Negueruela Martínez, I., J. Pinedo, M. Gómez, A. Miñano, I. Arellano, and J. S. Barba. 1995. “Seventh-Century BC Phoenician Vessel Discovered at Playa de la Isla, Mazarrón, Spain.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24: 189–197.
Polzer, M. E. 2014. “The Bajo de la Campana Shipwreck and Colonial Trade in Phoenician Spain.” In Assyria to Iberia at the Dawn of the Classical Age, edited by J. Aruz, S. B. Graff, and Y. Rakic, 230–42. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Prag, J. R. W. 2014. “Bronze Rostra from the Egadi Islands off NW Sicily: The Latin Inscriptions.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 27: 33–59.
Pulak, C. 1997. “The Uluburun Shipwreck.” In Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, edited by S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny, 233–62. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Pulak, C. 1998. “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27: 188–224.
Sleeswyk, A. W. 1980. “Phoenician Joints, Coagmenta Punicana.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 9: 243–44.
Steffy, J. R. 1991. “The Ram and Bow Timbers: A Structural Interpretation.” In The Athlit Ram, edited by L. Casson and J. R. Steffy, 6–39. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Tusa, S., and J. Royal. 2012. “The Landscape of the Naval Battle at the Egadi Islands (241 B.C.).” Journal of Roman Archaeology 25: 7–48.
Wachsmann, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
Wachsmann, S. 2000. “Review of G. Markoe, Phoenicians.” International Journal of Maritime History 12: 233–34.
Chapter 28
Residential Architecture
Roald Docter
When in 1982 Frank Braemer published his overview of domestic architecture in the Iron Age Levant, covering large parts of the Phoenician homeland, a similar discussion of Punic architecture in the west was still lacking. The study of Alexandre Lézine on Punic architecture published in 1962 dealt chiefly with architectural orders in Greek style stemming from Punic sanctuaries, public buildings, and tombs. Their occurrence in Late Punic domestic architecture had not yet been acknowledged as such. Only the introductory chapter in Mhamed Fantar’s 1985 volume on the domestic architecture of Kerkouane came close to an overview comparable to Braemer’s volume, though it is mainly restricted to North Africa.
Since then, however, especially in the central and western Mediterranean, archaeology has advanced enormously and many known and previously unknown Punic sites saw the publication of domestic architecture dating to the period of first colonial endeavors until the Roman conquest (e.g., Prados Martínez 2003). In North Africa, especially Carthage provided detailed information coming from different zones (Fumadó Ortega 2013, 2016): the Magon Quarter at the seafront (Rakob 1991), the Hannibal Quarter on the upper southern Byrsa slopes (Lancel 1982, 1995), the Rue Astarté (Chelbi 2004), and the Decumanus Maximus Quarter on the eastern slopes of the Byrsa hill (Niemeyer et al. 2007), and, within the latter area, the Bir Messaouda and the Ibn Chabâat sites (Docter et al. 2006; Maraoui Telmini 2012; Bolder-Boos 2016). Other North African sites with published evidence of residential architecture are Lixus (Aranegui Gascó 2009), Ceuta (Villada Paredes et al. 2010), Rachgoun, and Mersa Medakh (Vuillemot 1965). Of exceptional importance in this respect is the site of Kerkouane on Cap Bon dating to the first half of the third century bce (Fantar 1985). In Sicily we should mention Selinus (Helas 2009; Helas et al. 2011), Palermo, Soluntum (Spatafora 2009), Lilybaion/Marsala (Caruso 2003), Monte Iato (Russenberger 2016), and the island of Mozia (Famà 2009; Acquaro 2015; Nigro and Spagnoli 2017). The island of Pantelleria has also recently yielded evidence of Punic domestic architecture dating from the seventh century bce on (Schön et al. 2015). On Sardinia, especially the sites of Nora (Bonetto 2009), Monte Sirai (Perra 2009), Tharros (Falchi 1991), Sulky/Sulcis (Bernardini 2009), Olbia (D’Oriano 2009), and Cagliari (Colavitti 2003) have yielded evidence on the subject (cf. Mezzolani 2014); the same holds for the sites of Sa Caleta and Ibiza city on the island of Ibiza (Ramon Torres 2007, 2014). On the Iberian Peninsula, the known sites of Toscanos, Las Chorreras, Morro de Mezquitilla (Arnold and Marzoli 2009), Cerro del Villar (Aubet 1997; Delgado and Ferrer 2007), Castillo de Doña Blanca (Ruiz Mata 2001), Abdera, Baria/Villaricos (López Castro 2009), Guardamar, La Fonteta (Rouillard et al. 2007; González Prats 2011), have now been joined by Cádiz (Teatro Cómico and Casa del Obispo sites; Gener Basallote et al. 2014), La Rebanadilla (Sánchez Sánchez-Moreno et al. 2012; López Castro 2014: 112–16), Cartagena (Ramallo Asensio and Ruiz Valderas 2009), and many others.
In the east, the metropoleis Berytus/Beirut and Tyre have contributed to our knowledge of residential architecture, but also smaller sites as Tell el-Burak, Ras Ibn Hani, Tell Sukas, Ras el-Bassit, Sarepta, Tell Abu Hawam, and Tell Keisan (Braemer 1982; Sader 2009; see chapter 10, this volume). The basis for writing an overview of Phoenician-Punic domestic architecture is, hence, much more favorable than thirty-five years ago. Within the same decades, no less than three conferences have dealt specifically with the subject (López Castro 2007; Helas and Marzoli 2009; Costa and Fernández 2014).
Recent scholarship moves beyond mere typological approaches of domestic architecture, not only by applying space syntax analyses (e.g., Fumadó Ortega 2007), but also taking sociocultural aspects into account. For instance, the 2016 study of Iván Fumadó Ortega takes emic and etic perspectives in discussing “identity” and domestic architecture and urban morphology. Already some ten years earlier, Ana Delgado and Meritxell Ferrer (2007) discussed the relationship between colonial architecture, material culture, and social identity on the basis of a seventh-century bce house in Cerro del Villar (figure 28.1).
Figure 28.1 Cerro del Villar. House 2, seventh century bce.
Source: Drawing by C. Pardo Barionuevo after López Castro 2014: 125, fig. 10; and Delgado and Ferrer 2007: 28, fig. 8.
Urban vs. Rural Domestic Architecture
Generally speaking, the people known as Phoenicians and Punics are considered as typical city dwellers, living in densely built-up cities and towns, oriented toward the sea, on islands, promontories, and peninsulas. In recent years, however, this urban bias has been balanced by an array of rural installations and farmsteads in the central and western Mediterranean, chiefly dating from the fourth century bce on (Van Dommelen and Gómez Bellard 2008; Pardo Barrionuevo 2015; see also chapter 29, this volume). Although they vary in size and layout, some general characteristics can be distinguished. They are more or less rectangular in shape, with rows of rooms around a central court serving both living purposes and the storage and processing of agricultural products; as such, they closely align themselves with urban domestic architecture. Luxurious elements such as tessellated mosaics, Greek-style architectural mouldings, and painted Ionic capitals in the suburban villa of Gammarth near Carthage suggest that well-to-do owners resided here permanently or seasonally (Fantar 1985: 14–24, 44–65). The presence of an oil press, basins, and dolia (large storage vessels) shows that agricultural production could go hand in hand with clear residential functions, at least by the Late Punic period. Such functional permeability of residential space characterizes ancient architecture in general, and the Phoenician-Punic world is no exception to the rule.
Domestic, Artisanal, and Commercial Space
Commerce, trade, and artisanal production figures prominently among the activities commonly associated with Phoenicians and Punics, and spaces related with these functions are what we see in the archaeological remains of their urban centers. As in the rural areas, these functions were to be found within or adjacent to the residential quarters. The archaeological record in different areas and periods shows that street layout played an important structuring role in the placement of these economic activities within the urban fabric.
In early Punic times, rooms bordering and opening onto the streets (sūqu) have been reconstructed as
workshop annex shops, as a kind of bazaar or market (maḫīru), such as at Carthage, Cerro del Villar, and Cádiz (Gener Basallote 2014). In Carthage, the finds in front of these (work)shops (e.g., the wasters of ivory working) seem to confirm such artisanal functions (Niemeyer et al. 2007: 182–87, 794); the living quarters may then be found in the rooms farther away from the public domain. In Cerro del Villar, the presence of lead weights seems to confirm the commercial function (Aubet 1997: 208–10; Aubet et al. 1999). A completely excavated house in the same site (figure 28.1) that had its full inventory preserved, showed that one of the rooms was dedicated to metalworking (Delgado and Ferrer 2007: 28–30; López Castro 2014: 121–26). The recently published building C8 on the island of Mozia, interpreted as a funduq or warehouse, in use from 800 to 550 bce, seems to a have combined both residential and commercial functions (Nigro and Spagnoli 2017: 10–17). The same combination of functions had already been proposed for the large buildings C and H in Toscanos (Arnold and Marzoli 2009: 447). Also for Selinus, a former Greek colony reoccupied by a Punic population in Middle Punic times, Sophie Helas has shown that shops annex workshops were concentrated along two major east–west and one north–south street axis (Helas 2009: 292–93; Helas et al. 2011: 122–24). In Late Punic times, the houses found in the newly constructed Hannibal Quartier on the Carthaginian Byrsa hill show that artisanal activities took place both in the houses adjacent to the street—and probably on the street itself. In a room, not accessible from the adjacent house, the French excavators found the remains of a large commercial rotary grain mill, and on the small square formed by the junction of two streets, they found the remains of a jeweler’s workshop with no less than 13 kg of cornelian, obsidian, and red coral (Lancel 1982, 32–39, 93–103; Lancel 1995: 158–59, 171–72).
Apart from these artisanal and commercial activities strongly integrated within the residential urban tissue, artisanal activities also took place in the peripheral urban areas, bordering the city walls on both sides. Examples come from the metalworking areas in Carthage and La Fonteta (Lancel 1982: 215–60; González Prats 2011: 46; López Castro 2014: 128–29). In all these cases and in many others, residential functions are attested or can be surmised, testifying to the high level of functional permeability of the domestic space (López Castro 2014: 127).
Domestic and Religious Space
Religion impacted both the domestic space and the urban landscape. Already the very act of house construction went along with building offerings in the shape of libations, food, and vessel offerings. Within the Phoenician-Punic world, these took different forms and were characterized by a large extent of heterogeneity, which is a sign of the private character of the ritual (Mansel 2003). In Carthage itself, every major renovation phase was marked by building offerings (Docter et al. 2006: 67–74; Niemeyer et al. 2007: 213–17).
Excavations at Carthage have equally shown that within the densely built-up urban tissue, the primary function of a house could easily be changed into a purely religious one, and inversed again some 130 years later (Niemeyer et al. 2007: 217–33). Around 480 bce, one of the houses was split in two, with half transformed into a small sanctuary consisting of two rooms with a mortar pavement (not attested before in Carthage); this level was renovated around 425 bce with a new mortar pavement with inset symbols of Tanit, Baal Hammon, Astarte, and of a fish, a circular cavity to receive libations, and a bench for offerings. Impressions of a beam set at an angle of 60 degrees in the pavement clearly suggest that the upper rooms in the back of the house/sanctuary were reached through a wooden staircase. These may have served as the residential quarters of the priests, and/or—more hypothetically—as the premises of a small hospital, at least if we interpret the finds in the abandonment layer correctly (e.g., an iron scalpel, a bronze needle with silk threads corroded in its iron cover, and a large iron offering knife; Niemeyer et al. 2007: 801–03).
Libation cavities have been found also elsewhere in Carthaginian house floors, in Selinus (Helas et al. 2011: 102–103), as well as in some sitting baths in Kerkouane, where they have been interpreted in relation with the washing of feet (Fantar 1985: 309, 329, 365, 381). Elsewhere in the Late Punic central Mediterranean, similar religious features have appeared, however, and often their function as either as part of a sanctuary or of a domestic space is open to interpretation. The houses in Kerkouane yielded examples of inset religious symbols in the mortar floors (symbols of Tanit and fish or dolphins), as well as clear evidence of constructed altars within the houses (Fantar 1985: 100, 116–20, 255–58, 687). Similar finds have been made in Selinus, with inset religious symbols in floors (Tanit symbols, kerykeia), as well as altars, in contexts interpreted as sanctuaries within the urban fabric (Helas et al. 2011: 124–48). Farther afield, a house in Cagliari, dated to the Republican period, had a clear Punic pavement with inset Tanit symbol and other representations in white tessellae (Colavitti 2003: fig. 16b). In house 2 at Cerro del Villar (figure 28.1), one of the rooms is assigned cultic functions, and the seashell pavement in front of its main entrance is interpreted as an apotropaic element. In Late Punic Carthage, marble altars, terracottas, and marble sculptures clearly point to house cults and spaces of private worship (Tang 2005: 96–97, 380–83). It is clear that the already seen functional permeability of residential space may be extended to the religious sphere as well.
The Contribution of Carthage
Carthage has offered the best example of uninterrupted development of domestic housing within an urban context, with well-published stratigraphical excavations spanning a period of more than 600 years. From its foundation at end of the ninth century bce, the city seems to have been structured following an overall urban planning, which is suggestive of a central authority overseeing the building activities and even the existence of a land registry that divided the land in regular building plots of 100 and 72 square m, ca. 8 by 12 viz. 8 by 9 m in size (Niemeyer et al. 2007: 178; Fumadó Ortega 2013: 251–55). These sets of measurements would correspond with ca. 16 by 24 and 16 by 18 cubits) and would, hence, partially take their cue from the oriental sexagesimal system. On these plots, delimitated by more or less orthogonally laid-out streets, rectangular houses were built, wall to wall, forming insulae. Three overarching systems can be discerned in the street orientations, probably connected with successive urban extensions: one following the contours of the eastern Byrsa hill in a more north–south direction (Decumanus Maximus, Ibn Chabâat, Bir Massouda), later one parallel to the coastline (Magon), and still later in the years around 200 bce, one more fan-shaped radial system starting from the Byrsa hill. Here, the streets enclose relatively small house-blocks in a system that we may call Hippodamian.
From the first moment on, streets were provided with stone rubble or crushed murex shell (purple production waste) coverings, in which irregular open drains allowed the run-off of rain and waste water (Niemeyer et al. 2007: 233–37). Already by 425 bce, at least some streets were monumentalized by means of a limestone ashlar street pavement and central open drains. Just after 200 bce, one of these streets was even provided with a well-hewn shallow limestone drain (Niemeyer et al. 2007: 158–60, 197–99). These stable and permanent street coverings, replacing the ephemeral rubble levels, put an end to the earlier practice in which household rubbish accumulated in the streets, creating a rapid succession of street levels. Remarkably, the Late Punic streets in the “Quartier Hannibal” had not (yet) been paved. Only on the crossroads, stone stairs had been put in place, probably to prevent erosion.
The stabilization of street levels, starting around 480 bce, allowed the inhabitants to keep their house floors on the same level instead of having to raise them in competition with constantly rising street levels (Docter 2005). Previous house floors (torba) were rather ephemeral, consisting of crushed limestone, and were constantly renovated, especially in areas that knew regular passage and hence wear, like corridors and doorways; now they could be replaced with more permanent mortar floors and, especially from the fourth cen
tury bce onward, tessellated floors (Niemeyer et al. 2007: 199–211). Still, torba floors remained common in different parts of the houses, both inside and outside, until the final destruction of Carthage in 146 bce. The mortar or terrazzo pavements consisted of a mixture of quicklime, sand, water, and a high proportion of ash, to which pottery fragments and limestone grit could be added; they had hydraulic properties. The Punic mortar floors with high levels of ceramic fragments, resulting in a reddish overall color, are known as opus signinum. Both terrazzo and opus signinum were also used for wall coverings. In Late Punic Carthage, also the floors of upper levels were covered with terrazzo floors (Rakob 1991: 212).
Over time, these floors became increasingly more luxurious, with both randomly dispersed marble and limestone fragments, equally spaced white marble tessellae set into the mortar floors, fully ceramic tessellated floors, known as opus figlinum, and even tessellated mosaic emblems in opus tesselatum marking either the threshold or the center of the room (Chelbi 2004: 54; Tang 2005: 90–91, 378–79; Niemeyer et al. 2007: 207–209). The Romans knew these floors as Pavimenta Punica; in Carthage, some of these floors remained in use for around two hundred years, which is telling for their stability. In the third century bce, some house corridors had been paved with square and hexagonal terracotta tiles (Tang 2005: 92), the latter connected one to another by a sophisticated system of tongues and grooves (Docter et al. 2006: 75–77; Niemeyer et al. 2007: 209–10). Similar tiles have been found in contemporary Kerkouane, besides rectangular and lozenge-shaped ones (Mezzolani 1999b: 159–62). The site has also offered examples of corridors paved with flagstones, like those commonly used in courtyards in many Phoenician-Punic houses.
The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean Page 63