^{page 177 note 1} The first interim report, on the 1974 excavations, was published in Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 11–40.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} Their 1973 survey was published in The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, iv (1975), 85Google Scholar ff.; preliminary summary of the 1975 work in Ibid. v (1976), 173–5; further report forthcoming Ibid.

^{page 178 note 1} Ant. Journ. lv (1975), 22.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 2} Ibid., 17–18.

^{page 180 note 1} From samples taken along its length it can be described as basically a marine sand with a small proportion of fine silt. Although the particle size distribution in all the samples was uniform, and therefore appropriate to a layer formed in natural conditions, it seems most probably to be an artificially redeposited layer on account of its archaeological context.

^{page 180 note 2} All pottery identifications and dates kindly supplied by members of the ceramic unit.

^{page 181 note 1} Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 20–2.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 2} Bulletin Archéologique du Comité (1909), pl. vi.

^{page 182 note 1} On the Circular Harbour North Side this was widened to 140–50 cm. opposite the ends of the two kardines; in the south-east part of the Ilôt de l'Amirauté there was a similar widening for a length of c. 3 m.

^{page 182 note 2} See Bartoccini, R., Il porto romano di Leptis Magna (Rome, 1958), fig. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} See the account in the previous report, op. cit., 25–7.

^{page 185 note 1} Ibid., 27–9.

^{page 185 note 2} Ibid., 29. For Dover see Arch. Journ. lxxxvi (1929), 29–46.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 1} Debergh, J., ‘Le port punique de Carthage sur une intaille du musée du Bardo ?’ in Latomus, xxxiv (1975), 212–20. For the original discovery see Bulletin de la Societé nationale des Antiquaires de France (1922), 292–5.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Drawing of the gem in Bull. Soc. Ant. (op. cit.) reproduced by Debergh (op. cit.) and by Cintas (op. cit. below); photograph of original with further note by Debergh in Latomus (forthcoming).

^{page 186 note 3} Op. cit. Dr. M. Henig kindly confirmed this and made other helpful observations.

^{page 186 note 4} Cintas, P., ‘Le Port de Carthage’: extrait du Manuel d'Archéologie Punique, ii (Paris, 1973), pp. 41–6.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 5} It might be argued that the scene is a view northward from the bay of Kram with a large rectangular structure on the Quadrilateral of Falbe in the foreground.

^{page 186 note 6} See the reconstruction, Bartoccini, op. cit., tav. B (opposite p. 92).

^{page 186 note 7} Meiggs, R., Roman Ostia (1956), pl. XVIII.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 8} Op. cit.

^{page 186 note 9} On these, see particularly Libya Antiqua, v (1968), 45–54.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 10} It is shown in Merlin's plan in B.A.C. (1909), pl. VI.

^{page 186 note 11} Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 26, fig. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 187 note 1} Ibid., 30.

^{page 188 note 1} Including F. 478, not shown on the present plan.

^{page 188 note 2} The Period 1 construction of pier F. 476 was traced down to –2.5 m. (below present sea level), The bottom of the harbour adjacent to this is currently at –1.5 m.; the probe penetrated soft deposits for a further 2·5 m. below this, but these may post-date the recent dredging.

^{page 189 note 1} There was generally a gap of some 16 cm. between the planking and the side of the Period 1 pier, presumably because at a lower level the prefabricated timberwork directly abutted the Period 1 offset. But at the southern face of the pier the mortar continued up to the Period 1 masonry, sealing in the broken ends of the planks.

^{page 189 note 2} Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 19, 22, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 3} Ibid., 26–7.

^{page 190 note 1} This assumes the upper offset was intended to be visible: it is difficult to be certain because of probable disturbance during dredging.

^{page 190 note 2} Fouilles à Carthage (Paris, 1861), pp. 87–118.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 3} Ibid., p. 98.

^{page 191 note 1} For last year's results see Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 30–2.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Ibid., 33, fig. 12.

^{page 193 note 2} I am indebted to Prof. A. Carandini for his comments. A full study of the head will appear in the final report.

^{page 194 note 1} Antiq. Journ. lv (1975), 36 and fig. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 1} Ch. Julien's, André statement (Histoire de l'Afrique du nord, Paris, 1931, p. 323) that Carthage was more or less deserted when the Arabs took it refers to the situation after the population had fled the approaching army.Google Scholar