is another controversial area for discussion. Although Baradezshowed that some sections of the Fossatun Africae, as he called it, wereHadrianic, many scholars have still preferred to link these earthworks tolater history. 72 One school believes that the disbandment of the ThirdLegion by Gordian III, created the need for the "defensive" earthworks.73Another school has associated them with the real or imagined raids of camel-riding nomads in the late Empire (notably from the fourth century onwards). 74But clearly both of these interpretations assume that the basic function ofthe obstacle was defensive, whether against armies or raiding bands, 75 Buteven a comparatively small razzia would have been able to rout the handfulof men controlling the gates in the pre-firearms age. As'I hope I have7: 3

-3ol-demonstrated we must get away from the blockhouse mentality and look moreclosely at the possible policing functions of these fortifications. Chrono-logically these policing activities were an adjunct of Roman strategy fromthe later first century onwards, so one has a very broad date range fortheir construction. Although I accept that a unitary solution to thequestion is unlikely, the best indications are that many of them wereconstructed prior to the fourth century, though they continued to bemaintained and used right up to the end of Roman Africa.The Cherb clausurae, for instance, are generally argued to be earlysecond century because of the known Trajanic delimitation of the lands ofthe Nybgenli and Capsitani along that line. 76 The fact that some of thesewalls were mortared and are of higher quality perhaps favours identifying77the Bir Oum Ali wall, for instance, as a prototype. But not all of theCherb walls are comparable with Oum Ali and they need not all be contemporary*78In contradiction to Donau's evidence for the Tebaga clausura, Troussetdated it to the mid-fourth century because of similarities with the Skiffagroup. 79 The Skiffa group are assigned by him to this date on the mistakenassumption that a reference to propugnacula in an inscription of A. D. 355-60at Ras el-Ain refers to the clausurae rather than to the fort's own defences. 80This dating framework is plainly untenable.The pottery evidence for any of the clausurae is frustratingly slight,but for Tebaga there is material of late second and third century date.Similarly for Hadd Hajar and perhaps, by analogy, for the Skiffa group. 81The functional need for these clausurae was created by the advance of thefrontier in the early second century, so an even earlier origin for some ofthem is possible.82It is clear from a superficial study of the Tebaga gate and itsmodifications that some of the clausurae were in service for' a long time. 83The location of the fort at Ras el-Ain or of the late fortlets at Benia7: 3

-3o2-Guedah Ceder and Benia bel Recheb demonstrate the continuing and perhapsincreasing importance of the policing system based on the clausurae in thelate third and fourth centuries (figs 38,39). On the current state ofthe evidence there can be no certainty, but a second century origin forthe system seems likely, with additions in the third century andrefurbishment and embellishment in the fourth. 84 The existence of aprobable fortlet in the Hadd Hajar corridor in the late first century showsthat the policing tactics were undertaken at an early date-85 The clausuraeconstituted a logical development from this situation* But withoutexcavation or epigraphic evidence it would be unwise to try and define thechronology of this development in any greater detail. At least some of theclausurae, though, seem to be pre-Severan in date and fit in with the theoryof earlier development of the Roman frontier in Tripolitania.7: 4 - ViclCivilian communities existed outside most Roman forts and some outposts.1In- some cases these settlements were given legal status as vici and some ofthese vicl developed into proper towns. Other vici proved to be entirelyephemeral and disappeared along with the troops when they were withdrawnor transferred. 2 In either case, the existence of fort and vicus cannot bedivorced from social, political and economic developments in the frontier3zone. But clearly the degree to which the vicus took on the role of marketor administrative centre was an important variable in the different frontierprovinces of the empire. Although one must beware of overestimating the ,importance of these rapidly developed proto-urban units since many were oflimited influence and ephemeral nature, they must not be ignored altogetheras a recent statistical study of Tripolitania did. 4 O'Leary's "rank-size"calculations were grossly distorted by their absence from a site hierarchy7: 3/7: 4

-3o3-which included major cities like Lepcls at one extreme and individual farmsat the other with nothing in between. The economic functions and effectsof vici are considered in the next chapter. Here I shall simply present theevidence, such as it is, for vici in Tripolitania, along with some otherAfrican parallels which raise the question, of thd reasons for the success andfailureof vici.Vici associated with fortsBu Njem (GHOLAIA)Richardson 1848,445; Bartoccini 1928b, 50-58; Goodchild 1950a - 1976a, 48;Rebuffat 1967a, 63-67; 1969,207-11; 1970a, 21-30; 1970b, 133-36; 1972a,327-30; 1975b, 215-18; 1975c, 501-02; 1977,408; 1982c, 195; Abou Hamed1975,301.Area : "M-15 ha. Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 73-74,112-13. Figure : 22.This is by far the best known site on account of Rebuffat's excavations.5Traces of the civil settlement were first noted by Richardson and are clearon Goodchild's air photograph.6 It extends over an area of c. 15 ha. ofwhich at least 10 ha were enclosed by a wall showing several stages ofdevelopment. This wall is rather insubstantial and does not seem to have beenprimarily defensive in function. 7 Its date is unknown, but it clearly post-dates the construction of the fort. There is no evidence for a secondcentury settlement at the site.Rebuffat has excavated a number of building complexes, notably the"building of the niches" and the "building with two windows". 9 Some ofthe vicus buildings were constructed on the same alignment as the fort, butthis planned layout is by no means representative and the settlement seemsto have grown rapidly and on an irregular basis. 10The shifting sands have buried many of these buildings up to theirroof-level, so they are extraordinarily well preserved. The vaultedarchitecture employed is reminiscent of medieval and modem practice in thenorthern Sahara. In most cases the vaults were formed by bending palmtrunks. " The excavated rooms seem to have been mainly shops or merchants'7: 4

-304-offices to judge from their plan and the graffiti found on, their walls. The"building of the niches" for instance divides up into five two room units.12Libyan graffiti show that the population of the vicus was not entirely cour-posed of camp-followersor traders.13 On the other hand, pictures of shipsand a lighthouse, of wild animals and hunters suggest that the Vicus did notexist solely to service the fort14 This conclusion is supported by evidencefor consumerism among the civilian population themselves. Perfume and make-up pots abound, along with glass, fine pottery and other luxury goods. 15 Themore basic needs of food, oil and wine had also to be supplied for the vicusas well as the fort. The vicus was, therefore, a bridge between a Mediter-ranean economy on the one hand and a simpler, inland economy.During the third century A. D. the vicus thrived, but after the garrisonwas withdrawn it entered a gradual decline. Although there were still someoccupants in the early fifth century, large parts of buildings were alreadyabandoned to the sands. 16Remada (TILLIBARI)Trousset 1974,116; Euzennat and Trousset 1975,64-65.Area : 10 ha + Epigraphy : App 3, no. 18. Figure : 20.The existence of a vicus at Remada can be summised from Donau'sreport which mentions a walled enclosure round the fort. 17 Donau sectionedthe defences at several points and found an earth bank fronted by a drystonewall. His interpretation of this enclosure as an auxiliary camp or baggagepark was heavily influenced by French military practice at the time and asTrousset suggests it was in fact almost certainly an enclosed civiliansettlement. At least one civilian can be proved from a reference to awoman on a tombstone. 18Cheriatel-CarbiaGoodchild 1950a = 1976a, 54; Jones et al 1983,58,64-67.Area :6- 10 ha. Epigraphy : App. 3, no. 109-11. Figure : 22.7: 4

-3o5-The vicus at Cheriat has been little studied and most of its traceshave been obliterated by subsequent occupants of the oasis. The evidencevisible on Goodchild's air-photograph may represent only part of theoriginalsettlement.19 Traces of buildings are visible on the slopesbetween the fort and oasis and some clearly relate to properly establishedalignments. Others, however, are entirely irregular, as at Bu Njem. Thediscovery of a native fort, a Roman camp and a bath-house on the west sideof the oasis suggests that the vicus may have been spread on both sides ofthe oasis and combined native inhabitants along with camp followers. Thesize of the fort at Cheriat implies that it had the largest garrison inTripolitania and we might expect its vicus also to have been proportionallylarger.20Ghadames (CIDAMUS, CYDAME)Duveyrier 1864,249-66; Mercier 1953,17-47; Reynolds 1958,135-36;Rebuffat 1969,194-95; 1972a, 322-23.Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 101-04.The oasis of Ghadames was a major tribal centre before the impositionof a Roman garrison. The military occupation may have been relativelybrief and probably made little lasting impact on the character or sizeof the settlement, which was still an important tribal centre in Byzantinetimes. The proliferation of Roman pottery, the Romano-Libyan style tombs(the Asnam) and inscriptions in poor Latin, Latino-Punic and Libyan suggestthat the oasis was relatively prosperous but that Ro=nisation was atbestsuperficial,21Ras el-Ain(TALALATI)Lecoy de la Marche 1894,3959 399-402; Boizot 1913,260-66; Trousset 1974,98-102.Area : c. 4 ha. Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 13-14. Figure : 27.Because of the density of rubble inside the fort, early investigatorsturned their attention to the visible vicus buildings. The informationrecorded then can usefully be compared with the evidence visible today7: 4

-306-(fig. 27). 22- The vicus was enclosed and protected to the west by a wall.P1 13aOn the other sides the steep embankments of a series of wadis served thesame function. This well-defined promontory was fairly densely built upin the Roman period if surface traces are any indication. Some of thebuildings were actually attached to the back of the western wall and atleast one of these was a shop or storehouse t -since. amphorae had been setinto the floor. 23 On the north side of the site a small bath building wasexcavated by Boizot in 1913.24 PI 13bThe civil settlement evidently had a long life since inscriptions ofA. D. 355-360 were reused in fragments in very late rebuilding work in theViCUS! 25 Pottery identified on site in 1982 included ARS and TRS forms offifth century date. 26 The identification of the site as Talalati of theAntonine Itinerary is only possible if civil occupation of the site predatedthe fort of A. D. 263. This is apparently confirmed by early third centuryARS forms.27vici associated with fortlets/road stationsBirRhezene (BEZEREOS)Hilaire 1901,47; Poinssot 1937,321-25; 1940,9,259; Trousset 1974,77-78.Area : 10 ha (? ) Epigraphy : App. 3, no. 100.Hilaire noted ruins covering c. 10 ha between Bir Rhezene and SidiMohammed ben Aissa. 28 In 1938 a two-storey house in thevicus was partiallyexcavated and traces of five other substantial buildingsare stillvisibletoday. 29 Civilian burials have also been discovered. 30The siteis mostlyobscured by sand dunes today,but the vicus would appearto have been ofconsiderablesize and importance.Ksar Rhilane(TISAVAR)Combeaud 1901,89-92; Trousset 1974,93-94; Rebuffat 1980,111-12.Most of the ancilliary buildings outside and close to the fortlet seemto have been military in origin (stables, the temple of the Genius and othershrines /chapels). 31 However, Gombeaud mentioned other buildings up to 400 m7: 4

-3o7-from the fortlet. These are mainly obscured by sand dunes, but thepossibility of a small vicus here should not be ignored. 32Hr Mgarine(AGARLABAS)Hammond et al 1964,8,14; Trousset 1974,52.Area :1-2 ha?As Trousset notes, the fortlet at Hr Mgarine is surrounded by a sub-33stantial amount of subsidiary settlement, Many walls and even completebuilding plans are still visible within the area defined by a heavy scatterof surface pottery. Full scale survey could fill in a lot of detail. 34The earliest pottery from the site is second century and it is possiblethat some of the civil settlement originated before the military phase. 35HrMedeina (THEBELAMI)Lecoy de la Marche 1894,407; Trousset 1974,109-10.According to Lecoy de la Marche the fortlet at Hr Medeina lay at thecentre of a settlement spread over 600 m. He described in more detail arectangular building (15 x 18 m) which lay 165 m east of the fortlet and twocisternswhich lay to the north,36 When Trousset visited the site recently,he saw little trace of this apparently extensive settlement, so conclusionsabout its exact nature are impossible.37Ain el-Auenia(AURU)Reynolds and Brogan 1960,51-52; Reynolds and Simpson 1967,45-47.Epigraphy : App. 3, nos. 29,105-08.No detailed plan of this site has ever been published, but older descrip-tions backed up by analysis of air-photographs suggest that the settlementmay have rivalled Ain Wif or Medina Doga in size. 38 Epigraphic discoveriesattest the importance of the civilian population which included at leastone man who was an army veteran.39Ain Wif (THENADASSA)Ward-Perkins and Goodchild 1949, - 1976a, 21-24; 1953,44; Mattingly 1982,73-80.Area : c. 10-11 ha. Figure : 31.Ain Wif is the best known of the road-station settlements as a result7: 4

-3o8-of the British survey in 1948 (fig 31). 40 The vicus extended north of thefortlet along the ridge and also descended down a series of terraces towardsthe bath-house and the oasis. Extensive ruins can still be seen.P1 14abOccupation probably continued af ter the garrison was withdrawn as thepresence of a Christian church and TRS wares attest.41MedinaDoga (IIESPHE)Goodchild 1951b - 19769 76-79 (with plan). Area : 15 haThis extremely large undefended settlement extends south and southwestof the possible fortlet. There were at least two bath-houses and a colonnadedbuilding and there is a Christian catacomb nearby.42 These indications sug-gest long occupation of the site after the postulated military phase. MedinaDoga lay within the territorlim of Lepcis and this probably aacounts forits failure to develop into an independent town in its own right.43DiscussionIf one were to establish criteria for deciding what constituted asuccessful vicus, one would have to judge these Tripolitanian examples aspoor achievers on the whole. In Mauretania and Ntnidia many vici gainedself-governing status or even became municipia. One can cite, in particular,44the well documented examples at Rapidum (fig. 45), Gemellae (fig. 43)45and Ad Maiores (fig. 44). 46 on current knowledge the only likely parallelin Tripolitania is Turris Tamalleni if it is accepted that there was a mili-tary garrison placed at the tribal centre of the Nybgenii. 47 The small townat el-Hamma may also have developed from a vicus, but as we saw above thereis an almost complete lack of evidence.48By contrast 9 out of 23 vicl outside forts in Mauretania Caesariensisare known to have achieved self-governing status as towns, 49 The underlyingpattern reflects two distinct types of garrison town,, the "dependent" and"independent"vicus. The dependent vicus grew up solely to service thegarrison and its economic basis would collapse without the garrison's spending7: 4

-3o9-power. The independent vicus was better integrated into the economy of thesurrounding area and, therefore, had a chance of surviving as a market andproduction centre if and when the original garrison moved on. Obviously incertain cases the independent vicus might even develop into a proper town,It is interesting to note though, that many of the successful vici inMauretania and maidia became self-governing towns whilst the army was stillin garrisonat the fort.In Tripolitania most of the vic! seem to have declined gradually afterthe withdrawal of the troops which suggests that they were not wholly dep-endent economically on the army. But none of them developed the specificfunction or form of towns as some of the Numidian examples did. Sites suchas Ain el-Auenia, Ain Wif and Medina Doga continued to be occupied in thefourth century, but were never much more than large villages or local marketcentres.50 Rome's failure to encourage or excite urban development in theinterior of the province certainly contributed to the rapid de-Romanisationof the zone in the late fourth and fifth centuries.51This failure to maintain development was not simply a question of size.Many of the Tripolitanian settlements rank in area alongside sites which didbecome "towns". so there was no magic "take off" point.52 Nor can we make avalid distinction between defended and undefended viciin that many of theTripolitanian sites were delimited by rudimentary walls. This suggeststhat the failure of the vic! in Tripolitania to develop further may relateto environmental, social, economic or political factors in the frontierregion rather than to any laid down Roman formulae. 53 The political checkon urban development within the vast territoria of the cities has alreadybeen referred to and in the more marginal zones the potential for the fulldevelopment of a parasitic urban centre was probably much less. Butperhaps the most crucial factors related to the nature of the society andeconomy of the inland zones which were arguably semi-independent fromthose of the coastal region. There is some circumstantial evidence for7: 4

-310-the impact on all this Of the vici. Rebuffat has noted thatjat the time ofmaximal growth of the vicus at Bu Njem, many marginal farming settlementsin the Kebir and Syrtic hinterland ceased to be occupied.54 A similarphenomenon has been observed in the southern wadi Chirza. 55 But the widerimplications of the effects of the vici on the society and economy haverarelybeen looked at.The provisibning of fort and vicus had to come from the surrounding area,56but frot! how wide an area we do not know. The placement of forts wasnot designed for the convenience of the civilian community and thepositioning of Bu Njem, and Gheriat at the very limits of the marginalagricultural zone mil. it-ated against their long term development. Withoutthe military presence they were unlikely to survive as market centreseNevertheless, although in the long term the Tripolitanian vici were failedtowns, in the short term they must have had a profound (if geographicallylimited) impact on certain sectors of the frontier zone. This is somethingwe shall return to in the next chapter.577: 4

-311-CHAPTER 8THE FRONTIER ECONOMY8: 1 THE DEVELOPRENT OF AGRICULTUREThe chronology of developmentDuring the Roman period in North Africa there was a massive increase inthe extent and scale of agriculture and arboriculture.1 This revolution didnot involve new crops or new methods. Both agriculture and arboriculturehad been well established in Carthaginian and Numidian times in certainareas. The key development under the Romans was the intensification andexpansion of the existing production. One result of this was a shift from2a subsistence to a market economy in many regions. Towns promoted thisdevelopment because of their parasitic role viz a viz the countryside andas centres of consumerism.3 However, the chronology of the development andits effects varied considerably from area to area and in some areas tradi-tional economies survived side by side with new ones.Official Roman interest in the economy of Africa centred on the cerealproduction of northeast Tunisia, a good deal of which had become Imperialestates by the Flavian period.4 Landholding was the subject of severalagricultural laws and there is evidence for land centuriation on a massivescale.5 Centuriation was not simply concerned with allocating lands, but,of course, also served as the basis for tax assessment. Under the Flavianemperors a major recensus was undertaken, a new agricultural law was passedrelating to the Imperial lands and the delimitation of tribal lands foradministrative and taxation needs was commenced.6'As a result there was asignificant increase in agricultural production and in prosperity in Africa.7The sources attributed this encouragement of the provincial economicdevelopment to Vespasian's avarice.8 But there were other practical reasonswhy this was desirable. A wealthy elite, enticed into a Roman-style marketeconomy and urban-based local government1was far less likely to renounceRoman rule and rebel. In the areas of rapid urban growth the furtherdevelopment of farming by a landholding elite was logical as it was the8: 1

development of Lepcis was owed to the wealth of her Libyphoenician aristo--312-principal source of wealth in the ancient world.9 It is more difficultto explain, though, how such a market economy spread into the deep interiorof Numidia, Mauretania and Tripolitania.10 One must also consider possibleways in which it interreacted with the traditional economic modes in theseregions. Since it is sometimes argued that the spread of agriculture intothese frontier regions was largely the achievement of the Roman authorities,through veteran settlement and so on, even greater importance attaches tothesequestions.11There are, of course, few demonstrable proofs in an analysis of theancient economy; the same evidence may allow several interpretations. Itis not intended to explore all possibilities here, but to examine oneparticularhypothesis.The main cash crop of Tripolitania (and many other regions of NorthAfrica) was the olive and its cultivation was well-established in theterritoria of the Emporia by the first century B. C. In 46 B. C. Lepcis wasable to shoulder an annual war indemnity of 3 million pounds of olive oil.12On the assumption that this was about 10% of her total capacity at the time,Gsell calculated that Lepcis must have had about 2 million mature trees.13For comparison, in 1910 there were only 400,000 trees in western Libya*14Although there was once scepticism about Gsell's suggestion, the recentdemonstration that in A. D. 17 Lepcis' territorium extended almost to Tarhunashows that this scale of cultivation would have been feasible (fig. 19)015This ter-ritorium has an extraordinary density of ruins of Roman periodPI 2bolive farms, with their associated presses (see, for example, figs. 46,47). 16Although the earliest pottery collected in surface scatters has mostly provedfirst century A. D. in date (none of these siteshas been exr-avated), manyof them no doubt had earlier antecedents. For it is clear that the precociouscracy and this came notably from olive oil.178: 1

-313-Within the territorium of Lepcis many of the farms were above allfunctional in design and some were purpose built oil production factories(figs 46,47). The most luxurious villas are found in the more immediatevicinity of the coastal towns. 18 Some of the remoter villas (if we cancall them that) were occupied by bailiffs or tenants of the biggest land-owners. 19 Apuleius refers to these multiple estates of the Tripolitanianaristocracy.20Assuming that Oea and Sabratha also developed farmland in the Gebel atan early date, it is possible that the best land was oversubscribed asearly as the mid-first century A. D. Hence the dispute which erupted betweenLepcis and Oea in A. D. 69,21 When the region was calm again, the territoriawere rigidly redefined and further opportunities for land acquisition in the22prime agricultural zone must have been slight. It was at this stage thatthe development of the marginal pre-desert zone began (below the 150 mmisohyet on fig. 4). The evidence is clearest in the Sofeggin and Zem7Zemwadi systems, but the Tebaga corridor, the Gebel Demer and the southernGefara were also involved.The ruins of fortified farms (gsur) in these marginal zones have oftenbeen interpreted as military sites or as traces of military colonization of23third century and later date. However, there is abundant evidence ofP1 17a, bsettlement in these areas prior to the third century, in part already notedby Brogan and di Vita. 24 The current work of *the Unesco Libyan ValleysProject (ULVP) demands an even greater reappraisal of received ideas.25Detailed examination of pottery collected in surface sherding of many sitesnow shows that the earliest dat-able agricultural settlements date to thesecond half of the first century A. D. These earliest sites were not gsur,V30athough, but undefended farms, built in the opus Africanum style. (Fig 50)ý Evensites in the more marginal tributaries of the Zem-Zem have produced latefirst and second century material.27 Rebuffat has now conceded that8: 1

-314-similar evidence exists in the Bei el-Kebir system and in the wadis southof the Syrtic shore. 28 Even in western Tripolitania, there is evidenceto suggest that there was a similar expansion of sedentary settlement intothe marginal zone in the late first and second centuries A. D. 29 The argu-ments which linked the expansion of agriculture and settlement to the gsurand to military colonisation of third century and later date have been over-turned. Although one cannot totally divorce the development of the militaryfrontier from the growth of the frontier economy, the chronological frame-work for both has shifted significantly earlier.The frontieragriculturalistsThe demographic study of the social origin of the frontier populationis of great importance. However, far from being "colonists" or "veterans"settled in the lee of frontier fortifications, the original farmers werealmost exclusively of indigenous origin.30 To anticipate my arguments inChapter 9, the vast majority bore Punic or Libyan names, 31 whilst the pre-dominant language and culture of the dominant elite in interior Tripolitaniawas Punic (Libyphoenician). 32 In contrast to the territories of the majorcities, where the majority of estates were owned by urban-based, absenteelandlords, the owners of farms in the marginal zones seem to have beenpart of a developing rural elite. The early olive farm in wadi el-Amud(Lamout) is a valuable example. Following Levi della Vida's translation ofone of the Neo-Punic funerary texts, Brogan gave the text as follows:"The tomb in absolute ownership, which Masawkan made for his fatherYamrur, son of qatit the M. s. li, and for his mother Zut, daughterof Gatidan the g. l. bi and for his son pd his wife Asliyat,daughter of Ya4dasan, son of Siyuk the N' g. l. gi. 0 woe that thereare four. The tomb was made at his expense and set up during hislife and those of his sons Arisham and Iosdan. iv33Apart from Arisham, all the names are Libyan and the genealogicaldetail emphasises that they were still part of a tribal tradition and,therefore, not closely related to the Punicised Libyans of the coastalcities. There are many parallel cases such as the famous tomb at el-8: 1

-315-A=rouni in southern Tunisia which was almost certainly at the centre of asimilar area of agricultural development. 34Another interesting detail about the el-Amud case is that there is arelatively clear link between the original undefended farm and the laterconstruction of a gasr on a nearby hill. 35 This logical progression fromfarmers to gasr-builders is illustrated further by at least one example inthe ULVP archive of a gasr which incorporated an early olive farm within itscourtyard.36Inevitably we know most' about the socially elite class in the areabecause they had impressive farms and tombs built for them and have leftsome epigraphic records. But the ULVP archive contains a much wider hier-37archy of sites implying a social hierarchy also. There may in fact bemore than one hierarchy of sites operating side by side and involved inslightly different economic modes. The hillforts were perhaps part of atranshuming pastoral economy involving limited scratch cultivation of,cereals. Clearly the large farming establishments with olive presses relateto a different but possibly complementary system.38 One may reasonablyspeculate that some of the smaller sites were socially or economicallydependent on the larger ones, though the precise basis for the dependanceis uncertain. The possibilities include viewing the smaller holdings asthose of tenants (share- croppers), "clients", or a dependent peasant class.39It is also likely that slave labour was widely used, 40 Certainly the gsurthemselves have the appearance of miniature feudal castles (see furtherbelow).The fundamental point about the population of the zone is that they werepredominantly Libyan and civilian. The agricultural development of the zonewas led by a group of Libyan tribesmen with a strong Punic culture, whichsuggests that they may have originated in the Gebel. The Libyan nomen-clature of these men and women shows that they were originally Macae orGaetuli tri, besmen, as for instance m. Ulpius8: 1....Chinitui [ ....j. 41 The

-316-emergence, of a tribal elite with capital to invest suggests that they hadnot been entirely excluded from the land carve-up of the Gebel. But theirinterest in developing even marginal parts of the territory further southwhich remained to their tribes suggests that they had only got a smallshare of the best lands. They may well have been offered incentives, suchas limited tax exemptions, to farm the marginal lands. In sunnary then, thedevelopment of the marginal Macae and Gaetuli lands was not carried out bycolonists or veterans, but by the more sedentary and Punicised of the tribes-men themselves. They had presumably acquired experience and some capital inthe agricultural development of the Gefara and Gebel along with the Liby-phoenicianEmporia.42The economic modesApuleius described three typesOf SetVdAtsIMFemployed by the richcoastallandowners on their many estates043 Firstly there were vilici whose princi-pal cash crop was olive oil, but who specialised in a wide range of cerealand tree products. Secondly there were upilA'pnes who ýeried sheep and goatsand thirdly stable, 6. oys_-_ (equisones) involved in horse-breeding. The greatlandowners owned substantial numbers of slaves who were clearly used on the44land and may even have been rented out to tenants on the estates. Rentswere taken as a share in the crops or animals produced, so it was in thelandlord's interest to encourage his tenants to increase their production.By analogy with imperial estates in Africa, the proportion of olives andcereals due as rent may have been as high as 1/ 3* 45 For the largest land-holders comparatively little actual farming was necessary, most of the realwork being done by tenants and bailiffs whilst there was little recurringcapitalexpenditure.46A somewhat similar set-up may have been copied by the Libyan elite inthe marginal zone. Individual land-holdings were probably introduced forthe first time into parts of the old tribal lands. Although pastoralismpresumably continued to be of higher importance in the economy than in the8: 1

-317-better agricultural zones, it is clear that an extremely wide range ofcrops was successfully introduced. 47 The evidence for this comes fromseveralsources.Firstly there are pictorial representations of agricultural activity,notably on tombs. 48 These depict ploughing, sowing and reaping of cerealcrops as well as actual pictures of figs, olives, pomegranates, vines anddate-palms. 49 Others also show the herding of sheep and goats.50 Thefrequent appearance of cattle/oxen, camels and horses on these reliefs sugg-est that these animals were also bred and maintained.51This evidence seems to match up with other information on farmingtechniques from Roman Africa. Mosaics emphasise that even large estatespractised polyculture or a broad mixed economy with a range of livestock andagricultural products. Arboriculture was clearly very important and olivesare shown with vines and cereals under cultivation in the same field betweenthe rows of trees (cultura promiscua).52 This tendency towards polyculture,rather than overspecialisation, was liable to be even stronger in a marginalzone, where recovery from a disastrous loss of a single crop would have beendifficult.Current analysis of samples taken from midden deposits by the ULVP isproviding confirmation of this (see above, Table 2: E, p. 42). Unfortunatelythis work is not yet far enough advanced to suggest whether there was localvariation in the range of crops grown, but the samples from Ghirza (annualrainfall under 50 mm average) indicate an extraordinary selection. Cereals,olives, figs, vines, almonds, pulses and watermelon have been identified. 53In addition bone samples from the middens confirm the rearing or consumptionof sheep, goats, donkeys, camels and horses. 54 One can speculate that thetypical marginal zone farm grew a range of cereals, vegetables and treecrops alongside a pastoral element of varying importance.8: 1

-318-This conclusion receives further corroboration from a study of thesurviving areas of traditional wadi agriculture at Beni Ulid55 and in the56Gebel Dermer. There are also good parallels with the well documentedancient agricultural systems of the Negev desert in Palestine and theJordaniandesertý7Before considering the technical means of arid-zone agriculture, it isnecessary to examine further the evidence for the level of economic devel-opment which was achieved in the frontier zone of Tripolitania. Euzennat hasrecently argued that most of the agriculture was at subsistence level andthat the evidence oi a few olive presses in the Sofeggin and Zem-Zem basinscan be ignored. 58 This conclusion would be more acceptable if there wereonly the 14 presses known to Rebuffat in 1979.59 But the uLvp has recordedover 50 sites with presses and the total of individual presses is now over70.60 Nor is the sophistication of the architecture of the opus Africanumfarms, the gsur and the mausolea reconcilable with the theory that the areawas entirely working at subsistence levels. some individuals clearly tooka profit from farming and the large-scale production of olive oil demonstratesinvolvement with external ma. rkets. In order to produce a significant surplusin the highly intensive wadi -agricultural systems, these farmers must havebeen able to command a substantial labour force of slaves and dependantpeasants or to capitalise on the production of a nurber of tenants.61 Ihave already remarked on the preeminence of a few major family groupsand the feudal aspect of gasr-society, which also dates back to the periodcharacterised by undefended farms. It seems likely that in order for theelite to produce a surplus, the small farmers and peasants were also forcedto farm at levels slightly above subsistence, though the real profits wentto the former class. Animals on the hoof, olive oil and wine were the mosteasily exported goods and it was probably these which brought ephemeralprosperity to the zone (see further 8: 4, below). 628: 1

-319-The possible relationship between home farm and tenants can beexpressed in the following abstract model:PASTORAL ZONE-ol/eCAPITAL FARM/ STOREHOUSEINVESTMENT- GASRDEPENDENTDEPENDENTCEMETERYTENANTFARM-WADI AGRICULTURE- TENANTFARMWADIWALLSDEPENDENTRESOURCESOl \ POPULATION I FACILITIES.,PASTORAL ZONEEl'-7 11 r 7SOF 'E5. lNMPopulation and resources are concentrated towards the centre of theestate. Here we might expect to find evidence for olive presses, threshingfloors, cisterns,. stores and ancillary buildings clustered around the homefarm. The best agricultural land will also normally be adjacent. Thefacilities available at the smaller, tenant farms tend to be more basic.Cemeteries are often the best guide as to the precise limits of the estateas they were not always sited for close convenience, but could function asterritorial markers. Similarly, wadi walls could also be used as landmarkers,63We shall return to the economic functioning of this sort of estate insections 8: 2 and 8: 4 below. It is worth noting, however, the way thisabstract model measures up to the archaeological data (see for instance,figure 48).8: 1

water control walls still survive in the wadis below the settlement sites,P1 4b-320-The mechanics of marginalzone, wadi-agricultureThis is not the place for a detailed exposition on the technicalachievements of the wadi farmers. But a few observations will serve toindicate the scale of long-tem investment and labour input which wasinvolved.The low rainfall and the nature of the pre-desert terrain restrictedmost cultivation to the limited alluvium of the wadi valleys (Chapter 2,above). Trees and crops were, therefore, grown in the bottom of the valleysP1 5aand irrigated by the run-off water from flash floods in the autum and wintermonths. The fundamental principle of wadi farming is that without detailedflood management the results are very hit and MiSS. 64 The field systems andbut only recently have they received detailedattention.65 Barker andJones have already given a succinct account of the findings of the ULVp. 66One of the major breakthroughs has been the recognition of sluice gates,diversion walls and spillways (fig 48b). 67 These enabled a relativelysmall number of men to distribute flood water over as wide an area aspossible, whilst also controlling the erosive power of the flood. 68As well as being used for directing water into, through and out of thefields, some walls were used to form terraces, and some were clearly sub-dividing plots of land. Within the fields thus formed and watered a widerange of trees and crops were grown. Some fields may have been rotated aspasture and others may have served as special nurseries.69 Further wallsdirected water catchment into rock-cut cisterns and yet others may denoteownership divisions of the wadi bottom. 70 In the wadi Mimoun (fig 48a)the large site at the centre of the estate clearly farmed the main wadi,whilst two probable tenant farmers had their own discrete field systems ina tributary wadi. Similarly in the wadi _el-Amud,(Lamout) (fig 48b) thewalled area denotes an important part of a large farm, adjacent to themain buildings (nos. 9-10 on plan), but with what is evidently a dependent8: 1

-321-farmstead to the southwest. It can be argued that this closely reflectsthe supposition that the development of agriculture from the first to thirdcenturies A. D. was in terms of a number of large farms or estates each withsatelliteor dependent farmsteads*71Goodchild clearly did not fully understand the mechanics of wadi agri-culture.72 But the survival of traditional wadi agriculture in southernTunisia73 74 75, the Gebel Nefusa and at Beni Mid provides an invaluablesupplementary source of information which is still virtually untapped byarchaeologists.76 There are also remarkably similar ancient systems in the77Negev desert and in Jordan. Evidence from ancient documentary sourceson the Negev farms has been confirmed by modern experimental work and showsthat bumper yieldsmay have been more commonplace than mere subsistencefarming, once the water control systems were created.78 In terms of yieldsthese marginal zone farms could compete with the better watered zones.79There were perhaps three preconditions though. Firstly peace and socialstability were required to encourage capital and labour investment inbuildings, walls and planting olives - which were unlikely to produce anysubstantial return for a generation. Secondly (and linked to this) was theneed for an expanding market economy which offered the incentive of newwealth. Thirdly, the system would clearly have been more prone to collapseduring a prolonged drought than better watered areas.The widespread cultivation of the olive in the marginal zones, suggeststhat these conditions were met or overcome by the late first century A. D.The great number of olive presses indicate that oil production extended wellbeyond local requirements (though some presses may have been used for thevintageas well).80 The archaeological evidence for the lever press (torcular)merits more detailed study and could add significantly to our knowledge ofPI 30aolive oil production in the ancient world.81 One would like more information8: 1

-322-on production and storage capacities, though this would be difficultto evaluate since pressing can continue for several months after the harvest -with a single press able to process up to c. 1500 litres of oil/month.828: 2 THE ARMY AND THE ECONOMYIn her recent study of Numidia, Fentress drew attention to the evidencefor extensive veteran settlements and imperial estates in the Aures plain,notably around Lambaesis and Thamugadi. 1 Rightly she observed that thistype of settlement and landholding must have played an influential role inthe economic and agrarian development of that 2region. But there are goodreasons for thinking that this is a special case amongst the Africanfrontiers because of the presence of the legion and its legate at Larabaesis. 3As we have seen, the evidence from Tripolitania suggests a radically differ-ent origin for most of the frontier settlement and it is even possible thatthe native contribution in Nuznidia has been greatly underestimated becauseof the epigraphic evidence for veterani and coloni.4Although I have rejected all connection between the development of thefrontier economy and official colonization of the land in Tripolitania,thereare other ways in which the Roman presence may have been influential.In the first place Rome established peace and by supporting existing tribalelites created stable social conditions. The wholehearted support andparticipation of native elites brought about major socio-economic changesin indigenoussociety. Rome's influence here was often indirect but crucial.She also exercised control over the markets, being able to create new onesor ban traditional ones as she saw fit. 5The main innovation which Rome brought to some areas was the superimposi-tion of a market economy dealing in cash and centred on Mediterranean trade. 6This could create tntirely new conditions of supply and demand and traditionalpastoral or subsistence exchange economies, often "errbedded" in socialrelations, could be transformed. But the effects were most profound in the8: 1/8: 2

-323-coastal and urbanised areas. In the deeper hinterland the ramificationswere more subtle. Models applied from social-geography can suggest variousways in which these rural areas came under the influence of the Roman marketsystem. 7 My analysis is perhaps less scientific, but, it is hoped, moreclosely related to the actual archaeological evidence.It is likely that the market foci at Lepals, oea, Sabratha, Gigthisand Tacapae exercised an economic "pull" which went beyond their own terri-toria. There was, however, a second new economic force in the frontierprovinces and that was the military garrison. The logistical needs of thearmy were met at local level wherever possible.8 Through taxation and cashpurchase the army took a tithe of regional agricultural production and ifa surplus was not already produced, this could be induced. 9 The develop-ment of vici alongside forts furthered this trend, because the vici weregenerally unable to meet their own subsistence needs and as we have seen,a few of them developed some way towards being towns.10 In the frontierregions, traditional non-monied, exchange economies were caught betweenthe effects of the development of some local cash markets (military) andof the main export markets (-via the coastal cities)." The result wasnot necessarily the wholesale replacement of the traditional economicpattern. In Roman Britain, for instance, coins are fairly rare on ruralsites in the northern military zone and it is possible to speculate thatthe effects of the Roman economy were concentrated within a "dependancyzone" in the immediate vicinity of forts and towns and that elsewherelittle had changed. 12In Tripolitania also one may susýect that there was not a totalchange towards the adoptionof an economy based on specie.13 Let usassume, for the sake of argument, that the pre-Roman economy of the marginalregions was predominantly based on pastoralism and at subsistence level.A variation of this economy was probably continued by the hill-fortdwellers in the Roman period.14 Because Libyans carried out the develop-8: 2

-324-ment of sedentary agriculture, with a dramatic rise in production levelsto meet taxation demands, market opportunities and increased expectations,it is not necessary to assume that the economy of the wadi farms becameentirely cash based. I would suggest that these farmers and peasants wereoriginally part of an exchange or enbedded tribal economy and that substan-tial elements of this system survived the superimposition of the Romanmarket economy. 15 This was feasible because of the existence of "middle-men"who formed a link between the two systems. The vici could be both part ofthe rural exchange economy, whilst at the same time receiving specie paymentsfrom the fort. 16 But the role of the Libyan elite was even more importantin Tripolitania. They functioned as both capitalists and as feudal lords.The construction of the opus Africanum farms, of gsur and of elaboratemausolea indicate the capital wealth of these people.17 Some tomb inscrip-tions even reveal their cost. One of these in the wadi Umm el-Agerem cost3,100 denarii, two of those at Chirza cost 90,000 and 45,600 folles res-pectively and a third (unpublished) tomb from the wadi Antar cost 250denarii. 18 Many tonbs were clearly bought for cash from special contractorswhose style is recognisable and some were probably prefabricated and trans-ported some distance for erection. The provision of a tabula ansata onsome of these ashlar tombs, but with no inscription being cut implies adivision (in tire or space) between manufacture and final erection.19These Libyan notables possessed material capital and wealth and thissurely was accrued from the cash sale of agricultural and pastoral surplusto Roman military and export markets. At the same time it is likely thattheir tenants and peasantry paid rents and dues in kind or by their labourin continuance of earlier social obligations to their elite. Seasonalharvest labour was probably rewarded not in specie but with a percentageof the crop. 20 At a local level, pastoralists and farmers no doubt con-tinued as'before to barter goods at a subsistence level. Even when thesmall-scale producers were encouraged to increase their surplus by the8: 2

-325-greater availability of minor luxury goods at local markets (or through thelarger landowners), the basic mode of local trade was probably still exchangerather than cash purchase.21The coexistence of these two distinct economic systems can be visualisedin the following abstract model, 22DUAL SYSTEM I EXCHANGE SYSTEMc-VICUSE-4---- -- 0- LOCAL MARKETSSMALL HOLDERSFORT-4MAJOR LOCALPRODUCERS/zLOCAL ELITE, "*"-",, --.PASTORALISTS. 11 11OTHER R012TENANTSMARKETSit1-4SERVICEINDUSTRIES(BUILDERS,POTTERS ETC)In theory, there was another group of middlemen who could bridge thegap between these two systems. These were the hauliers and merchants whotraded and transported goods between producer and consumer. But I aminclined to minimize their importance, since it is likely that most estateowners possessed some draught animals (camels, oxen, donkeys, horses) forthe transportation of goods to market. The Bu Njem ostraca refer to cameldrivers delivering grain and oil to the fort. 23 But it is unlikely thatthese men were specially contracted hauliers, it is more probable thatthey were men sent direct from the farms supplying the produce. Forinstance, a man called Macargus delivered 16 urnae (210 litres) of olive oil.The weight of the oil and vessels can be roughly calculated at 'c. 260 kg. or8: 2

-326-790 Roman pounds. Put another way this is a little over the normal load ofa single camel and no more than two draught animals need have been used.24Similarly the largest single quantity of grain recorded is 108 modii (or 945litres) and this could have been transported by three camels and a donkey.Other recorded quantities are 24 and 30 todii (1 camel) ,60 and 63 modii(2 camels) and 90 modii (3 camels).25 These minute quantities do not rep-resent the work of specially contracted hauliers, but ad hoc purchases madeby the garrison of the local agricultural surplus. Another interesting pointis that the doclm-nts use four different Libyco-Punic names for the localstandard unit of measure (equivalent to 12 modii).26 This again suggeststhat outside influence on trade and traditional structures was limited.Clearly, then, the importance of indigenous initiative in exploiting themarket opportunities and in developing agriculture in the frontier zonemust not be underplayed.Nevertheless, one cannot altogether ignore the important indirecteffects of the military garrison. The basing of troops in Tripolitaniainvolved not only the logistical supply of between 1,000 and 3,000 men,but also brought into the region their individual spending power. 27This was certainly an important factor in the initial growth of vici, andthe further development of vici simply increased the importance of theforts and road stations as market foci. 28 However, these markets were anartificial creation in such a marginal zone and the economic boom did notsurvive the removal or reduction in the numbers of troops.2-9 As we shallsee in the next section, there were important economic changes in the late-and sub-Roman periodsas a result.The timing of the development of sedentary or mixed agriculture in themarginal zones is, of course, highly significant. It coincided with thefinal pacification of the tribes in the later first century A. D. The polic-ieslof fostering urban and rural development received the support of the8: 2

-327-tribal elites precisely because it allowed them to consolidate their ownsocial and economic position. In the process it seems likely that landhol-ding patterns were changed in favour of this Punicised and sedentary eliteand that many of their fellow tribesmen were made economically as well associally dependent. 30 As in so many areas of the Roman empire, the work ofdevelopment and the creation of prosperity was carried out by a self-interested, tribal aristocracy and not by "Romans" as such.318: 3 THE DECLINE OF TRIPOLXTANIAN AGRICULTUREThere can be no doubt that there was an overall decline in agricultureand wealth in late Roman Africa. The scale of this decline, however, ishotly disputed. ' There were some extraordinarily rich individuals stillaround$but the general munificence and extravagance of the earlier periodwere not repeated on the same scale in the fourth and fifth. 2 On theother hand the agrarian economy survived both the Vandal conquest and theinitial Arab invasions. There is plenty of evidence for continuity oftradition and economic vitality under the Vandals, notably, of course, inthe "Albertini Tablets" from the frontier region between Ad Maiores andTheveste. 3 In their lighter moments, both Synesius and Corippus describedhow rural life continued to be prosperous in between wars and revolts.4Another late Roman source referred to Africa still being the main exporterof olive oil to the western Mediterranean worldS, though archaeologicalevidence suggests that an ever increasing proportion came from Byzacium6alone. There is a likelihood, therefore, that the economic decline wasboth relativeand regional.The agricultural decline has sometimes been linked with a decline ofthe towna. 7 Once again, though, the archaeological evidence is not con-sistent with a general collapse of urban life. In Cyrenaica, for instance,some cities dwindled in size and prosperity, but the chief administrative8: 2/8: 3

-328-centresproved more resilient.8 A recent study by Lepelley has demonstratedthat the slump was less severe iia Africa than was once imagined. 9 But atthe same time, it is hard to escape the feeling that there were fewer peoplewith real wealth in the later period. The comparative paucity of buildingwork in many towns implies diminished individual or corporate resources.When a world-view is adopted, the reasons for this comparative declineIbecome, in part, self-evident. The third century economic slump and themilitary problems in Europe and the East undoubtedly weakened the politicaland economic centre of the Roman world and the repercussions were felt inthe peripheral zones. By coincidence, the African provinces were afflictedduring the late third and fourth centuries by a series of natural disasters(plagues, earthquakes and so on).10 In earlier centuries such set-backs hadbeen relatively quickly overcome, with extensive rebuilding in the townsaffected. Later, recovery was slower and less thorough-going.11Yet, having said this, it is also clear that the decline was by nomeans terminal at this stage. Agriculture continued to be the main occupa-tion and source of wealth in the fourth century and it was not diminishingeverywhere.12 An inscription from Tunisia refers to a man who had planted4000 trees in his lifetime and there are other similar references todevelopment. 13Tripolitania -a special case?Even Lepelley is forced to admit that the evidence for economicdecline in Tripolitania is rather different. 14 The prosperity of LepcisMagna collapsed during the fourth century and never recovered. At latefourth century Church Councils fewer bishops from Tripolitania wererequired to attend because of the poverty of the country.15 The onsetof the Laguatan (Austuriani) raids was clearly an important factor here.As was the case with the Cyrene of Synesius, the wealth of the city layin its land and the flocks, herds and agricultural produce which itproduced and exported-16 Ammianus and Synesius gave graphic descriptions8: 3

-329-of the looting, rustling and wilful destruction of the raids. Crops wereburnt, orchards cut down and animals driven off.17 Within 150 years ofthe onset of the raids Lepcis was abandoned.18 The same phenomenon is evi-dent further west also. In Sabratha, for instance, not all the major publicbuildings were rebuilt following an earthquake in the mid-fourth centuryand the Byzantine reoccupation of the site comprised only a tiny fractionof the former city, as at Lepcis.19 The reasons for the decline can berelated not simply to a recession in trade but also to the loss of thecities' territory in the Gebel which Arab sources attributed to the Hawara,a Laguatansub-tribe.20 The Laguatan did not simply continue looting andraiding after their unopposed successes of the A. D. 3601s. They actuallywrested land away from the cities and settled it themselves. Oates sugges-ted this in his fundamental study of changing settlement patterns in anarea of the Gebel Tarhuna. 21 However, the partial replacement of theRomano-Libyan elite by the Laguatan did not mark the eradication of the oldagricultural system. it is clear that some of the Laguatan took over theseigneurial role and continued to exploit a dependent peasantry as before. 22In A. D. 544, the Laguatan chiefs complained that Byzantine soldiers had beenpillaging their crops.23However, although agriculture and pastoralism continued to be the eco-nomic mainstays of Tripolitania at this time, it is likely that the Romanmarket economy had collapsed in the region. The relationship between theLaguatan and the original farmers of the frontier zone is of importancehere. We have seen that the real fury of the raids was directed against theterritoria of the coastal cities and there are no references to depredationsof the frontier region itself. It has generally been assumed that thefrontier farmers connived with the raiders and this is even more likely now24that their Libyan and tribal nature is more fully appreciated. Thegradual withdrawal of troops from the area and the decline in the Mediter-ranean export market had no doubt already affected their cash markets8: 3

-330-before the raids began and, therefore, weakened their links and their loyaltyto Rome.The archaeological evidence from the frontier zone shows that there wascontinuity of settlement beyond the third century but a more limited pros-perity among the elite. Ghirza is an unusual example with its splendidfourth century tombs. 25 The dedication of one of these recorded the sacri-fice of 51 bulls and 38 goats and even though this may have had religioussignificance (since Ghirza was probably the cult centre of the Libyan bull-god, Gurzil) it still seems an extravagant slaughter*26However, Ghirza is to an extent a special case. The majority of thewadi settlements in eastern Libya seem to have reached their economic peakmuch earlier, in the second and third centuries A. D. 27 In fact, a consider-able number of small farms and farmsteads in the southern wadi Ghirza, theBei el-Kebir and the Syrtic hinterland do not seem to have been occupiedbeyond the second century on the evidence of fine wares.28 By far thelargest quantity of fine wares (Terra sigillata, African Red Slip ware andTripolitanian Red Slip ware) reached the area in the period pre-fourthcentury.29 Similarly, most of the elaborate mausolea are now recognisedto be of second or third century date.30Admittedly gasr construction continued from the fourth century virtuallyto the present day. But it had become the normal building form and inscrip-tions show that the work of construction was now normally carried out by theowner, his extended family and his dependents and not by specialist contrac-31 tors, It is unlikely that they continued to be paid for in cash. I wouldsuggest that when the Roman market economy contractedthe Libyan elitemanaged to maintain their dominant position in society by placing a greateremphasis on previous exchange systems and on feudal and tribal obligations.32The loss of markets and trade was not wholly disastrous because of theircontinued involvement in a lower-tier, embedded economy, though productionpresumably fell back closer to subsistence levels. 338: 3

-331-One of the side effects of this economic decline was that the eliteneeded to bolster their prestige and status in new ways. Whereas theeconomic advantages of Roman rule had previously run in their favour, whenthe balance shifted in the fourth century, higher taxation further decreasedthe incentives for them to remain within the Roman system. Their politicaldefection to join the Laguatan or to sell loyalty for an increasingly higherprice was a natural progression towards a situation where feudal warlordssupplemented their subsistence farming income by raiding each others' ormore distant lands or through occasional donatives from a distant ruling34power. The arrival of a few new tribes was the catalyst for the finalbreakdown of Roman military and economic structures and saw the creation ofthe loose but extensive confederation known as the Laguatan. 35 By the timethe Vandals took over the region, there was little land left to the citiesbeyond the coastal strip; the former regio Arzugum and the Gebel landswere occupied by Libyan "warlords" and tribal groups willing to keep thepeace at a price.36 The real economic disaster, therefore, had beensuffered by the urban market centres which could not adapt their economy tocope with the loss of trade and lands.Under the Laguatangagriculture and pastoralism survived as essential,but-subsistencelresources well into the Middle Ages. 37 As Goodchildsuggested long ago, the most dramaticand more damaging changes occurredafter the second wave of Arab invasions in the twelfth and thirteenth, centuries. It was the migrations of the Beni Hillal and Beni Suleym thatset in train the further decline towards the nadir which the Maghreb reachedin the nineteenthcentury.38\8: 3

-332-8: 4 ! rRADETrans-SaharantradeIn his fundamental survey of the Romano-African economy, Haywood severaltimes referred to the importance of a trans-Saharan trade in "exotic wares."Like others who have been misled by this seductive myth, he could offer littlehard evidence for what this trade consisted of. 2 The origin of the idearelates to the experience of the earliest antiquarians and explorers tocross the Sahara in modern times. They followed the trans-Saharan routes toreach the Sudan, 3 and inevitably they were struck by the contrast betweenthe magnificent ruined cities and the generally denuded countryside. Manyof them travelled with or encountered Arab caravans plying a trade betweenthe Mediterranean, the river Niger and Lake Chad. 4 In trying to rationalisethe apparent wealth of the Roman period with their own experience of thecountry, they concluded that a lucrative caravan trade in exotica had beena staple part of the economy of Tripolitania, which lay at the head ofthreeof the main routes$5These routes ran from Sabratha - Ghadames - Chat, from Tripoli - Mizda -Murzuk 6and from Lebda - Bu Njem. - Socna - Murzuk. The latter two routes tothe Fezzan pass close to the old Garamantian capital at Germa, whilst theformer passes through that of the Phazanii. It is self-evident that theparticipation or acquiescence of these tribes was essential for any tradeto pass. The main problems with the older theories about trans-Saharantrade is that they rationalised Rome's relationship with these tribessolely in terms of the existence of desirable trade items. Whilst I do notwish to deny the development of some trans-Saharan trade during the Romanperiod, I would dispute that its scale and importance were as great asonce imagined and that it was economically vital to the cities.7When a list of possible trade goods is drawn up, it is important toremember that the evidence for a trade in most of them is strongest forthe post-Romanperiod.8 So although it is commonly believed that gold,8: 4

-333-ivory, slaves, precious stones and wild beasts were traded, 9 there isprecious little evidence in the ancient literature (with the possible excep-tion of a type of red carbuncle or cornelian).10 Some other supposed itemsof trade, such as emeralds, were entirely modern inventions. " Scepticismhas grown over the last twenty years about the existence of the trade at all,because of the dearth of information in the primary sources. 12Nevertheless, like all good myths, there is an element of truth amidstthe speculation. Archaeological evidence has increased greatly, particul-arly in the form of finds from Fezzan (Table 4: B, p. 126, above).13 Thelarge quantities of Roman pottery, glass and faience ware which reachedGarama (Germa) may in part have been given to the tribe as one element oftreaty arrangements, but some of it, at least, may have been traded. 14Black glaze wares had earlier reached Germa and these had presumably beentraded.15 The carriage of this sort of fragile goods on a 20-30 day journeyimplies the existence of worthwhile products to exchange.16Slaves are certainly a possibility since the Garamantes are known tohave "hunted" their negroid Ethiopian neighbours.17 In the post-Romantrade, slaves were one of the most important commodities of trans-Saharantrade and, interestingly enough, Bu Njem marked the point on the route whereresponsibility for the slaves' well-being shifted from the southern sheiksand traders onto the northern authorities,18 Unfortunately we have noindication of the scale of the ancient trade, assuming that it did exist.Firm conclusions about gold and carbuncles cannot be made either, eventhough both items have been found in Germa. 19 There is no evidencethatthe Garamantes were used as a source of gold by the Roman authoritiesandit is unlikely that it was ever available in really large quantities. Inthe same way, there is no reason to believe that Rome would have pacifiedthe Garamantes simply to get control of the source of a not very importantsemi-preciousstone.208: 4

-334-Similarly, there was a plentiful supply of wild beasts in Tripolitaniaitself and even the elephant was not yet extinct in Pliny's day. 21 TheSudan and Fezzan could perhaps offer some more exotic species, such as therhinoceros bicornis, which may have been taken to Rom for the first time in22the late A. D. 80's by Julius Maternus. But transportation of large beastsacross the Sahara must have been extremely difficult. It is possible thatas the elephant became scarcer in the north, the Saharan trade in ivorybecame more significant. Lepcis and Sabratha used the elephant as a formof civic or commercial symbo, 23 and there are inscriptions recording thededication of elephant tusks to the patron deities of Lepcis and Oea. 24But this evidence is clearly circumstantial.Daniels has referred to evidence for smelting and glass-making in Fezzanand haematite and natron may have been exportable as raw materials.25 Butas with the other potential exports, the evidence is very slight.Perhaps the most important factor to emerge from the discussion is thatthere was no single, outstandingly important co dity of trade. As we haveseen, Rome's reasons for her initial involvement with the Garamantes werepurely political, they were not directed towards capturing or controllingtrade. The Roman period trade only really developed in the period afterthe pacification of the tribe in A. D. 70.26 The chief profits lay with theGaramantes themselves, with a few entrepreneurs and with Rome (through thelevying of customs dues). It is unlikely that the trade made a majorcontribution to the prosperity of the region and its cities.Finally, new evidence from Bu Njem suggests that special enclosures werebuilt as stationes camellariorum and one of the ostraca refers to a consign-ment of cloth (syriacas) though its destination is unclear.27 The deploy-ment of the garrison in a base at the main oasis and in outposts at wellsand cisterns in the surrounding pre-desert zone, demonstrates a concernwith monitoring and controlling trade and population movement', 28 Customs8: 4

-335-dues may well have been levied by the garrison, in the same way that theyevidently were at Zarai in Numidia before the garrison was withdrawn andreplaced by a civil lex portus.29OthertradeAs we have already established the main wealth of Tripolitania lay inher agriculture, though we should not under-estimate the importance ofpastoralismand stock-raising.30 Production went well beyond the subsistenceneeds of the region and this surplus was exported. In addition, Tripolitania.may have been a major source of supply of wild beasts for the venationesin arenas around the Roman world.31 The agricultural development of thefrontier zone probably involved the "clearance" of a considerable number ofanimals. But once again we lack any accurate guide regarding the scale or32profitability of this sort of trade. The likelihood remains that the realfoundation of wealth and status was land and its exploitation through agri-culture or pastoralism (or both).I have suggested above (8: 1) that in the frontier zone a traditionalembedded economy based an social exchange was supplemented under Roman ruleby a cash economy primarily dependent on supplying the Roman garrison and onan export market. It has often been argued that agricultural produce couldnot be transported far overland because of the cost of transportation. 33Doubtless this was true for some products (grain) and in some areas more thanothers (Italy, for instance). But equally one must beware of confusing moderneconomic concepts and accounting procedures with practice in the ancientworld. 34Figures can be established for the cost of transporting olive oilfollowing the pattern of A. H. M. Jones' analysis of Diocletian's Price Edict.(Table 8: A). 35 Fentress atteupted this in her study of Numidia, but herfigures were based on the false assurption that oil was transported overlandin the bulky African amphorae used in shipping which had a capacity of 1108: 4

-336-TABLE 8: A Land transportation costs for olive oilBy wagonBy camel*Carrying capacity 1200 Roman pounds 600 Roman poundsTransport charges perRoman mile 20 denarii 8 denariiVolume of oil actually 885 Roman pounds- 443 Roman poundscarried (approx). 315 litres - 157.5 litres -573 sextarii - 286 sextarli =6 Tripolitanian 3 Tripolitanianunits.unitsValue of oil carried (based c. 13,750 denarii c. 6,870 denariion figure of 24 denariilsexta. rius (0.55 litres)- high grade oil wasworth40 denarii)Theoretical devaluation of 2,000 denarii 800 denariioil over 100 Roman milesdistancePercentage loss on market 14.5% 12%valueTransport costs for mule or donkey were of the same order as forthe carel with half the carrying capacity and half the charges.sexta. rii (or c. 60 litres). 36 In generallit is likely that far smallercontainers were used in rural transportation to minimise the chances ofa catastrophic breakage. For instance, a consignment of 210 litres of oilwas delivered to Bu Njem in 16 urnaeý7 If we assume a container: oil weightratio of 1: 3, then the weight of this particular consignment will have beenc. 263 kg. A single camel could carry c. 200 kg or 12 uxnae or 157.5 litres.This is.. apparently equivalent to three times the standard unit of capacityemployed in Tripolitania. 38 A wagon could carry almost exactly 315 litresor 24 uznae, but camel and donkey transport were probably normal for muchof the region.398: 4

-337-It is interesting to note that even over a distance of 100 milia (theapproximate distance between Beni Mid and Lepcis) the percentage cost ofland transportation was under 15% or the total market value Of the oil.According to Apuleius, his wife Pudentilla owned one estate 100 m. p. from0ea and in a land of no rivers and few good anchorages it is worth bearingin mind that land transportation of certain produce was both necessary andeconomicallyfeasible.40Let us consider the hypothetical case of a wadi farmer with a mediumsized estate in a tributary of the wadi Sofeggin. Suppose he and histenants produced an annual surplus of about 150 litres of olive oil aboveand beyond their requirements for subsistence and taxation payments. Perhaps50 litres would have gone in "buying" containers for the oil, paying-offharvesters and press-men, if extra-labour had been hired (it is assumedthat the farmer owned his own olive press). The remaining 100 litres countedas 11profit", therefore, and could have been transported to market by a singlecamel. Assuming that most estates had several camels or other beasts ofburden then even these transport costs could have been written-off,41The oil could have reached the market at Bu Njem, or Lepcis in 2-4 days.At this point when the oil was actually sold, it acquired a cash value forthe first time as far as the producer was concerned. Because of the long-term nature of capital investment in olives and the social structureproposed in relation to these farms it is clear that this profit was notdirectly comparable to the production costs. A good deal of the productioncosts took place in the sphere of the exchange economy, whilst the profitswere produced in the cash market. This new capital could be reinvested inland (trees, stock, cisterns) or in building (a new farm/gasr or elaboratetombs) or in luxury goods (fine pottery, glass).8: 4

-338-Capital investment inland, buildings etc.Purchase of luxuryor high status goodsSubsistence production +surplus++ surplusproduced by tenants inform of rents, dues, etc. Transport - owncash saleRomanisedinmarketcanbe hiredpayment of II payment of jamphorae purchase oftaxesharvestersletcIn this system, where many labour and transport costs do not actuallymanifest themselves in the sphere of the cash economy, even a small surplusbecomes saleable as long as there is a market for the product. As long aspeaceful conditions prevailed and there was either local military demandor an expanding, Mediterranean export market, commercial wadi agricultureorganised by a Libyan elite Fas feasible.42I have concentrated so far on olive oil, because it was obviously ofprime importance to the economy of the region (on the evidence of olivepresses) but a range of other products may also have been commerciallyproduced. Cereals were needed by the Roman forts but it is unlikely thatthese were carried such long distances. Although not mentioned in theostraca, it is likely that the garrison at Bu Njem, also obtained pastoralproducts (meat, skins, milk and so on) locally. 43 In addition some tradein wine, figs, dates, nuts and other similar products may be envisaged.44On the whole, though, it is likely that most of these products had a muchmore local significance than olive oil, unless taken for the militarymarket.8: 4

-339-A number of other export industries had some relevance to Tripolitania.Some of the ARS pottery may have been produced in the coastal region andin the later Roman period it was the centre of the TRS pottery industry. 45There were numerous coarse-ware production centres, mostly manufacturingamphorae for the oil industry. Only a few sites have been examined inde tai 14146Cerba and the Lesser Syrtic coast were important centres of the purpledye industry. 47 The thousands of murex shells on the site of Gigthis suggestthe presence of dye works there. 48 Another piece of evidence for a textileindustry from the site is a reference to a fulling establishment in thehousehold of ISer=ius Messius (who was a Cinithian by descent), 49One final question remains to be considered and that is the mystery ofwhy Tripolitania was so severely affected by the economic decline that urbanlife virtually collapsed in the area during the fifth century. The invasionsof the AusturianilLaguatan provide part of the answer, but it is clear thatthe region was in trouble well before that. 50 There is a growing body ofevidence to indicate a major contraction in sea-borne trade after the thirdcentury A. D. 51 By the third century the great olive lands of Byzacium werein full production and Tripolitanian oil (which was perhaps of inferiorquality) may have been less in demand than before. 52 If olive oil becamemore difficult to export both the great city-based landowners and themarginal zone producers will have been obliged to cut-back on production.Since the later third century and early, fourth century was a period ofrising taxation and falling military involvement in Tripolitania, one canspeculate that the cash side of the economy became severely unbalanced.In the marginal zone production fell back closer to subsistence levelsand the LaguatanlAusturlani moved in to provide the coup de grace for themoney economy which had transformed the region for a few, brief centuries.8: 4

-34o-CHAPTER 9 ROMANISATION AND DE-ROMANISATION1 THE CUL7VRAL CHARACTER OF TRrpoLrTANrAA good deal of attention has been focussed recently on the degree ofcultural as well as political resistance to Rome in Africa. 1 The discus-sion has concentrated on the abundant evidence for Libyan, African, Numidianand Libyphoenician cultural continuity beneath a thin veneer of Romanisation.Benabou, for instance, has seized on this as proof of passive social resis-tance to the Roman 2occupation and colonization of Africa. His position isan extreme reaction to earlier generations of scholars who tended to over-look the considerable native input to "Roman" Africa. 3 On the other hand,the distinct African cultural base is not surprising when one considers4other regional variations in Romanisation around the Empire. In reality,the Romans were not trying to enforce a complete cultural complex on theirsubjectpeople.5 Certainly, the development of towns and an urban-basedsystem of local government followied an approved model. 6 Latin became theofficial language in the western empire and some provincials gained Latin7names through enfranchisement. Religious differences were generallyresolved by syncretism, linking local goods with the Roman pantheon.8Roman tastes in luxuries were encouraged and satisfied through the growthof trade and a cash economy centred on towns. 9 Beyond this the "specificcultural complex" of the African provinces may be described as Romano-African with the strongest influences being Punic and Libyan. 10Because there were few Italian settlers and no Roman military coloniesin Tripolitania, the indigenous cultural contribution remained paramount.In this section we shall examine some of the evidence for the survivalof Punic and Libyan culture in the early Principate in town and country.A brief assessment of the Romanisation of the region is also included.9: 1

-341-Punic language and culture in the urban centresLeglay has suggested that one of the main problems facing the Romans inAfrica was the need to de-Punicise the population." If it was, however,then they had limited success. One might suggest, alternatively, that theurban civilization of Roman Africa was ultimately based on a Punic founda-tion. The excavations at Lepcis Magna have produced a remarkable epigraphicdossier on her population and detailed studies have shown that the urbanaristocracy were mainly of Phoenician or Libyphoenician extraction. Neo-Punic and bilingual inscriptions show their wealth and political dominancein the town in the first century A. D. 12One of these dominant families was the Tapapii whose members are knownfrom the dedicatory inscriptions of a number of m6numents. 13 Notableamongst them was Annobal Rufus, son of Himilcho Tapapius, who providedthe town with its market (8 B. C. ) and its theatre (A. D. 1-2). 14 Even inthe Latin versions of inscriptions the Punic names are thinly disguised, asin the case of C. Annonis and Balitto Annonis Macri (or G'y ben Hanno andBa'alyaton son of Mtqr and grandson of Hanno)15. Other prominent Liby-16 17phoenicians in the first century were Iddibal Himilis Iddibal TapapiusBoncarth son of Muthumba118 and Iddibal son of Balsillec, grandson ofAnnobal. 19Another sign of the Punic character of the town was its politicalorganisation. The chief magistrates were called suffetes throughout thefirst century A. D., even after Lepcis was granted municipium status c.A. D. 74-77.20 This may have been a rare indulgence on the part of Rome, butthe municipal constitution was eventually brought into line when Lepcisbecame a colonia under Trajan. 21 The practice of erecting bilingual orNeo-Punic texts also ceased at about this time. Nevertheless, the Puniccharacter of the Lepcitanian elite is still discernable in the Latin namesand Latin texts of the second century. Phrases such as amator civium suorump9: 1

-342-amator patriae and ornator patriae are direct translations of Neo-Punictitles.22 The origins of Latina-Punic inscriptions are also to be found inthe second century. A stamped tile from the Hadrianic baths reads FELITOTHXADEM Sr-ROGATS Ym=NAr which Levi Della Vida translated as "made in theworkshops of Rogate Ymmannai", 23 Other Latino-Punic texts from Lepcisare funerary in nature and may be of later date, as, for instance, thestele set up by Barichal Typafi for his son Viystila and his wife Ihi. 24Literary evidence confirms that Punic remained a spoken language inTripolitania. Apuleius referred to the limited education of his antago-nistic step-son, Sicinius Pudens of Oea, who had regressed to speaking"nothing but Punic" (and this in a family with a fortune worth over 4millionsesterces).25 Similarly, the future emperor Septimius Severus wastri-lingual, having been educated at Lepcis in Latin and Greek and beingfluent in Punic. 26 The accusation that his sister Octavilla could scarcelyspeak Latin (.. vix Latine loquens...)27 is more credible when it is appre-ciated that Punic probably remained the vernacular language in Tripolitania.Although the use of the Neo-Punic script died out, a debased form of writtenPunic was developed using the Latin alphabet.28In spite of their continuing regional character, the TripolitanianEmporia became in most respects typical towns of the Roman empire, withtheir constitutions run on Roman lines, education available in Latin (nowthe official language) and Greek, with Romanised town plans and publicbuildings and their gods closely identified with Roman ones. There wasno inherentcontradiction that beneath_this surface gloss, Punic cultureand language survived.29 The same conclusions can be reached through astudy of the art and architecture of the region. The most profoundinfluencesremained the Phoenician or eastern Mediterranean ones.30Libyans in the urban centresThere were many Libyans in the urban centres, though the urban aristoc-31racy more often bore Punic names. Amongst the lower classes one finds9: 1

face value, particularly in view of the unequivocal evidence from rural-343-a greater preponderance of Libyan names. A series of labelled cineraryurns from Lepcis records the names Ammon, Dicar, Hedone, Momus, Zabda32along with Anno Arisu, Balbilla and Imilcho. Other inscriptionsrefer to Nu=ius Gaetulicus, M. Pompeius Gaetulicus and Gaetul 8334and Claudius Ladas and Claudius Stiddin. Another Stiddin is known atOea. 35Gigthis provides an interesting contrast to Lepcis in that some of theCinithi tribe,, who were assimilated during the first century A. D., rose tohigh status in the town and its surrounding territoria.36 The Memmii andthe Nessii families are interesting examples in this context. L. MemmiusMessius was both one of the leading tribesmen of the Cinithi and magistrateof Gigthis. 37 His kinsfolk are known to have owned a fulling establish-ment in the town38 and there was a C. Memmius at nearby Zita (Zian). 39Inscriptions from prestigious mausolea in the Gefara agricultural zonerefer to a Messius Crescens and a Messia Spicula. 40 The culture of theseLibyan aristocrats was basically Punic. 41Another way of identifying the Libyan element in urban centres isthrough the excavation of cepeteries. Grave types are predominantly Libyanor punic. 42 There is little evidence in the early period of imported Romanburial habits. 43Punic language and culture in rural areasIt has sometimes been claimed that the Punic language and culture of the44rural areas was quickly extinguished under Rome. This idea is based onthe mistaken assumption that it had never been well established there inthe first place. However, the monarchies of Mauretania and Numidia werehighly Punicised and the widespread influence of Punic culture and languageamong some of the other tribal groups is likely. 45 St. Augustine's wellknown co=, Ants on the survival of Punic in rural areas should be taken atTripolitaniapresentedbelow"469: 1

-344-Several discrete bodies of information lead us to the same conclusion;the first of these is the architectural evidence. The earliest farmingsettlements in the Gebel and pre-desert were centred on undefended farmsPI 30a47constructed in the opus Africanum style. Relief carvings from thesebuildings of the Tanit symbol and of phallic symbols, designed to ward-offthe evil eye, are typically PuniC. 48 The Opus Africanum style of buildingitself originated in the Phoenician and Punic centres in Africa. 49Associated with many of these early farms were elaborate tombs inashlar masonry, the coum nest form being the so-called "obelisk" tomb(known to the Arabs as Senam - idols, Mselletin - needles or el-Amud - thepillar).50 Although they were at one time mostly assigned a late Romandate, to go with the gsur, it is now clear that many of the tombs, and the51obelisks in particular, are dateable to the first two centuries A. D. Inthe study area of the ULVP, tombs on the wadi Merdum. at Mselletin and BirGebira have fragmentary Neo-Punic dedications and are to be associated withopen farms whose occupation begm in the second half of the first centuryA. D. 52 Similarly in the wadi el-Amud (Lamout) an early farm lies in closeproximity to a cemetery containing two elaborate obelisk tombs whosededications are in Neo-Punic. 53 Similar tombs (with a pronaos formed bycolumns at second storey height) have been recorded in the wadis Migdaland Messeuggi, and once again there are farms yielding first and secondcentury pottery closeby.54 In the wadi N'f'd a pair of obelisk tombswere erected at the mouth of a tributary (known today as the el-Amud)PI 30bbut recent survey work failed to locate an early site to go with them. 55However, de Mathuisieulx recorded the existence of a "bourgade", built inashlar masonry, a few metres above the wadi floor below the south obelisk.56This seems to be a reference to an opus Africanum farm rather than a gasr,but the area indicated is now covered by shifting sand dunes. which explainswhy the site was missed in 1980. Yet another example of the association of9: 1

-345-early farm and obelisk tombs is to be found in the wadi Umm el-Agerem, thoughthe tombs there probably date from the late second or third century.57 Ingeneral, therefore, the spread of obelisk mausolea was early in date andreflects the Punic culture or tastes of the wealthy elite in the zone.The same was also true of western Tripolitania as is illustrated by theel-Amrouni mausoleum, south of Foum Tatahouine, since the dedication wasmade in both Latin and Neo-Ptmic. 58 This was also an "obelisk" tomb. 53The-architectural style of this and other tombs in the region can justif-iably be described as Libyco-Punic even if architectural details, such asengaged pilasters with Corinthian capitals, reflect Mediterranean borrowings.60Further Neo-Punic inscriptions from the hinterland of Tripolitania, includethe dedication of a Libyan temple near Tarhuna6l and an ostracon (dealingwith farming matters) from near Cussabat. 62 There is also the evidence ofPunic names to be considered. From the Gebel region came Balsilech Subath(who lived to be over 110) and a certain Hanno. 63 Iddibal, Annobal andImilcho64 and Arigam. and Bodaltart6S are attested on sites south of the wadiSofeggin. Nevertheless, as we shall see in the next few pages, Punic nameswere much less common than Libyan ones, even among the elite, in the Tripoli-tanian hinterland. Although the rural population were Punicised to a degreeand seem to have spoken Punic, they were not strictly Libyphoenicians andthere is no certain evidence for "colonists" sent out beyond their territoriaby the Tripolitaniantowns.One final point here concerns the development of a written form of Punicusing the Latin script. Scholars of Punic and Neo-Punic have now demonstratedthat the so-called Latino-Libyan inscriptions of Tripolitania are essentiallyLatino-Punic in character, though the language is clearly a rather debasedform of Punic. 66 Translation of some, but by no means all, texts is possi-b 67 le. A series of hybrid texts using a mixture of Latin and Punic wordsdemonstrates that the vernacular language was still punic. 68 The use of the9: 1

-346-Punic phrase avo sanu for vixit annis is one revealing example of this.69Libyans in the ruralareasIt was suggested above (Chapter 8: 1) that outside the territoria of thecoastal cities the process of agricultural development was carried out bymenbers of the Gaetuli and Macae tribes. Many of these spoke Punic and hadsome cultural associations with the Libyphoenices. They may have gainedagricultural experience and capital during the earlier creation of theterritoria of the towns (which must have impinged on traditional triballands). However, their namps show clearly that they were representativesof a Libyan rural elite. In the hinterland of western, Tripoli tania onefinds, inter alia, Miha Vasa'70 Iurathe, luzale, Thanubra7l and Assioda, 72In the eastern Gebel lands lived M. Ulpius C .... I Chinitiu C ...3,73 BibeIssicuar, Semp and Eisrelia, 74 Bibi Muthunilim'75 Stiddin'76 Thlana MarciCecili son of Mupal, 77 Shasidwasan son of Tamrar of the sons of Masinkaw78and many others. The most important group of names, however, comes from theSofeggin and Zem-Zem region. Quite detailed information about familyrelationships can be established in a few cases.79Neo-Punic inscriptions from two tombs at a cemetery in the wadi el-Amud (Lamout) allow the following family trees to be established. The daterange is probably late first to second century A. D. 80Sfyuk of the T. g. l. biGatid. m of theGatitof theYankdasanLTN' g. l. biIZut (f)IYamrurM. S. liAsLiyatMasawkan17Ari. gam Iosdan 7The second family*tree, menýioning another man called AriLfam. and a mancalled Nimrancannot be certainly related to this first one, but a close9: '

-347-family link may be suspected.81A. The dead man's familyB. The tomb builders' familiesGolenw. tMag ukkasanNimranI(sons)BodaltartIArigam 00. gep 0uopf 1Of the sixteen people named on these inscriptions only three havePunic names, the rest of the family being Libyans. The grandparents ofAsliyat and Masawkan are even referred to in relation to their tribal clans(the N. g. l. bi or T. g. l. gl and the M. s. li). These inscriptions record atleast four generations (and probably more) ,but there is little sign ofincreasing Romanisation. 82Two Latino-Punic inscriptions from a cemetery in the wadi Umm el-Ageremallow the following family tree to be tentatively reconstructed*83Iyllul? Masauchan Thanubda (f) YsysanImiltho?Annobal.. -SifThis is again a wealthy Libyan family group who spoke Punic and still usedsome Punic names alongside their more common Libyan ones. Their farm hadstarted as an undefended opus Africanum structure, but at some date it wasincorporated into the structure of a conventional gasr. 84 ,So far we have dealt exclusively with the elite group who aspired toand attained an higher level of acculturation. There were other Libyansin the zone whose culture was far less Punicised. Chabot recorded a numberof inscriptions using a Libyan alphabet in western Tripolitania8s and,although it was once thought that there were no texts in the Libyan alpha-bet from the eastern region, over forty examples are now known besides themore extensive archive from the Bu Njem Vicus. 86 There are many others9; 1

-348-from Fezzan also.87 In spite of the knowledge of Punic among the elite,Libyan was also a major spoken language in the rural areas and had a nunberof dialects.88The contribution of Libyan religion and burial customs was not negligibleeither.89 The art and architecture of many of the funerary monuments, fromsimple cairns to tombs decorated with relief carvings) follow recognisablePunico- Libyan or Romano-Libyan styles. Few would now accept Smythe'sharsh verdict on the Chirza tombs as "debased classical tombs in indifferenttaste. "90 On the contrary, they reflect the vitality of a Punico-Libyancultural tradition in rural Tripolitania. 91RomanisationIt should already be apparent that Romanisation came a poor second tothe earlier and continuing Punicisation of Tripolitania. But it is notnecessary to make the same conclusions as Benabou. 92 One comes back to thequestion of what level of social and cultural change Rome actually tried toachieve in the provinces.93 The aims of Romanisation were primarily poli-tical - to create stable conditions of local government centred on towns,with Latin as the language of officialdom.94 At a far lower level it wasdirected at tribal elites beyond and in the frontier zones and was designedto reconcilethem to Roman authority.95 This sort of "Romanisation", workingthrough treaties, grants of Roman citizenship, the export of high prestigegoods and services, was designed to create cultural links between Roman andnative. Libyans were not intended to be turned into Romans, but potentialenemies were persuaded to identify just a little with Roman civilisation.The process is fairly clear in Rome's dealings with the Garamantes. 96Within the Roman province, the towns conformed to the pattern of Romani-sed centres in spite of their continuing and strong Punic links. How elseto explain the success of L. Septimius Severus? Because Roman rule wascarried out at local level by pre-existing elites (wherever suitable9: 1

-349-candidates were found) it was inevitable that their culture should survivebeneath a veneer of Romanisation. To some extent the same principlesextended to Roman control over the deeper hinterland. It seems certainthat Rome attached great importance to the existence of a Libyan elitewhose high culture was that of the Libyphoenicians but whose tribal connec-tions covered a much wider area through the principal of tribal hierarchy.Some of these people were no doubt established alongside the Libyphoenicianfarmers of the Cebel and, whether by opportunity or inducements, theywere encouraged to extend sedentary agriculture into the marginal zonelands of theirtribes.97The culture,, language and nomenclature of these people was comparativelylittle affected as we have seen, though a few did acquire Roman citizenshipprior to the third century.98 One such was T. Flavius Capito Io[...?.. ] whoerected a small temple at Tininai. 99 He was probably related to a T. Flav-ius &... 3nian known on an unpublished tomb inscription from the wadi Antarnearby.100 The latter text also refers to a woman whose name beginsThan[...., ], so the Libyan origin of these men seems certain.101 There isalso evidence from western Tripolitania, as, for instance, in the case ofthe L. Domitii in the western Gefara and Gebel Matmata. 102 L. DomitiusAumura and L. Domitius Tellul were plainly native Libyans and the wife ofthe former man, Arelia Tommassa, may have been ancestrally related toArellia Nepotilla, the wife of M. Manlius Ingenus who constructed theturris Maniliorum Arellior= at a later date. 103The process of enfranchisement is illustrated in the well-known funerarydedication of Q. Apuleus Maxssimus (sic) from el-Amrouni.104 The inscrip-tion is most likely pre-third century as there was a parallel Neo-Punictext on the obelisk-type tomb. 105 Apuleus was nicknamed Rideus ("Smiley")and lived to be 90.9: 1

-350-IuratheIIuzaleIQ. 4uleus M. Lxssimus ThabubraPudens Severus maxsimusThe members of the family of Apuleus were evidently Punicised Libyanswho lived in and famed the marginal agricultural zone. The poor spellingof the Latin text demonstrates that Apuleus was only superficially Romaniseddespite the grant of citizenship.As far as we can judge the religion of these people remained very tradi-tional until the rise of Christianity. 106 There were apparently many ruralshrines with Libyan Ammon perhaps the most important of the gods worshippedin the frontier zone. 107 He was often conflated with Saturn in Roman AfricalvOBbut a Neo-Punic text from Oea suggests a link between Saturn and anotherLibyan god, Gurzil. 109 The dedications of two of the deities worshipped bythe garrison at Bu Njem. conflated, in one case, Jupiter with Hammon (Ammon)and, in the other, Mars with Canapphar.110 One would expect the Roman armyto practice this sort of syncretism in any case, but recent research showsthat the army was itself thoroughly Berberised or Libyanised by the third-century.111 The garrison in Tripolitania was predominantly composed ofLibyans and although the Bu Njem evidence provides some indications ofclassical pretensions, such as the acrostic poems of Q. Avidius Quintianusand M. Porcius Iasucthan, 112 the general level of classical knowledge seemsto have been low. Marichal despairs of the "latin crdole" used by the out-posts when sending despatches and even the scribes at the fort were far fromword perfect. Some documents were even written in Latino-Punic. 113 In aregion where the chief spoken languages were Punic and Libyan, it made senseto have a garrison who could communicate in the vernacular, but it imposedlimitations on the usefulness of the army as agents of Romanisation. Romehad no great scheme for supplanting indigenous cultures, nor did she have9: 1

-351-the physical means to enforce her will in such matters. Romanisationinvolved the loose assimilation of local religion and culture into anenlightened system based on syncretism.When Synesius spent time in the country, well away from the towns, herejoiced in the simple, ageless qualitý of rural life, for"As to the Emperor, as to the favourites of the Emperor..... noone, or hardly any one, speaks of them here. Our ears have restfrom such stories. No doubt men know well that there is always anEmperor living, for we are reminded of this every year by thosewho collect the taxes; but who he is, is not very clear. "114These cormiants might be equally applicable to the interior of Tripoli-tania under Rome. The region was generally pacified, relatively prosperousand, though not very Romanised, the elite were reconciled to Roman rule foras long as it worked to their advantage. The most visible signs of Romanrule were the garrison posts and the annual visits of the tax-men. But anequally profound. but less obvious, influence was exercised over the socialand economic development of the region. As we have seen, the extent ofRoman involvement stopped well short of official colonisation of the frontierregion, but we cannot entirely divorce the indigenous development of marginalzone farming from Roman stimuli. The timing of the first settlement ofsedentary estates in the Sofeggin, for instance, corresponds with the finalpacification of the tribes in the area and the official delimitation of theirlands in the Flavian period.115 It is worth speculating that, having identi-fied an elite group amongst the more northerly tribes, Rome fostered economicdevelopment by rewarding this group with land and incentives. Through landdelimitation Rome would have been able to transfer the title of some landsfrom the whole tribe to individuals. 116 The creation of cash wealth aug-mented the power of the traditional leaders of the northern clans and themixed farming regime may have gained further recruits from the southerly,transhuming clans. However, these changes, brought about by the establish-ment of the Roman frontier, created a rural aristocracy whose culture andestates were modelled not on a Roman pattern, but on the pre-existing Liby-9: 1

-352-phoenician aristocracy of the Emporia.Although the city of Rome remained the capital of the empire until thefourth century A. D. for historical reasons, the character of the empirebecame entirely cosmopolitan. The sequel of the Roman military conquestwas not the imposition of an Italian, or wholly alien, culture on subjectpeoples. The key to Roman success was not the crushing of local resistanceto the point of extermination, but the voluntary assimilation of localpeoples into a system of government based on wealth and oligarchic power.117Resistance to Rome was often overdome or minimised by suitable inducementsto existing elite groups. The participation of the Libyphoenices in Romangovernment produced centurions, procurators, senators, governors, praetorianprefects and even emperors.118 In the frontier zone, the energy of the elitewas directed towards the accumulation of wealth within the Roman economicsystem. Beyond the frontiers, Roman diplomacy concentrated on maintaininga dominant pro-Roman faction within the tribal elites through gifts, servi-cesand support.119This system may be compared favourably with more recent frontierpolicies involving expansionist or imperialist powers. The confrontationbetween white men and Indians in the American West is a tragic example ofa frontier policy which failed. 120 The Americans had an enormous numericalsuperiority over the Indians and their weapons and resources were so, muchbetter that the ultimate result of the Indian wars wasinevitable (evenLittle Big Horn was only a minor setback).121 This imbalance of poweraffected the whole business of treaty making, land daaling and the regula-tion of the Indians, which was carried out in an high-handed and provocativemanner. Coupled to this were the problems engendered by the racial bigotryof most white Americans, the land hunger of settlers moving west, consis-tently broken promises and broken treaties, corruption in Washington and anear total lack of understanding of Indian society and culture.122 The9: 1

-353-appropriation of the Indians' landsywith shamefully inadequate compensation$oftengave way to simple expropriation.123 The iniquities of the loss oftheir lands and their sufferings in the reservation system forced the Indiansinto repeated, pointless and suicidal acts of defiance. Their resistance wasmade all the stronger by the unfortunate belief amongst the white men thatit was their duty to "civilize" the savages and to destroy their traditionalcultureand religion.124 The result of this myopic frontier policy was thevirtual genocide of many of the Indian nations after years of repeated revolts.The rewards offered by the Americans to loyal chiefs and loyal tribes merelyunderlined the weakness of American policy. Apart from yet more broken agree-ments and further land appropriation, the chiefs on the reservations weresubject to the complete denial of human rights, falsified trading accounts,semi-starvation, bad whisky and indiscriminate arrests and shootings.125Had the Romans habitually behaved in this way, their empire would not haveendured as long as itdid.Further examples of failed frontier systems can be found in the modemhistory of the Maghreb. The resistance to France and Spain in Morocco inthe 1920's is a reflection of the failure of modern, nationalistic colonial-ism to satisfy the aspirations of the indigenous elites.126 The Rif rebellionwas also a response to the invasion of foreign powers whose culture andreligion was totally alien and antipathetic to the native people. 127 InAlgeria in the 1940's and 1950's a powerful lobby of French settler farmerscancelled out their government's efforts to conciliate or bribe the Algeriansto remain as part of France. The racial and religious bigotry of the settlers,who were seemingly intent on creating an apartheid country, helped to createa national base for the resistance.128 Similarly, in Libya, the Italiancolonialism was a failure because of its total reliance on military mightto enforce it. 129 The strength of Libyan resistance from 1911 to the 1930'sindicatescultural as well as political opposition. Even in victory theItalians failed to make the right conciliatory approaches to the tribal heads9: 1

-354-who might have supported a less obviously racially prejudiced regime. 130Roman frontier strategy was not wholly enlightened, of course; therewere occasional massacres and protracted wars of conquest. But beyondthe unprecedented military success of her armies, Rome's great strength washer ability to assimilate the diverse people she conquered into the Romansystem. The keys to this were the limited aims of Romanisation and theconciliation of the ruling classes and dominant social groups. Paradoxic-ally, the growth of the Roman world brought about the dilution of Romanculture rather than its wholesale export.9: 2 THE TRIBAL RESURGENCERebuffat has suggested that although the people of the frontier zonewere predominantly of Libyan or Punic descent, they 'Ven etaient pas moinsloyaliste et romain d'dsprit". 1 But I think we come closer to understandingthe Roman/native interaction if we view it in terms of Rome building up "anetwork of families, groups and comunities with vested interests in theprolongation of Roman rule. "2 In the previous chapter I have argued thatthe material prosperity of the frontier zone declined in the fourth century.At the same time taxation was rising and the security of the zone breakingdown. Once the material advantages of Roman rule were under threat, wecannot assume that blind loyalty and Roman spirit alone will have maintainedthe long-standing relationship between the authorities and the rural elite.3It would be surprising for such a relationship not to undergo changes insuch circumstances.Courtois was wrong to imagine that Tripolitania was partially aban-doned by Rome because it was not very Romanised, 4 Throughout the Africanprovinces Romanisation was strongest in the towns and many rural areasretained a strong Punic and Libyan character into the fifth century andbeyond. 5 The low level of Romanisation in the interior of Tripolitania9: 1/9: 2

-355-only became significant when some of the rural elite became disaffectedwith Roman rule and opted out of the system.6 Secession from Rome was notthe culmination of long resistance in most cases, but marked the relativelyabrupt end of centuries of participation.7The fortified farms of TripolitaniaThe traditional dating of the fortified farms (gsur), to the thirdcentury A. D. and later, still seems to be broadly correct.8 But as we haveseen they were not constructed in virgin territory. Large estates existedin the marginal lands before this date, mostly centred on opus Africanumstyle farms owned by a Libyan group of landholders. 9 It is possible thatmilitary outposts served as a model for some of the early civilian gsur. 10The attested insecurity of the zone at the beginning of the third centurywas another reason in favour of a shift to a more defensive style of con-struction.11 Equally, the evident prosperity of many of the major land-holders suggests that prestige and social status may also have played apart in the widespread adoption of the building style.12In many cases it is possible to pair an open farm with a nearby gasr,and the dating evidence, such as it is at present, supports the idea ofcontinuity between the two types of settlement and between the earlyfarmers and the gasr dwellers. 13 The gasr presumably took on the role ofmanagement centre of the estate, Oates was able to demonstrate just sucha chronological relationship bet ween open farms and gsur in the GebelTarhuna also. 14There is little evidence for increasing Romanisation of the gasr-dwellers in the third and fourth centuries. Latin inscriptions continued tobe comparatively rare and in the known examples the Latin is generallyungrammaticaland mis-spelt.15 The majority of the texts from eastern Trip-olitania (from tombs and gasr dedications) were cut in Latin letters butused a debased form of the Punic language. 16 Inscriptions which start in9: 2

-356-Latin show a tendency to lapse into this vernacular language. 17, Although some of the men and women recorded bore Roman nomina, theircognomina remained staunchly Libyan. 18 An inscription from the Bir Sceduaarea, and probably of late third century date, refers to M[asa]uchan, son ofIylul. 19 These are the same names we have already encountered on a tomb inthe wadi Umm, el-Agerem, and though the same man cannot be buried in two places,it is just possible that there was a family connection between the two areas.20Similarly we find a man called Marcius Metusan, whose father was calledFydel ur Fidel, both at Ghirza and at a gasr in the wadi Migdal (about 100km away). 21 The coincidence suggests that they may belong to differentgenerations of the same extended family group. Even with the increasedemphasis on individual landholding, the hierarchical nature of tribalsociety will have endured in these extended family groups or clans andmarriage alliances will have strengthened the bonds between families.22When the official garrison of the region was thinned out in the laterthird century, the existence of what was essentially a clan-based society,centred on individual fortified farms, became increasingly important. 23Although I have argued for a cautious approach to the archaeological evid-ence as regards the possible military function of gsur, the ad hoc recruit-ment of some of these tribal clans in the fourth century is almost certain.The real problem is to decide what role was assigned to them by Rome.Rebuffat has argued that the Bir Dreder tribuni were a properly organisedPI 18a, band official frontier unit.24 But the cemetery at Bir ed-Dred-er, wherethe stele were found, is near no known fortification and does not havemajor strategic significance. Recent survey work with the ULVP has con-vinced me that the tribuni were the occupants of the gsur in the BirPI 17bScedua basin to the northeast of the Dreder, that this group had a specifictribal identity and that they practised a mixed farming economy in theregion (Fig 49). 25 At some stage in the fourth century they appear tohave been recruited en bloc as allies of Rome. All the men received Roman9: 2

-357-nomina, but the title of tribunus seems to have been reserved for theleading men. As such I do not believe that it had any military significancebut that it was merely honorific. Many of the names recorded at Bir ed-Dreder (which may have marked the southwestern grazing limits of the Sceduasub-tribe) are paralleled from elsewhere in the region. For example, atDreder one finds Iulius Nasif (tribunus), 26 Flabius Isiguar (triibunus) andYriraban son of Isicuar'27 [.....limus Nimira28 and Flabius Masin[th]antribunus,29 whilst for comparison one can cite M. Nasif'30 Bibe Issicuar, 31Isicua[rj32, Marcius Nimira and Nimmire33 and Iulius Severus Masinthan.34Another name, Macarc=351, recurs in Corippus as Magargum. 36Chirza is another site with a very obvious importance in the lateRoman period and it was almost certainly a sub-tribal centre. Fourthcentury tombs, erected to commemorate some of their leaders, reveal that37they also bore Roman nomina. Some family relationships can be establishedwhich suggest that the clan at Ghirza was dominated by one particularextended family group.38M. Nasif M. Mathlich (f)M. Nimira M. Fydel F. Thesylgum (f) M. Chullum Varnychsin (f)M. Metusan Marchius Nimmire (MlaccurasanIn addition another Nasif and somone called Isicuar are named. 39 Thepossession of Latin names was a gloss, for these people were no more Roman-ised than their predecessors, as the ungraTmatical Latin of the inscriptionsshows.It is ironic that these Chirza to=bs, which were so disdained bySmythe, were later seen by the Italians as a potent symbol of the successof Rome: "age old montments, majestic and full of grace in their delicatecolonnades, contrasting indescribably with the surrounding squalor, abandon9: 2

-358-and loneliness, resisting the ravages of time and remaining to attest theboundless power and greatnessof Rome the dominator. it4O To the less preju-diced eye the toubs are essentially Punico-Libyan with limited "Roman"influence. 41 They were certainly built at a time when the "boundless power"of Rome was on the wane in the region.It is a reasonable hypothesis that at neither Bir ed-Dreder/Bir Sceduanor Ghirza were the gsur-dwellers recruited stricto sensu as "soldierfarmers" or militia, but that Rome was recognizing and exploiting therelative autonomy and local political dominance of sub-tribal groups.The closest parallels come from Mauretania Sitifensis and Caesariensis,where the great landowners in the frontier zone (who were also tribal leaders)were delegated frontier control as in the documented case of Sammac (seepp. 192-93, above),42 The murder of the pro-Roman Sarmac seems to have beenan intra-tribal affair, since his half-brother, Firmus, seems to have hopedthat his action would have no political repercussions. Ammianus tells usthat Romanus, the comes Africae, suppressed Firmus' explanation of hisconduct in order to seek personal revenge for the death of Sammac (who hadbeen a favourite of his) and this provoked the actual revolt.43 Matthewshas shown convincingly that the events of the revolt relate to the oldfrontier zone where Sammac, Firmus and other Moorish chiefs fulfilledcertain duties of frontier control on Rorie's behalf. There were fewregular troops left in the region and the Moorish chiefs evidently arrangedtreaties and provided a certain amount of local policing centred on theirimpressive fortified farmhouses. 44 Just as in Tripolitania, the frontierzone came to be dominated by an elitegroup whose power was based both ontraditional tribal ties and on their position as the major landholders inthe region. In both these regions the official garrison was depleted in thefourth century, with the field army bases being too remote to providepreclusive defence. The partial solution to the problems of frontier9: 2

-359-defence lay in the recruitment of the pro-Roman elite who controlled therenewed tribalism of these zones. 45 The decline of the inland cash economyin Tripolitania in the fourth century must have created a certain amount ofdisaffection amongst the pro-Roman nobility. The importance of militaryand political strength may have increased above wealth as indicators ofsocial prestige. Given these changing conditions some of the frontierfarmers will have become much more receptive to Roman treatiess honorarytitles, gifts and even stipends.46 References to this sort of treatyrelationship in Byzantine times declared it to be a continuation of lateRoman practice in the area. 47The LibyanrenaissanceWe have seen that Libyco-Punic culture continued to be extremelyimportant in the frontier zone. There was also something of a renaissanceof a more purely Libyan culture. At Ghirza, for instance, four of the mainbuildings had Libyan dedications on their doorways. 48 Another buildingin the settlement proved on excavation to be a pagan temple and yielded twentyvotive altars, three of which were inscribed with undeciphered Libyan slogans. 49The diminishing use of Latin or Latino-Punic suggests that the region wasbecoming increasingly less literate into the post-Roman period.50A vital role was played by the Laguatan confederation in the revivedtribalism and Libyan culture and in the de-Romanisation of the region*51I have irgued that some new tribes migrated westwards in the late Romanperiod assimilating existing populations of the oases of the northernSahara into their confederation. The Nasamones, Garamantes and Phazaniitribes, who had remained generally reliable hegemonic allies of Romej weresuddenly destabilised at the very moment when the military and diplomaticeffectiveness of the frontier had been weakened by establishment cuthacks.S2Synesius claimed that the raids on Cyrenaica were invited by the Romanauthorities by their removal of some troops and the demotion of others from9: 2

-360-heavy-armed forces to light skirmishers: "what enemy would not delight in awar that involved as little danger" he wrote, bemoaning the breakdown ofRoman deterrence. 53The farmers of the frontier zone were faced by a dilemma. The declineof the cash economy had diminished their incentives to remain part of theRoman empire, whilst they could not hope to defend the province withoutback-up from regular army units. Moreover, for their farming and shepherdingto be feasible they had to maintain synbiotic relationships with the trans-huming people from the oases and these people were now actually or tech-nically laquatan. In the event it was the territoria of the coastal citieswhich suffered the worst onslaught of the Laguatan raids and one may surmisethat the people of the frontier zone were assimilated by the confederation.54Rome (and later the Vandals and Byzantines) continued to make treaties withthe tribal groups of Tripolitania, but these were no longer hegemonic allia-nces as much as non-aggression pacts. The Libyan revival was strongest ineastern Tripolitania initially, but by the early fifth century western Trip-olitania and even the coastal regions were coming under the influence of therenewedtribalism.55Religion in Tripolitania in the late Roman periodThe spread of Christianity in Roman Tripolitania had its greatest successin the citiesand in the Gebel regions.56 Only two churches are known in theSofeggin wadi basin and there are none in the Zem-Zem. 57 There is little evi-dence for the impact of Christianity in the hinterland of western Tripolitania. 58The frontier zone was largely spared the traumas of the Donatist controversy,but the limited acceptance of Christianity also indicates the strength ofPunic and Libyan paganism. 59 Most of the known temples were smallshrinesand many of the elaborate mausolea served as foci for the Libyan ancestorculte6a9: 2

-361-The two most important Libyan deities were probably Ammon and hisbull-headed progeny, Gurzil. They are both mentioned on Neo-Punic inscrip-tions from Tripolitania and much later they played a prominent role in theLaguatan wars with Byzantium in the sixth century. Ierna, who was theLaguatan commander-in-chief in A. D. 546, was also high priest of Gurzil. 61A connection has sometimes been suggested between the names "Curzil" and"Ghirza"62 and there is now additional evidence to suggest that thisetymological connection may be correct. An inscription from Chirza, foundby one of the tombs, refers to a sacrifice involving 51 bulls. 63 A reliefpanel on another tomb shows a bull being sacrificed.64 Moreover, one ofthe major buildings at Chirza has proved on excavation to be a temple. Itis far larger than the normal cult shrines (such as Tininai) and twenty65votive altars were recovered. If Chirza was indeed the centre of theGurzil cult in the late Roman period, then it becomes clear why the settle-ment should have become so large and remained comparatively wealthy.66 Theclose religious affinities between the Romano-Libyan people of Ghirza andthe Ammon worshipping Laguatan cut across whatever loyalty they may havehad to Rome and facilitated their absorption into the confederation.67IDe-Romanisationand secessionA few final points need stating. The Romanisation and de-Romanisationinvolved above all the "estate of management" (the Libyan elite) and not the"estate of production". There is no evidence of a "peasants revolt" againstRoman rule, such as Bulliet seems to envisage.68 The social status of therural poor was if anything rather worse at the end of the Roman period thanit had been earlier, with tribal ties and obligations having taken on a"feudal" aspect. 69 Tribal society and tribal hierarchy had developedincreasingly in favour of a seigneurial class enjoying Rome's favour andsupport. It was the same pro-Roman elite who led the secession from Rome#once their best interests were no longer served by remaining as part of the9: 2

-362-empire. Matthews has shown how this also applied in mauretania.70 TheLaguatan provided a complicating factor in Tripolitania, but even the newlyarrived tribes were divided into a warrior elite and dependents or retainers,and it is clear that the elite sought to establish themselves in a seign-eurial role on vacated lands in the old territoria of the cities.71Secondly, it is apparent that resistance and secession were not theinevitable outcomes of the cultural make-up of the Tripolitanian frontierzone. The people were not very Romanised and their language, culture andreligion remained predominantly of Punic or Libyan nature. Yet the Romansystem endured for as long as it had the active support of the Libyan eliteand it was only during the fourth and fifth centuries that the basis of thatsupportwas eroded.The reasons for this change are several and complex. The farming ofthe marginal frontier environment did not come to a sudden end, as one mightexpect it to have done had there been climatic change. 72 But one can suggestthat its initial development was something of an anomaly in such an arid zone.The decline of the artificial, cash economy of the region in the fourthcentury A. D. precipitated a return to an economy based more closely onsubsistence production and tribal dues and obligations. The economicadvantages of remaining part of the Roman province were lost.At the same time, the Roman military establishment was reduced tothe bare essentials (mostly concentrated in the western part of theterritory). The decision to leave the defence of the province to the fieldarmy under the command of the comes Africae effectively left the frontierout on a limb and invited attack by tribes no longer inhibited by the Romandeterrent. The Laguatan did not possess any secret weapon, they fought aslight-armed-horsemen just as the tribes of the region had previously done. 73There is no reason to believe that they posed a bigger threat than, say, theGaramantes or Nasamones had done earlier. However, Rome was no longer ableto cope in the same way because the infrastructure necessary for preclusive9: 2

-363-defence and deterrence diplomacy no longer existed in Tripolitania.The failure to punish the Laguatan by punitive raids against their oasescentres, destroyed the credibility of the frontier in eastern Tripolitaniaand severed the last links of self-interest of many of the Libyan elite withthe provincial structure. As a result the laguatan consolidated their posi-tion and their confederation spread to engulf the people of Tripolitania.The petty warlords and tribal chiefs continued to make non-aggression pactswith Rome, but in this phase, even before the Vandals occupied the coastaltowns, Tripolitania had already been transformed into a largely autonomousLibyan and tribalterritory.9: 3 POSTSCRIPT - THE SUB-ROMAN PER170DFor most of Roman Africa, the Vandal conquest did not result in cata-clysmic change. The conquerers seized some of the best lands of Proconsu-laris and Byza cium for themselves without displacing the dependent peasantry.1Elsewhere, the Romano-Africans continued to farm the land as before and theVandals concluded treaties, with the various Berber tribes and kingdomsbeyond their territory.2 Even in some of the areas which had passed out ofRoman control prior to the Vandal conquest, Latin inscriptions show that avague semblance of Romanitas continued for a while.3 The Byzantine reconquesta century laterin A. D. 533, once again brought about a seigneurial change onthe best agricultural land. Later the Byzantine army came into conflict withsome of the Berber tribes and new frontiers were created in some sectors.4The reconquered territory of Tripolitania, however, did not extend muchbeyond the coastal plain and peace depended on treaty relationships withindividualLaguatan sub-tribes*5During the period of Byzantine rule there was a further decline inLatinity,, Romanisation and urban life. In rural areas the reconquestwas not entirely popular since these new Romans, proved to be more efficient9: 2/9: 3

-364-tax collectors than the Vandals had been. 6 Christianity was to prove themost resilient aspect of Roman culture and in some areas it lingered on well7into the Middle Ages. But even before the Arab invasions the generalsocial pattern was changing back towards a rural-based, tribal society.8This trend was amplified following the Arab conquest of the Maghreb,though life of some sort continued in many urban centres for some timebeyond the mid-seventh century. In the long term the Maghreb declined frombeing one of the most densely urbanised areas of the western Mediterraneanto being one of the least urbanised in the later Middle Ages. 9 In thesame period, sedentary agriculture was increasingly supplanted by semi-nomadic pastoralism and political and military power was frequently in thehands of vast tribal confederations.10 The cultures which emerged dominantfrom centuries of political and religious turmoil were Libyan (Berber) andArabic. The long term legacy of both Punic and Roman civilization to theMaghreb has been small."In both Tripolitania and Cyrenaica the Lagruatan provide a vitalelement of continuity in the sometimes confused history of Vandal, Byzantineand Arab North Africa. 12 The Vandals and Byzantines never occupied much morethan the coastal strip in Tripolitania, the rest of the country being occupiedby Laguatan sub-tribes.13 Although Roman rule continued without interruptionin Cyrenaica into the seventh century, direct control was increasinglyconfined to the coastal cities and their immediate hinterland. 14 When thefirst Arab invasion took place in A. D. 642, the interior tribes, who weredescribed by Arab sources as Lawata (= Laguatan), controlled the plateauand had treaties with the Byzantine government. 15 tAmr Ibn el-Aasi, theArab commander in 642, ignored the Byzantine forces which were preparingto make a last stand at coastal Tauchira (Tocra). ' Instead he made forBarca, on the plateau, there concluding a treaty with the Lawata of theregion.16 The relatively insignificant Byzantine forces were dealt with ata later date. 17 The implication of this is surely that political dominance9: 3

As happened in Cyrenaica, the tribes retained their local autonomy in return-365-over the more numerous Laguatan was the key to controllingthe regione"The Laguatan in Tripolitania also made treaties with the Byzantineduces, but the peace was destroyed in A. D. 544 by the massacre of 79 sub-chiefs.19 Sergius, the Byzantine dux. had sworn safe-conduct for them onthe Holy Scriptures and as most Byzantine diplomacy involved such oaths, therepercussions of this act were very serious. It took four years of savagefighting to quell the revolt.20 The descriptions of the tribesmen byCorippus illustrated their thorough de-Romanisation and strong paganism atthat date. 21 As noted alreadypone of the Laguatan commanders, Ierna, mayhave come from Ghirza.22Atany rate the temple at Chirza was destroyed atabout this date, perhaps as the result of a Byzantine reprisal in theaftermath of the revolt.23Nevertheless, there is ample evidence for continued occupation andmixed farming in the former frontier zone long after the Arab conquest.for acknowledging Arab hegemony and paying tribute. 24Gsur werestillbeing built in the ninth century A. D. and there are signs of continuedoccupation at a number of sites.25 In the eleventh century el-Bekri referredto the fertility of the Sofeggin valley, to a gasr in the wadi Mimoun andto the continued importance of Ghurza (Chirza) as a pagan religious centre.26The old teuple, however, was reoccupied by a merchant, so the religious27ritual by this date may have become centred on the tombs. In the wadiMimoun and in its tributary the wadi Buzra, there is considerable evidencefor continued settlement, notably at Suk el-Oti and Suk el-Fogi (the "upper"and "lower markets") on the Buzra. The church at Suk el-Oti was convertedinto a mosque. 28 The existence of these local marketsimpliesthe morewidespread continuation of wadi farming and pastoralismin the region.Gradually some of the remoter and more marginal wadis were abandonedby the mixed farmers and from about the eleventh century there appears to9: 3

-366-have been an increasing concentration of population in the northern wadis,notably around Beni Ulid. 29 This became the political and military centreof the Orfella tri: be. 30 The Orfella confederation incorporated both Araband Libyan groups from the region, as is demonstrated by the continuity of31wadi agriculture in the wadi Beni Mid to the present day. Continuityis also to be found in the Berber communities of southern Tunisia and north-west Libya. Relic Berber populations survived the invasions in remote,fortified villages in the Gebel Matmata, Gebel Demmer and Gebel Nefusa. 32Christianity may have survived amongst some of the Nefusa tribes until theeleventhcentury.33 Christian inscriptions of tenth and eleventh centurydate have also been found near Tripoli. 34 In the aftermath of the BeniHillal invasions and the ending of religious toleration Islam triumphed andthe culture of the Berbers today is essentially Libyan and Arab in equalmeasure. 35 The important factor to appreciate though is that social andcultural changes were relatively slow and superficial up until the eleventhand twelfth centuries A. D. In the interim period, Tripolitania remainedwhat it had become in the late Roman period, a region of revived Libyantribalism. 369: 3 ANN RYLANDSUNIVP-RSITYLIBRAMY