Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/567

 

PLAN OF CARTHAGE (MANNERT).

such a manner that the determination of its position goes far to settle the chief doubt already referred to. It jutted out from the isthmus (JLvi tsI aGxcm), towards the W. between the lake and the sea (liiiii Kifirrit f lol T^i 3iiXiiiT0i)i), and in the closest proximity to the harbours, and also at the weaker extremity of the strong landward wall of the city. (See below.) All the particulars of Appian's description seem to point to the sandy tongue of land which extends SW. from the S. extremity of the peninsula to the Goletta, or mouth of the Lagoon of Tunis, and divides in part this lagoon (the Af/int of Appian) from the open tea. That this tongue of land is larger than he describes it, is a confirmation of the identity, considering the changes which we know to have been going on; and the slight discrepancy involved in his making the taenia jut out from the isthmus, whereas it actually proceeds from the peninsula, it surely hardly worthy of discussion. No room would have been left for doubt, had Appian told us what lake (Miim) he meant; hot that he omits to tell us this, seems of itself a strong proof that he meant the Lagoon of Tunis. The other and much less probable opinion is that the lake was on the N. side of the isthmus, where we now find the salt marsh of Sebcha-es-Subara: this view of course inverts the whole topography of the peninsula, by involving the necessity of seeking the Byrsa and the harbours on its N. side. Those writers, including even Ritter, who have adopted the latter view, seem to have been misled by Shaw, who, finding on the N. side the village now called El-Meria, i.e. the Port, in a position which, though now inland, must anciently have been on the sea shore, proceeds to identify this site (though indeed rather by implication than positive assertion) with the ancient harbour of Carthage. (Shaw, Travels, &c., p. 150.) 2. The Walls are especially difficult to trace with any certainty. At the time when the city wasmost flourishing, it is pretty clear that they encompassed, as might have been expected, the whole circuit of the peninsula, speaking generally; and Appian informs us that on one side (evidently towards the sea, but the words are wanting) there was only a single wall, because of the precipitous nature of the ground; but that on the S., towards the land-side, it was threefold. But when we come to particulars, first, as to the sea-side, it is not certain whether the two eminences of C. Ghamart and C. Carthage were included within the fortifications, or were left, either wholly or in part, unfortified on account of their natural strength. In the final siege, we find Mancinus attacking from the side of the sea a part of the wall, the defence of which was neglected on account of the almost inaccessible precipices on that side, and establishing himself in a fort adjacent to the walls (Appian. Pun. 113). On the whole, it seems probable that on both the great heights the walls were drawn along the summit rather than the base, so that they would not include the N. slope of C. Ghamart, nor the E. and S. slopes of C. Carthage. (Barth. pp. 83, 84.) The land side presents still greater difficulties. The length of the wall which Scipio drew across the isthmus to blockade the city, and which was 25 stadia (or 3 M. P.) from sea to sea (Appian. Pun. 95, 119; Polyb. i. 73; Strab. xvii. p. 832), gives us only the measure of the width of the isthmus (probably at its narrowest part), not of the landface of the city, which stood on wider ground. Strabo (xvii. p. 832) assigns to the whole walls a circumference of 360 stadia, 60 of which belonged to the wall on the land side, which reached from sea to sea. Explicit as this statement is, it seems impossible to reconcile it with the actual dimensions of the peninsula, for which even the 23 M. P. assigned to it by Livy (Epit. ii.; Oros. iv. 22, gives 22 M. P.) would seem to be too much (Barth, p. 85). Attempts have been made to obtain the 85 stadia of Strabo by taking in the walls along the N. and S. sides of the peninsula, as well as that across it on the land side, which is quite inconsistent with the plain meaning of the writer; or by supposing that Strabo gives the total length of the triple line of wall, a most arbitrary and improbable assumption. Besides, the language of Strabo seems obviously to refer to the actual width of that part of the isthmus across which the wall was built (t^ 4(i]iro>TatfTd3ior ^^irar aurht 6 aux^r iwix"i taBnttr Ml 3aAitm)i M 3ifAaTT»'). The only feasible explanation seems to be, that the wall was not built across the narrowest part of the isthmus, but was thrown back to where it had begun to widen out into the peninsula; and it seems also fair to make some allowance for deviations from a straight line. A confirmation of the length assigned to the wall by Strabo is found in Appian's statement, that Scipio made simultaneous attacks on the land defences of Megara alone at points 20 stadia distant from each other, the whole breadth of the isthmus being, as we have seen, only 25 stadia.

Be this as it may, we know that this land wall formed by for the most important part of the defences of the city. It consisted of three distinct lines, one behind the other, each of them 30 cubits high without the parapets. There were towers at the distance of 3 plethra, 4 stories high, and 30 feet deep. Within each wall were built two stories of vaulted chambers, or casements, in the lower