Strutture megalitiche del Sahara settentrionale (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)
10.13125/caster/4078
I monumenti megalitici sono una caratteristica archeologica distintiva del paesaggio sahariano. Partendo da una base piuttosto limitata di lavori editi, e nell’ambito di un programma di ricerca dedicato al Sahara settentrionale, abbiamo avviato nel 2015 un’indagine territoriale sui monumenti in pietra della pre-protostoria e della storia antica della Tunisia meridionale. L’area di studio selezionata è localizzata a est e a sud-est della depressione del Chott el Jérid (governatorato di Kebili). In questo lavoro viene presentata la strategia di ricerca adottata, modulata sulle specifiche caratteristiche locali, quali il pessimo stato di conservazione dei monumenti e la loro incerta cronologia. I nostri risultati, basati sulla combinazione di analisi di telerilevamento, ricognizioni di superficie e scavi di alcuni monumenti, evidenziano una densa occupazione di questa regione del Sahara settentrionale, dove edifici monumentali di possibile funzione funeraria si collocano cronologicamente dalla tarda preistoria fino all’età romana. L’uso persistente dell’area in un arco di tempo molto lungo ne conferma la posizione centrale nelle antiche vie di collegamento transahariane.
application/pdf
2532-1110
4078
en
Savino di Lernia
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
5
Saggi e studi
2020-05-21
2020-04-15
2020-01-05
2020-05-21
1
Savino di Lernia
2020/05/21
10.13125/caster/4078
Sapienza Università di Roma
2532-1110
en
Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/4078/3702
5
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 5 (2020)                            Sezione: Saggi e Studi
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine          Articolo presentato il 15/04/2020
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                       Accettato in data 09/05/2020
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/4078                        Pubblicato in data 21/05/2020




                                                                                                             CaSteR, 5 (2020)




Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara
(Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)

Andrea Monaco1, Lotfi Belhouchet2, Hedi Bel Hadj Brahim3, Tarek Ben Fraj4, Jaâfar Ben Nasr5,
Ridha Boussoffara2, Emanuele Cancellieri1, Moufida Jnen2, Enrico Lucci1, Rocco Rotunno1,
Savino di Lernia1, 6
1
 Department of Ancient World Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy; 2Institute National du Patrimoine, Tunisia; 3Ar-
tisanat du Sahara, Douz, Tunisia; 4Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Université de Sousse, Tunisia; Laboratoire
de Cartographie Géomorphologique des Milieux, des Environnements et des Dynamiques (CGMED), Université de Tunis,
Tunisia; 5Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Université de Kairouan, Tunisia; 6GAES, University of Witwaters-
rand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
corresponding author Savino di Lernia; mail: savino.dilernia@uniroma1.it



   1. Introduction
   One of the distinctive archaeological features of the Sahara are the megalithic structures
that in thousands punctuate the desert landscape as part of a larger phenomenon of Holo-
cene North Africa. Stone monuments built to bury animals1, humans2 or exclusively as land-
marks3, are found scattered over wide areas across the Sahara since the Middle Holocene, re-
vealing a network of cultural connections among early pastoral communities. The typological
variability of stone structures, reflecting a long chronological range and the local availability
of raw materials, appears also to be correlated to their different functions.
   Although representing dominant features of the archaeological landscape, our knowledge
on megalithic structures in the Sahara is still poor, largely due to the research strategies adopt-
ed in the past, as well as to logistical and ethical factors.
   Early researches appear to be geographically and temporally isolated, oriented to the typo-
logical classification of megalithic monuments4 and to the excavation of isolated structures.
These factors did not allow a full understanding of the social meanings of prehistoric and
early historic funerary practices and their change over time. By contrast, more recent multi-
disciplinary research – such as in northern Niger5, south-west Libya6, or Western Sahara7

    1
        Applegate et al. (2001); di Lernia et al. (2013); Paris (2000); Tauveron et al. (2009).
    2
        di Lernia (2013); di Lernia, Tafuri (2013); di Lernia et al. (2002); Paris (1996).
    3
        Brown (1995).
    4
        Camps (1961); Reygasse (1950).
    5
        Paris (1996).
    6
        di Lernia, Manzi (2002); Liverani et al. (2013); Mattingly et al. (2007).
    7
        Clarke, Brooks (2018).

cc-by-nd
                                             Andrea Monaco et al.


– shows how a regional approach can place the funerary practices in their environmental
and economic framework and the social dynamics that determined them. Besides logistics
difficulties, the paucity of data from megalithic structures in the Sahara is due to their state of
preservation, largely affected by natural and anthropic factors. Given their easy identification,
the looting of these structures was a common practice in the past. This fact, combined to the
mediocre state of skeletal material and the scarcity (if any) of grave goods, largely discour-
aged the scientific research. Finally, but no less important, are the ethical concerns that could
emerge from the excavation of human burials and the preservation of funerary structures.
Some types of tombs, such as the stone tumulus (cairn), are very common from prehistoric
times until recent periods. The excavation of megalithic monuments implicates their disman-
tling: being routinely built using a very simple dry-stone technique, the structures are hard
to be correctly rebuilt, clashing with the need of protection and conservation of the local
archaeological heritage.
    Extreme environmental conditions, poor state of preservation of monuments, uncertain
chronological attribution on the basis of surface data and scarcity of systematic previous
research are some of the major obstacles that have been tackled by the recent archaeological
research carried out in southern Tunisia where, from 2015 to 2018, a multidisciplinary re-
search project has been carried out by the Institut National du Patrimoine (Tunis), Sapienza
University of Rome and (until May 2018) the University of Kairouan. The research program
was addressed to the study of pre-protohistoric and early historic communities of southern
Tunisia8.
    One specific aim of the research program was the analysis of megalithic architecture and
funerary practices in the late prehistory and protohistory of the northern edges of the Saha-
ra, barely investigated in the past. Most of the research in Tunisia was in fact traditionally
focused on the northern expanses of the country, as a result of the colonial influence and
of the strong interest towards dolmenic architecture9. In the south, the limited available in-
formation about megalithic monuments comes from the research carried out by the Service
Géographique de l’Armée Française at the beginning of the 20th century10 and, more recently,
from studies carried out by F. Paris and M. Ghaki11.
    In this paper we present the methodological aspects of the research, from the desktop
phases (published data acquisition and remote sensing analysis) to fieldwork activities (in-
tensive surveys, stratigraphic excavation of selected monuments). GIS analysis of territorial
data (desktop and field survey) and information from selected excavations are also discussed.
While confirming some of the known critical aspects of investigating megalithic monuments
in these regions, our results represent a further contribution to the knowledge of this phe-
nomenon in the Tunisian Sahara.

   2. Geographic setting
   The whole study region consists of a large transect encompassing several physiographic
units from the governorate of Kebili to that of Tataouine, in southern Tunisia (Fig. 1). The
northern side is mostly occupied by the Chott el Jérid depression, the Nefzaoua region and
by the Jebel Tebaga, a mountain range (476 m a.s.l.) extending from Kebili to El Hamma
(Gabes). The Chott el Jérid depression, currently occupied by a salty encrusted surface, has
   8
      Ben Nasr et al. (2016); Cancellieri, Ben Nasr (2019); di Lernia et al. (2017); Lucci et al. (2019).
   9
      Ghaki (1997); Miniaoui (2013); Tanda et al. (2009).
   10
      Miniaoui (2013).
   11
      Paris, Ghaki (2010).


                                                        2
                      Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)




Fig. 1. Map of the research area (satellite imagery Google Earth ©). The white dashed transect indicates the
extent of fieldwork activities (2015- 2018).

intermittently hosted water bodies large up to about 30,000 km2 from at least the late Middle
Pleistocene up to the early Holocene12. The southernmost side of the study area reaches the
governorate of Tataouine, where the landscape is characterized by large sand dune fields in the
west (Great Eastern Erg), by rocky and desiccated areas in the central portion (Dahar Plateau)
and by a flat and stony landscape in the eastern edge (Jeffara plain).
   Due to security measures related to the challenging socio-political situation that Tunisia
experienced after the “Arab Spring” especially in years 2015-2016, field activities were con-
fined to a radius of about 50 km south, south-east of Douz. In the region of Nefzaoua, a flat
rocky area located between the Chott el Jérid, the Jebel Tebaga and the western margin of
the Dahar plateau (Fig. 2 A), we have thoroughly investigated the area of Wadi Lazalim, a
river system flowing from north to south draining part of the Jebel Dhaouaia (290m a.s.l.)
and the plain to the south. The hills flanking the course of Wadi Lazalim have flint-bearing
limestone layers whose large flint nodules attracted prehistoric communities at different times
for their quality and abundance, as many scatters of lithic artefacts testify. The southernmost

   12
        Drake et al. (2011).


                                                        3
                                           Andrea Monaco et al.




Fig. 2. Main environmental contexts of the study area. A) Nefzaoua Plain. In the background is the Jebel Teba-
ga; B) Sand dune fields south of Chott el Jérid (Great Eastern Erg).

area investigated is characterized by highly dynamic sand dunes of variable size, dating to the
Holocene. Sparse vegetation, typical of the northern edges of the Sahara, typifies the land-
scape (Fig. 2 B).

   3. Material and Methods

   3.1 Desktop Analysis
   The fieldwork was preceded by desktop analyses aimed at data mining of published in-
formation (literature and cartographic archives), as well as by the analysis of remotely sensed
data (satellite imagery). These activities were preparatory to the field research itself but were
also finalized to the implementation of an integrated geodatabase designed to manage data
from archives, remote sensing and field work.


                                                      4
                      Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


    Satellite data were used to collect information on the natural features of the territory un-
der study. They also served as data-sources for analytical procedures. Elevation data (source:
NASA SRTM 1 arcsec available at http://gdex.cr.usgs.gov/gdex/) and digital elevation models
(DEM) allowed to obtain basic descriptive outputs, for example the altimetric characteriza-
tion and the production of contour line maps, but also enabled the in depth analyses like
the classification and interpretation of landforms using geomorphological processing tools
available with the most widespread GIS applications (e.g. Qgis).
    Desktop analyses were also carried out by both exploring satellite imagery and collecting
information from published archives to reconstruct the territorial distribution of megalithic
monuments. The first approach, widely adopted in the remote sensing of Saharan contexts13,
was first attempted by scouting Landsat and Google Earth© satellite imagery, while the pub-
lished archives used for the initial investigation of the territorial distribution of megalithic
monuments were the topographic maps produced by the Service Géographique de l’Armée
Française (reliefs 1904-1908). There, the stone monuments are classified as “Ruines Megalith-
iques” (in English “Megalithic Ruins”, hereafter MR), “Ruines Romaines” (“Roman Ruins”,
hereafter RR) and “Ruines Arabes (“Arab Ruins”, hereafter AR) according to the instructions
given by the Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques du Ministère de l’Instruction publique
in 189014. Following the method already adopted by F. Paris and M. Ghaki15, we have used
topographic maps from the 1:100,000 coverage. After having re-projected and geo-referenced
(WGS84-UTM32N) the sheets covering the study area by means of GIS software (QGIS
3.10), we have mapped all the points symbolizing the presence of monumental structures.
Analytical processing was then achieved on the same GIS software platform to run a Kernel
density analysis, adopting a 5 km radius16, to better define the distribution pattern of the
megalithic structures (MR), assuming that this group mostly encompassed the monuments
of pre-protohistoric age. Further analysis for detailing spatial relations and clustering degrees
were performed through the application of Nearest Neighbour Analysis17 (NNA).

    3.2 Field Survey
    We surveyed one or more transects according to three main desktop-recognized geomor-
phological units. Fieldwork was carried out in different seasons (spring, autumn), between
2015 and 2018. The transects were progressively numbered from 1 to 6, from North to South
(Fig. 3). The surveys in the flat and most accessible areas were carried out by car (team nor-
mally consisting of 4 to 6 people in three 4WD cars), along survey strips N-S oriented and
300m far apart. A combined fieldwork strategy was adopted in the mountainous areas and
other contexts of difficult accessibility, alternating car surveys along the most accessible wadis
and on foot surveys in the roughest and steepest areas.
    Geomorphological Unit I, the northernmost investigated area, is predominantly moun-
tainous. Four transects were here investigated in the Jebel Tebaga (T1), in the area of Scbeka
(T2), in the Jebel Daouaia (T3) and in the Jebel Oum Ech Chia (234m. a.s.l.), an isolated
massif located on the east side of the Nefzaoua plain (T4).
    Geomorphological Unit II corresponds to an extended rocky plain between 50 and 100 m
a.s.l. in the Nefzaoua region, at about 40 km east of Douz. The area is dotted with low and
   13
        Biagetti, di Lernia (2008); Biagetti et al. (2017); Mattingly, Sterry (2013).
   14
        Miniaoui (2013).
   15
        Ghaki, Paris (2013); Paris, Ghaki (2010).
   16
        Silvermann (1986).
   17
        Baxter (2003).


                                                          5
                                            Andrea Monaco et al.




Fig. 3. Location of the transects (1 to 6) selected for intensive surveys and localization of the main Geomorpho-
logical Units (satellite imagery Google Earth ©).


isolated hills and incised by a dense network of river valleys, today barely active. Here, the
fieldwork was conducted within the area of the Wadi Lazalim drainage basin (T5).
    Geomorphological Unit III is located south-east of Chott el Jérid within an almost totally
sandy environment characterized by the presence of low dunes separated by relatively small
interdune basins and corridors. The fieldwork was conducted within transect T6, in an area
called Ben Chroud.

    3.3 Excavations
    A number of structures was selected for excavation on the basis of field survey in order to
stratigraphically record the structural characteristics of the monuments, the potential corre-
lation between shape, size and function, and also to better define their chronology. Different
location, typology, size and state of preservation were considered in the selection of structures
to be investigated. As for the typology of stone structures, we followed the classification large-
ly used in the Sahara18. The stratigraphic excavation was carried out by hand. The sediments
were totally sieved (2mm mesh). In the case of structures exceeding 5 m in diameter, the
excavation was limited to the central area (normally 3x3m) in order to facilitate the rebuild-
ing of the monument. The digital recording of the excavated features was carried out using
Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry19. The point clouds, 3D models and textur-

   18
        Camps (1961); synthesis in Clarke, Brooks (2018); Milburn (1993); Reygasse (1950).
   19
        Lucci et al. (2019).


                                                       6
                  Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


ing were processed on a daily basis using Agisoft Photoscan© software. The most significant
models and/or point clouds through the excavation sequence were also processed with the
Opensource Cloud-Compare software. The obtained 3D models were characterized through
colour scale on the basis of the elevations. At the end of the excavations, all the monuments
have been rebuilt according to their original shape and size.

   4. Results

   4.1 Desktop Analysis and intensive Surveys
   Among the means adopted during desktop analyses for the remote identification of stone
monuments we should first discuss that of surveying satellite imagery (Landsat and Google
Earth). The resolution of these sources is largely and commonly suitable for medium and
large-scale remote sensing in desert areas. Nevertheless, most of the target objects we were
looking for (e.g. simple circular stone mounds) resulted not to be easily recognizable within
the environmental setting of the study area. The colour of the stone clasts of the monuments,
their granulometry (stones size) and geometric characteristics (monument shape and size) –
namely the most common features used to identify these kinds of artefacts – are in fact hardly
discernible from the natural surfaces where they are located, making this method not much
remunerative in this case. The small size of the monuments prevented also their identification
through DEM analyses.
   Although the use of higher resolution satellite imagery and elevation data could have
possibly led to better results, the large territorial scale adopted in the preliminary phase of
the research, and the limits posed by the characteristics of the specific environment and its
cultural heritage, discouraged it. The succeeding field check of the stone monuments, either
located in sandy or rocky surfaces, and their localization on satellite imagery by means of
actual GPS coordinates, further confirmed their almost total “invisibility” by remote sensing.
   A preliminary territorial analysis of the presence and distribution of stone monuments in
the study area was thus achieved by gathering information from published archives. To do
this, as described in § 3.1, we have used maps from the 1:100.000 cartographic coverage. The
four sheets encompassing the study area, as indicated in Table 1, enabled the mapping of 313
monuments, showing different incidence and representation (Tab. 1).

Table 1 – Number and type of monuments (MR: Megalithic Ruins; RR: Roman Ruins; AR: Arab Ruins) re-
corded in the 1:100,000 sheets encompassing the study area represented in the maps of Fig. 4.

                                   Type of monument
                                                                                      Total
   Sheet name            MR                  RR                AR
                    n         %         n          %       n     %            n               %
Douz                79      94.0        5         6.0      -        -        84               100
Kebili              42      73.7       15         26.3     -        -        57               100
Oglat Merteba       77      51.3       72         48.0     1    0.7          150              100
Tamezred            3       13.6       19         86.4     -        -        22               100
Total              201      64.2       111        35.5     1    0.3          313              100

   Globally, Megalithic Ruins (MR) are the most frequent structures, accounting for about
2/3 of the dataset. Roman Ruins represent the remaining 1/3, whereas the presence of Arab


                                                    7
                                           Andrea Monaco et al.




Fig. 4. A: Distribution of stone monuments in the study area according to data-set; B: density map produced on
the basis of stone monuments classified as Megalithic Ruins (1904-1908) on the topographic maps 1:100.000
(see text for details); C: density map produced combining MR (1904-1908) and stone monuments identified
during 2015-2018 surveys (satellite imagery Bing ©).



Ruins is almost negligible. It has to be signalled that some minor discrepancies exist when
these figures are compared with those already published20. The Number of Megalithic Ruins
reported by the colleagues and those from this study (t.s. n) are, per sheet: Douz = 77 (t.s. 79);
Kebili = 40 (t.s. 42); Oglat Merteba = 79 (t.s. 77); Tamezred = 8 (t.s. 3); Total = 204 (t.s. 201).
It is likely that some cartographic symbols could have gone unseen or have been misinterpret-
ed, e.g. because of map scanning quality or difficult readability of some maps. Nevertheless,
differences are small and do not affect the quantitative reliability of the catalogue, nor they
hamper the aims pursued in the present study.

   20
        Ghaki, Paris (2010, 2013).

                                                      8
                     Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)




Fig. 5. A: satellite view of the area encompassing transect T3 in the Jebel Daouaia and transect T5 in the Wadi
Lazalim drainage basin (satellite imagery: USGS, Landsat 8). B: Example of semi-automatic landform classi-
fication based on elevation data (DEM) of the same area as A. The position of sites identified during surveys
2015-2018, indicated by a black dot, reveals a prevalent localization in areas classified as upper slopes/mesas
(Key to landform classification in B - 1: canyons, deeply incised streams; 2: midslope drainages, shallow valleys;
3: upland drainages, headwaters; 4: u-shaped valleys; 5: plains; 6: open slopes; 7: upper slopes, mesas; 8: local
ridges, hills in valleys; 9: midslope ridges, small hills in plains; 10: mountain tops, high ridges).


   Spatial analyses run on geospatial data gathered from published archives and from field
work provided some insights on the territorial distribution of the stone monuments in the
study area. The density analysis conducted by means of Kernel Density Estimation (KDE)
on published datasets has shown rather high concentrations of monuments in the whole east
and south-east expanses of the Chott el Jérid area, alternating with parts where they appear
more scattered (Fig. 4 B). Running the same analysis by including sites from 2015-2018 sur-
veys reveals the presence of other clusters filling some of the gaps early noted (Fig 4 C), thus
suggesting that the spatial data patterning resulting from archive data only, while apparently
thorough and representative of vast portions of the region, can be affected by research biases
to different extents.
   Nearest Neighbour Index performed on significant concentrations in some transects point-
ed out different spatial patterning, likely linked to the specific geomorphological features. In
this regard, the localization of monuments for which a GPS localization is available (sur-
veys 2015-2018) has been superposed to the landform classification based on elevation data
(DEM) of the area encompassing transects T3 and T5, respectively in the Jebel Daouaia and
in the Wadi Lazalim drainage basin (Fig. 5). The topographic position of such sites reveals a
prevalent localization in areas classified as “upper slopes/mesas”, thus validating a territorial
distribution pattern – already inferable after field observation – in which these specific parts


                                                        9
                                                Andrea Monaco et al.


of the landscape where more likely chosen to build such monuments. The same analysis was
also conducted by mapping the position of monuments gathered from cartographic sources
onto the landforms’ classification, strengthening the hypothesis of a preferential localization
of the monuments on elevated and flat areas. Nevertheless, the incertitude in the topographic
positioning of the monuments and the errors introduced by the reprojection and the geo-
referencing of the maps – as already pointed out21 – currently make the reliability of these
observations subject to further validation and field control.
    During the systematic surveys, a significant number of previously unknown structures
was found (Fig. 4 A). In Geomorphological Unit I (Transect 1-4), the monuments occur ei-
ther isolated or in small clusters. They are located along the courses of the main wadis, which
were likely transit routes. Field observation reveals their preferential localization on slightly
elevated position respect to the riverbed, or on the plateaux (Fig.4 A; Fig. 6 A, B). These
occurrences are visible in the area of the Jebel Tebaga, where monuments seem to flank the
main passageways (wadis) cutting the mountain ranges. The structures are mainly dome (or
conical) tumulus, often plundered ab antiquo (Tab. 2).
    Site 18/24, located on the top of the Jebel Oum Ech Chia (Transect 4), is a cluster con-
stituted by several structures in such a poor state of preservation that neither the shape nor
the real number of monuments was fully recognizable (Fig 6 C). Scatters of potsherds on the
surface ranging from 2nd to 4th century AD are also recorded (Fig 6 D). The survey in the
mountain areas yielded a wealth of structures not previously highlighted and suggests that the
mapping made by the Service Géographique de l’Armée Française was likely limited to the most
accessible areas, such as the plains or the foothills.
    As regards the flat zones (Geomorphological Unit II), we mapped 25 previously unre-
ported megalithic structures (mainly tumulus) in the area of Wadi Lazalim (Transect 5), in
addition to the already known ones (Fig. 7A). The structures are found mainly isolated or in
small clusters on the hill tops or slopes flanking the dry river valleys cutting the basin, as cor-
roborated by the low NNI index (r=0.5; Z-score= <-2.58) indicating a certain (though low)
degree of clustering in the distribution pattern. No structures were found in the main course
of Wadi Lazalim (Tab. 3), likely avoided because easily subject to seasonal flooding.
    The structures are made of prismatic stones of medium-large size (Tab. 3) of limestone
or flint, both local. Potsherds (3rd-5th AD) are common in the immediate vicinity of several
structures. Unlike the mountain areas, where the gap between the published/mapped struc-
tures and those detected during our surveys seems mostly due to accessibility factors, in Tran-
sect 5 the state of preservation played a decisive role. Several structures were looted in ancient
times, showing a very poor state of preservation, often almost completely destroyed and in
some cases unrecognizable. The presence of modern pastoral camps and quarries for the ex-
traction of building materials further affects the preservation of the monuments (Fig. 7 B, C).
    Finally, on the southeast side of Chott el Jérid (Geomorphological Unit III), where one
of the largest concentrations of “Megalithic Ruins” (Fig. 4 A) corresponds to the necropolis
of Qalaat Oum el Ardjem22, our surveys led to the discovery of previously unreported stone
monuments south of Douz (Transect 6).
    One of the most important contexts is the necropolis of Ben Chroud (Site 15/11), iden-
tified during the 2015 field mission and subsequently selected for detailed investigations23.

   21
        Ghaki, Paris (2013).
   22
        Paris, Ghaki (2010).
   23
        di Lernia et al. (2017); Lucci et al. (2019).


                                                        10
                    Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)




Fig. 6. Mountain sites (Geomorphological Unit I). A) Tumulus 18/26 (Scbeka); B) Tumulus 17/23 (Jebel Te-
baga); C) Necropolis 18/24 (Jebel Oum Ech Chia); D) Surface pottery (Site 18/24). A) and B) scale is 0.5 m.




                                                     11
                                                                        Andrea Monaco et al.


Table 2 – Structures attested in Geomorphological Unit I (Transect 1,2,3,4). Stone Size: Small) up to 10 cm;
Medium) > 10 cm and up to 25 cm; Big) > 25 cm; State of Preservation: A) good; B) average; C) bad; Surface
pottery: - ) absent; +) present (1 sherd); ++) common (up to 5 sherds); +++) frequent (> 5 sherds).




                                                                                                                                                               State of preservation

                                                                                                                                                                                       Surface pottery
                                                                                                                                   Diameter (m)
                                                          Coordinates




                                                                                        of structure




                                                                                                                                                  Height (m)
                                                                                                                      Stone type
          Structure




                                   Location
                      Transect




                                                                                                         Shape
                                                                                        Type
  Site




                                                                                                                 big size
17/23    T1           1          Tebaga       33,694648                 9,249904   Tumulus             dome      irregular         5.0            0.6             A                    ++
                                                                                                                 blocks
                                                                                                                 big size
17/23    T2           1          Tebaga       33,694648                 9,249904   Platform            simple    irregular         3.0            0.3             A                    ++
                                                                                                                 blocks
                                                                                                                 med/big size
17/23    T3           1          Tebaga       33,695096                 9,250772   Bazina              simple    irregular         7.0            0.9             A                    ++
                                                                                                                 blocks
                                                                                                                 big size
17/23    T4           1          Tebaga       33,694738                 9,250311   Tumulus             ND        irregular         6.0            0.5             C                    ++
                                                                                                                 blocks
                                                                                                                 big size
17/23    T5           1          Tebaga       33,694738                 9,250311   Tumulus             ND        irregular         6.0            0.5             C                    ++
                                                                                                                 blocks
                                                                                                                 med/big
17/24    T1           1          Tebaga       33,677469                 9,277236   Corbeille           simple                      1.5            0.3              B                       -
                                                                                                                 slabs/block
                                                                                                                 big size
18/26    T1           2          Scbeka       33,642505                 9,474029   Tumulus             dome      irregular         4.0            0.4             A                        -
                                                                                                                 blocks
                                                                                                                 big size
18/26    T2           2          Scbeka       33,642505                 9,474029   Tumulus             dome      irregular         4.0            0.4              B                       -
                                                                                                                 blocks

18/11    T1           3          Daouaia      33,584273                 9,424965   Tumulus             ND        big size slabs    ND ND                          C                        -

                                                                                                                 big size ir-
18/1     T1           3          Daouaia      33,602252                 9,441938   Tumulus             dome                        4.0            0.5              B                       -
                                                                                                                 regular block
                                 Oum                                                                             med/big size
18/24* ca.10 4                   Ech          33,544279                 9,581033   Tumulus             ND        irregular         ND ND                          C                    +++
                                 Chia                                                                            block

* almost completely destroyed




                                                                                   12
                                 Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


Table 3 – Structures found in Geomorphological Unit II (Transect 5). Stone Size: Small) up to 10 cm; Medium)
> 10 cm and up to 25 cm; Big) > 25 cm; State of Preservation: A) good; B) average; C) bad; Surface pottery: - )
absent; +) present (1 sherd); ++) common (up to 5 sherds); +++) frequent (> 5 sherds). The structures selected
for excavations are indicated by *.




                                                                                                                                                          State of preservation
                                                                               Type of structure




                                                                                                                                                                                    Surface pottery
                                                                                                                               Diameter (m)
                                                    Coordinates




                                                                                                                  Stone type




                                                                                                                                              Height (m
          Structure




                                   Location
                      Transect




                                                                                                   Shape
   Site




                                                                                                           small/med size
 *17/3    T1          5          Lazalim 33,525675                9,416271   Tumulus dome                                      8.0            0.7            A                         +
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           small/med size
 17/4     T1          5          Lazalim 33,54362                 9,39311    Tumulus dome                                      8.0            1.0             B                     ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           small/med/big
 17/4     T2          5          Lazalim 33,54266                 9,39338    Tumulus dome                  size irregular      6.0            0.8             B                     ++
                                                                                                           blocks

                                                                                                           med/big size
 17/4     T3          5          Lazalim 33,54457                 9,39303    Tumulus dome                                      6.0            0.5             B                     ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           medium size
 17/4     T4          5          Lazalim 33,54545                 9,3927     Tumulus dome                                      5.0            0.4            A                      ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           big size slabs/
 17/5     T1          5          Lazalim 33,561182                9,391378   Tumulus ND                                        4.5            0.9            C                      ++
                                                                                                           blocks

                                                                                                           big size irregu-
 17/6     T1          5          Lazalim 33,565113                9,403639   Tumulus dome                                      5.0            0.4             B                        +
                                                                                                           lar blocks
                                                                                                           big size irregu-
 17/7     T1          5          Lazalim 33,570519                9,413189   Tumulus dome                                      5.0            0.7             B                     ++
                                                                                                           lar blocks

                                                                                                           small/med size
 17/8     T1          5          Lazalim 33,52352                 9,44005    Tumulus dome                                      9.0            0.8            A                          -
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           small size irreg-
 17/8     T2          5          Lazalim 33,52366                 9,43834    Tumulus ND                                        5.0            0.3            C                          -
                                                                                                           ular blocks

                                                                                                           med/big size
 17/8     T3          5          Lazalim 33,52366                 9,43834    Tumulus ND                                        3.0            0.3            C                          -
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           medium size
 17/11    T1          5          Lazalim 33,55859                 9,42306    Tumulus ND                                        3.0            0.4            C                      ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           medium size
 17/11    T2          5          Lazalim 33,55831                 9,423      Tumulus ND                                        3.5            0.3            C                      ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           medium size
 17/11    T3          5          Lazalim 33,55832                 9,4243     Tumulus ND                                        4.0            0.3            C                      ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks

                                                                                                           medium size
 17/11    T4          5          Lazalim 33,55832                 9,4243     Tumulus ND                                        4.0            0.4            C                      ++
                                                                                                           irregular blocks


                                                                                                                                                                                  follows


                                                                             13
                                                                   Andrea Monaco et al.




                                                                                                                                                            State of preservation
                                                                               Type of structure




                                                                                                                                                                                    Surface pottery
                                                                                                                                 Diameter (m)
                                                   Coordinates




                                                                                                                    Stone type




                                                                                                                                                Height (m
         Structure




                                  Location
                     Transect




                                                                                                     Shape
  Site




                                                                                                             med/big size
17/11    T5          5          Lazalim 33,55845                 9,42424    Tumulus dome                                         5.0            0.5             B                   ++
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             medium size
*17/13   T1          5          Lazalim 33,524238                9,408106   Tumulus dome                                         4.0            0.3            A                        -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             med/big size
17/15    T1          5          Lazalim 33,519423                9,395745   Tumulus dome                                         12.0           1.0            A                       +
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                   ‘Fati-  big size irregu-       2.5
*17/16   S1          5          Lazalim 33,534460                9,390037   U-Str.                                                              0.3             B                       -
                                                                                                   ma’tent lar blocks            x2.5

                                                                                                             medium size
17/17    T1          5          Lazalim 33,542456                9,390322   Tumulus dome                                         6.0            0.4            A                        -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             small/med size
17/19    T1          5          Lazalim 33,50425                 9,40649    Tumulus dome                                         5.8            0.3             B                       -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             small/med size
17/19    T2          5          Lazalim 33,50435                 9,40632    Tumulus dome                                         6.0            0.3             B                       -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             small/med size
17/19    T3          5          Lazalim 33,50468                 9,40599    Tumulus dome                                         5.5            0.3             B                       -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             small/med size
17/19    T4          5          Lazalim 33,50479                 9,40567    Tumulus dome                                         5.8            0.5             B                       -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             med/big size
17/20    T1          5          Lazalim 33,50614                 9,40939    Tumulus conical                                      12.0           1.6             B                   ++
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             med/big size
17/20    T2          5          Lazalim 33,50636                 9,40932    Tumulus dome                                         7.0            0.4             B                   ++
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             medium size
17/47    T1          5          Lazalim 33,573869                9,437895   Tumulus dome                                         9.0            0.8            A                        -
                                                                                                             irregular blocks

                                                                                                             med/big size
*16/26   T1          5          Lazalim 33,526220                9,416990   Tumulus conical                                      6.0            0.8            A                       +
                                                                                                             irregular blocks




   The site is located on a slightly elevated area in a dune landscape. The necropolis is com-
posed of 15 tumuli, arranged in two main clusters set apart by a natural corridor lacking any
archaeological evidence (Fig. 8). The tumuli range in size from 3 to 10 m in diameter and are
not more than 1 m high (Tab. 4).
   The structures are made of gypsum blocks extracted from local outcrops. They appeared in
a good state of preservation, with shape and size clearly readable. Nevertheless, the excavation
of some of them (see § 4.2) revealed their looting in ancient times. On the surface we found
fragments of pottery dating to the first centuries AD, but not directly associated to the struc-
tures. The general mapping of the site was followed by the acquisition of a comprehensive
sequence of pictures for 3D photogrammetric models of its highest portion.


                                                                            14
                    Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)




Fig. 7. Transect 5, Wadi Lazalim: A) MR distribution; B-C) Examples of the poor state of preservation of the
structures (satellite imagery Google Earth ©).




Fig. 8. Necropolis of Ben Chroud (site 15/11) with 3D mapping of the southern portion (satellite imagery
Google Earth ©).




                                                     15
                                                                   Andrea Monaco et al.


Table 4 – Structures attested in Geomorphological Unit III (Transect 6), all belonging to the ‘necropolis’ of Ben
Chroud. Stone Size: Small) up to 10 cm; Medium) > 10 cm and up to 25 cm; Big) > 25 cm; State of Preserva-
tion: A) good; B) average; C) bad. The structures selected for excavations are indicated by *.




                                                                                                                                                         State of preservation
                                                                         Type of structure




                                                                                                                             Diameter (m)
                                              Coordinates




                                                                                                                                            Height (m)
                                                                                                                Stone type
           Structure

                       Transect




                                                                                                Shape
   Site




 15/11     T1           6         33,336698                 9,004051   Tumulus                dome      medium size ir-      9.0            0.7             A
                                                                                                        regular blocks

 15/11     T2           6         33,336728                 9,003855   Tumulus                conical   small size irregu-   10.0           0.9             A
                                                                                                        lar blocks

 *15/11    T3           6         33,336822                 9,003840   Tumulus                dome      small size irregu-   3.0            0.7             A
                                                                                                        lar blocks
 15/11     T4           6         33,336806                 9,004059   Tumulus                dome      small size irregu-   5.0            0.5             A
                                                                                                        lar blocks

 *15/11    T5           6         33,336928                 9,003532   Tumulus                dome      medium size ir-      6.0            0.8             A
                                                                                                        regular blocks

 15/11     T6           6         33,336875                 9,003411   Tumulus                dome      small size irregu-   4.0            0.4             A
                                                                                                        lar blocks

 15/11     T7           6         33,337701                 9,002607   Platform               simple    small size irregu-   4.5            0.3              B
                                                                                                        lar blocks
 15/11     T8           6         33,337779                 9,002810   Tumulus                 ND       small/medium         ND             ND              C
                                                                                                        irregular blocks

 15/11     T9           6         33,337862                 9,003054   Tumulus                dome      small/medium         5.0            0.4              B
                                                                                                        irregular blocks

 15/11    T10           6         33,338213                 9,003245   Tumulus                dome      small/medium         3.0            0.3              B
                                                                                                        irregular blocks

 15/11    T11           6         33,338252                 9,003195   Tumulus                dome      medium size ir-      2.5            0.3             A
                                                                                                        regular blocks

 15/11    T12           6         33,338483                 9,003478   Tumulus                dome      big size irregular   4.5            0.5              B
                                                                                                        blocks

 15/11    T13           6         33,337960                 9,003460   Tumulus                conical   medium size ir-      6.0            0.7             A
                                                                                                        regular blocks

 15/11    T14           6         33,337846                 9,003613   Tumulus                conical   small/medium         5.5            0.6             A
                                                                                                        irregular blocks
 15/11    T15           6         33,336832                 9,004233   Tumulus                dome      small size irregu-   6.5            0.8              B
                                                                                                        lar blocks




                                                                                         16
                  Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


   4.2 Excavations

   4.2.1 The Structures of Wadi Lazalim
   Given the relative high number of new features identified within Wadi Lazalim’s Transect
5, we selected 4 structures of different shape and size, in order to assess relevant features of
the monuments.

    16/26 T1
    Tumulus 16/26 T1 is conical in shape and is 6 m in diameter and 0.8 m in height (Fig. 9
A). A 3x3 m central area was investigated. The structure is composed of an uneven accumu-
lation of medium-sized prismatic stones (Tab. 3) of locally available raw material (limestone
and flint nodules). These lay directly on the natural gypsum crust bank that characterizes the
entire area (Fig. 9 B, C). The gypsum bank was intact (no chamber/pit). Only a few frag-
ments of “common African” pottery were found: they belong to the same vessel and date to
the 3rd century AD.




Fig. 9. View (A) of Site 16/26 T1 (scale 0.5m); B) 3D photogrammetric model; C) Tumulus at the end of
excavation.



   17/3 T1
   Tumulus 17/3 T1 is dome-shaped, 8 m in diameter and 0.7 m high (Fig. 10 A). It is
located about 100 m away from tumulus 16/26 T1, at the top of a small hill overlooking a
large part of Wadi Lazalim’ western drainage basin. The structure is mainly composed of me-
dium-sized flint nodules (Tab. 3). Several pottery and bronze fragments were found scattered

                                                   17
                                           Andrea Monaco et al.




Fig. 10. View (A) of Site 17/3 T1; B) Funerary chamber cut in the bedrock; C) 3D photogrammetric model
of the tumulus and the funerary chamber; D) Grave goods found in the tumulus (1,2,3: copper rings; 4,7,12:
copper beads; 8: iron bead; 9: iron element not determinable; 5,6: copper flattened elements not determinable;
10,11: copper elements not determinable; 13,14: glass paste perforated beads.


within the stone layers of the tumulus. At the base of the central trench (2x2m), the burial
chamber (1 m length, 0.5 m width and 0.9 m depth) was cut into the gypsum crust substrate
(Fig. 10 B, C) and mainly filled with fine aeolian sand. Some large slabs of gypsum, found
within the chamber infilling, were most likely used to seal the access to the burial pit, or the
chamber itself.
    The burial chamber filling released a child phalanx together with some grave goods, such
as copper items (e.g. rings), iron beads (6), glass paste beads (5), and several ‘sigillata’ African
fragments (12), all belonging to the same vessel and chronologically referable to the 4th-5th


                                                     18
                    Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)




Fig. 11. A) 3D photogrammetric model of Tumulus 17/13; B) Tumulus 17/13 after removal of surface aeolian
sand; C) Tumulus 17/13 at the end of excavation; D) Tumulus 17/13 rebuilt; E) Photogrammetric model of Site
17/16 “Fatima Tent”; F) Site 17/16 after removal of surface aeolian sand.



century AD (Fig. 10 D). The features of the chamber’s filling and the arrangement of the few
grave goods suggest the looting of the tomb ab antiquo.

   17/13 T1
   The structure 17/13 T1 is a monument of circular shape of about 4 m in diameter and
0.3 m in height (Fig. 11 A, B). The stones laid directly on the gypsum crust, where no burial
chamber nor other features were present (Fig. 11 C). No archaeological materials were found.
The monument was rebuilt according to its original shape and size (Fig. 11 D).


                                                     19
                                         Andrea Monaco et al.




Fig. 12. Ben Chroud (Site 15/11). A) Tumuli 15/11 T2 and T3; B) 3D photogrammetric model of T3 and of its
burial chamber; C) Detail of the closure of T3 burial chamber; D-E-F) Grave goods found in T3 (D: Copper
ring; E: Perforated glass paste globular beads; F: Perforated glass paste tubular bead).


   17/16 T1
   The structure 17/16 T1 is a quadrangular monument of about 2.5 m per side (Fig. 11 E,
F), with a central platform of medium-large stones (Tab. 3). This type of structure is com-
monly referred to as “Fatima Tent”1. The removal of the first layer of stones immediately
brought to light the gypsum crust bank, where no artificial cuts were identified. Archaeolog-
ical materials were absent.
   1
       Milburn (1993).


                                                   20
                    Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


   4.2.2 The Necropolis of Ben Chroud (Site 15/11)

    The number of structures and the overall apparent good state of preservation of this site
led to the excavation of two structures (T3 and T5), both of tumulus-type but of different
sizes.

    15/11 T3
    Tumulus T3 is a dome-shaped structure 3 m in diameter and 0.7 m high (Fig. 12 A). The
stratigraphic sequence consists of several layers of stones unevenly arranged above the burial
chamber, which was cut in the gypsum crust bank (Fig. 12 B). The chamber revealed a sub
rectangular shape (1.4 m in length, 0.6 m in width and 1 m in depth) and uncoated raw
walls: it was filled with stones and fine aeolian sand (Fig. 12 C). Ornamental glass paste beads
and a copper ring were found within the filling of the chamber (Fig. 12 D-F). No skeletal
remains were found. On the basis of the few grave goods, mostly personal ornaments, the
structure can be dated to 3rd-5th century AD.

    15/11 T5
    Tumulus T5 is dome- shaped, 6 m in diameter and 0.8 m high (Fig. 13 A). Due to the
size of the structure, we excavated a sample area (3x2 m) in its central portion. As in Tumulus
T3, different layers of unevenly arranged stones were found, covering a sub-rectangular burial




Fig. 13. Ben Chroud (Site 15/11). A) Site 15/11 T5 with T6 in the background; B) Detail of the closure of the
                  burial chamber T5 and C) the burial chamber at the end of excavation.



                                                     21
                                                  Andrea Monaco et al.


Tab. 5 – Number and incidence of stone monuments by transect according to architectural typology.

                                         GeoUnit I                       GeoUnit II       GeoUnit III
                                                                                                               Total
 Type                    Tr. 1        Tr. 2        Tr. 3        Tr. 4         Tr. 5            Tr. 6
                    n       %     n      %    n       %    n       %     n        %       n        %       n      %
 Bazina             1      11     -       -   -       -    -       -     -            -   -            -   1       2
 Corbeille          1      11     -       -   -       -    -       -     -            -   -            -   1       2
 U-Structure         -      -     -       -   -       -    -       -     1        3                        1       2
 Platform           1      11     -       -   -       -    -       -                      1        7       2       3
 Tumulus            3      33     2      50   2      100   1      100    27       84      14       93      49     78
 MR(Ruines
                    3      33     2      50   -       -    -       -     4        13      -            -   9      14
 Megalithiques)
 Total              9      100    4     100   2      100   1      100    32      100      15      100      63     100


chamber (1.5 m in length, 0.9 m in width and 1.15 m in depth), that was cut in the gypsum
crust bank (Fig. 13 B-C). The chamber was empty, likely looted in ancient times.

   5. Discussion

    Megalithic structures, mainly tumuli, are common in all the geomorphological units iden-
tified, with high densities recorded in the region close to the Chott el Jérid basin. Although
our excavations only rarely found evidence of human burials, it is possible that many of the
monuments were built for funerary purposes.
    In the area of Wadi Lazalim (Geomorphological Unit II, Transect 5) we mapped 28 monu-
ments, with only 3 published in historical cartography. A similar situation can be observed in
Geomorphological Unit III (Transect 6), with 15 mapped structures not previously known.
Although most of the tumuli appear to have been looted in ancient times, the state of preser-
vation of the monuments allowed their typological classification (Tabs. 2-5). Tumuli are the
most common architectural typology, making up about 80% of the dataset. Nevertheless,
the mountain areas seem to present a greater variability of types, with bazinas, corbeilles and
platform type structures having been identified in Transect 1 (Tab. 5). The six structures ex-
cavated (4 in the Wadi Lazalim area and 2 in the necropolis of Ben Chroud) provided some
information on the monuments’ function and on some aspects of the funerary practices. The
stratigraphic investigation revealed the existence of monuments with different organization,
from structures with burial chamber cut in the bedrock, to stone mounds without any cham-
ber. The tumuli 15/11 T3, 15/11 T5 and 17/3 T1, all plundered ab antiquo, show similar ar-
chitectural features: the structure is made of an accumulation of mainly medium-sized stones
arranged in a conical or domed fashion covering a more or less shallow burial pit cut in the
bedrock. On the basis of pottery features found in the structures, their last use could be dated
to the 4th-5th century AD, an age consistent with surface materials24.
    The excavated monuments of our study area are different from those studied by F. Paris
and colleagues in the necropolis of El Menaguib, in the Jeffara area. But for a stone tumulus
of prehistoric age, dated between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC, showing a burial chamber
excavated in the calcareous bench with raw walls, the other structures were architecturally

   24
         Peacock et al. (1990).


                                                           22
                      Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


more complex and dated between the end of the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD25.
The excavation of the tumulus in the Nefzaoua region, integrated with the data collected by
F. Paris and M. Gakhi in the Jeffara area to the east, shows a certain continuity of funerary
behaviour, at least with regard to the morphological aspects of the structures, from the end of
the 4th millennium BC until the 5th century AD.
   As elsewhere in the Sahara26, we record here the impossibility to distinguish pre-pro-
tohistorical monuments from historical ones on the basis of architectural features only. This
circumstance may nevertheless reflect the persistence of social and cultural features deeply
rooted in the populations that occupied the region through the centuries. Funerary customs,
though time contingent and culture-specific, suit well to mechanism of emulation and mem-
ory reiteration and conservation, which to some extent may explain long-lasting traditions.
This said, the few chronological data here available point to an intense occupation of the area
between the last centuries BC and the first centuries AD. The structures without any archae-
ological content are difficult to define, functionally and chronologically; however, they could
be considered either landmarks or cenotaphs.
   Overall, quantity and density of stone monuments indicate a densely populated region.
A transit zone on the northern edge of the Sahara, rich of water supplies and arable areas.
In addition, it was strategically located along the caravan routes between the Mediterranean
coast and the Sahara, which were active until the last centuries27.
   Although poorly preserved and providing few anthropological and archaeological data,
the stone monuments of the late protohistory and historical age of the Chott el Jérid region
and surrounding areas are a critical component of the Tunisian cultural heritage, in great
danger from anthropic pressure and from development activities. A better knowledge, an un-
derstanding of their historical meaning and an adequate awareness among local communities
and institutions can hopefully allow their preservation and protection.

    Acknowledgments
    This paper is part of a research program in southern Tunisia directed between 2014 and
2017 by R. Boussoffara (INP, Tunisia) J. Ben Nasr (Kairouan University) and S. di Lernia (Sa-
pienza University) and from 2018 by N. Aouadi, L. Bellouchet (INP, Tunisia) and S. di Lernia.
    We thank N. Boukhchim (University of Kairouan and Tunis) and M. Ouaja (University
of Gabes) for their advice in the field. We also thank the several students that took part to
the fieldwork: Rayhane Boukil, Marco Carpentieri, Martina Di Matteo, Marwa Marnaoui,
Nibrass Nouri, Erika Palmeri, Claudia Sabbini, Olivier Scancarello, Priscilla Zanutel and Sara
Zecchinato.
    We express our thanks to the Italian Embassy and to the Italian Institute of Culture in Tunis
for their valuable support and assistance. Our warmest thanks to the Director of the Institut
National du Patrimoine and his staff for their cooperation during the work. We warmly thank
two anonymous reviewers that constructively commented on a first draft of the manuscript.
    The project was supported by Sapienza University of Rome (Grandi Scavi di Ateneo), the
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGSP - VI), and the National Geographic Society-Waytt
Institute (Grant#W394-15), entrusted to SDL.


   25
        Paris, Ghaki (2010).
   26
        Clarke, Brooks (2018); di Lernia, Manzi (2002); Gatto et al. (2019).
   27
        Mattingly et al. (2017).


                                                       23
                                              Andrea Monaco et al.


    Desktop study, survey and field activities have been conceived and designed by SDL. Field-
work has been led by JBN, SDL and AM. All the team took part to the survey and excavation
of the stone structures. SDL and AM wrote the paper; EL implemented the photogrammetry;
MJ advised on pottery and other grave goods; EC and RR made GIS analysis. All Authors
contributed equally to the discussion and approved the paper.



References
Applegate A., Gautier A. & Duncan S. (2001), The North tumuli of the Nabta Late Neolithic ceremonial com-
   plex, In Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, The Archaeology of Nabta Playa, edited by Fred Wendorf
   & Romuald & Associates Schild, New York: Kluwer Academic, 468-488.
Baxter M. J. (2003), Statistics in Archaeology, London: Arnold.
Ben Nasr J., Ben Fraj T., Boussoffara R., Boukhchim N., Marnaoui M., Jaouadi S., Anagnostou P., Cancellieri
   E., Carpentieri M., Destro Bisol G., Lucci E. & di Lernia S. (2016), Climat, environnement et sociétés de la
   Préhistoire du sud tunisien: résultats préliminaires et perspectives de la recherche, Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche,
   1, doi: 10.13125/caster/2497, http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/
Biagetti S. & di Lernia S. (2008), Combining intensive field survey and digital technologies: new data on the
   Garamantian castles of Wadi Awiss, Acacus Mts., Libyan Sahara, Journal of African Archaeology, 6, 57-85.
Biagetti S., Merlo S., Adam E., Lobo A., Conesa F. C., Knight J., Bekrani H., Crema E. R., Alcaina-Mateos J.
   & Madella M. (2017), High and Medium Resolution Satellite Imagery to Evaluate Late Holocene Human–
   Environment Interactions in Arid Lands: A Case Study from the Central Sahara, Remote Sensing, 9, 351.
Brown J. (1995), On mortuary analysis - With special reference to the Saxe-Binford research program, in Regio-
   nal Approaches to Mortuary Analysis, edited by Lane A. Beck, Springer, 3-26.
Camps G. (1961), Aux origines de la Berbérie. Monuments et rites funéraires protohistoriques, Paris: Arts et Métiers
  graphiques.
Cancellieri E. & Ben Nasr J. (2019), Archaeological research in northern Sahara. Thoughts on the experience
   of a Tunisian-Italian research program (2014-2017) in post-revolutionary Tunisia, in Archaeology in Africa.
   Potentials and perspectives on laboratory & fieldwork research, edited by Savino di Lernia & Marina Gallinaro,
   Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio, 37-45.
Clarke J. & Brooks N. (2018) [eds], The Archaeology of Western Sahara, Oxford: Oxbow Books.
di Lernia S. (2013), Places, monuments, and landscape: evidence from the Holocene central Sahara, Azania,
    48, 173-192.
di Lernia S. & Manzi G. (2002) [eds], Sand, Stones, and Bones: The Archaeology of Death in the Wadi Tanezzouft
    Valley (5000-2000 BP), Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio.
di Lernia S. & Tafuri,M. A. (2013), Persistent deathplaces and mobile landmarks. The Holocene mortuary and
    isotopic record from Wadi Takarkori (SW Libya), Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32, 1-15.
di Lernia S., Merighi F., Ricci F. & Sivilli S. (2002), From regions to sites: the excavation, in Sand, Stones and
    Bones. The Archaeology of Death in the Wadi Tanezzuft Valley (5000-2000 BP), edited by Savino di Lernia &
    Giorgio Manzi, Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio, 69-156.
di Lernia S., Tafuri M. A., Gallinaro M., Alhaique F., Balasse M., Cavorsi L., Fullagar P. D., Mercuri A. M.,
    Monaco A., Perego A. & Zerboni A. (2013), Inside the “African Cattle Complex”: Animal Burials in
    the Holocene Central Sahara, PLoS ONE [Online], 8. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.
    pone.0056879.
di Lernia S., Anagnostou P., Ben Fraj T., Ben Nasr J., Boukhchim N., Boussoffara R., Bel Haj Brahim H.,
    Cancellieri E., Carpentieri M., Castorina F., DestroBisol G., Lucci E., Manzi G., Marnaoui M., Monaco A.,



                                                        24
                      Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia)


   Ouaja M., Jaouadi S. & Tafuri M. A. (2017), First archaeological investigations in the Chott el Jerid area,
   Southern Tunisia, Scienze dell’Antchità, 23, 3-19.
Drake N. A., Blench R. M., Armitage S. J., Bristow C. S. & White K. H. (2011), Ancient watercourses and
   biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
   108, 458-462
Gatto M. C., Mattingly D. J., Ray N. & Sterry M. (2019) [eds], Burials, migration and identity in the ancient
   Sahara and beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghaki M. (1997), Le nouveau monument mégalithique de Makthar. Rapport préliminaire, Reppal, 10, 63-72.
Ghaki M. & Paris F. (2013), Les monuments mégalithiques du sud tunisien : état de la question. In Kairouan
  et Sa Région : Nouvelles Recherches d’archéologie et Du Patrimoine, Actes Du 3ème Colloque International Du
  Département d’Archéologie edited by Jaafar Ben Nasr & Nouri Boukhchim. Kairouan: Département d’Ar-
  chéologie, F.L.S.H de Kairouan.
Liverani, M., Barbato, L., Cancellieri, E., Castelli, R. & Putzolu, C. 2013. The survey of the Fewet Necropolis,
   in Life and death of a rural village in Garamantian Times. Archaeological investigations in the oasis of Fewet
   (Libyan Sahara), edited by Lucia Mori, 199-252.
Lucci E., di Lernia S., Monaco A., Jnen M. & Ben Nasr J. (2019), Prehistoric and historic monumental fune-
   rary structures in the “Chott el Jérid” area (Southern Tunisia): the importance of photogrammetry for rapid
   and complete documentation in Saharan contexts, Digital Archaeology, 2, 1-8.
Mattingly D. J. & Sterry M. (2013), The first towns in the central Sahara, Antiquity, 87, 503-518.
Mattingly D. J., Leitch V., Duckworth C. N., Cuénod A., Sterry M. & Cole F. (2017), Trade in the ancient
  Sahara and beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mattingly D. J., Lahr M., Armitage S. J., Burton H. J., Dore J., Drake N., Foley R., Merlo S., Salem M., Stock
  J. T. & White K. (2007), DMP I: Desert Migrations: people, environment and culture in the Libyan Saha-
  ra, Libyan Studies, 38, 1-42.
Milburn M. (1993), Saharan stone monuments, rock picture and artefact contemporaneity: Some suggestions,
   L’Arte e l’Ambiente Del Sahara Peristorico: Dati e Interpretazioni (Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze
   Naturali 26), 363-374.
Miniaoui S. (2013), L’archéologie funéraire protohistorique en Tunisie: répartition des nécropoles et état de la
  question, Revue Tunisienne d’Archéologie, 1, 55-76.
Paris F. (1996), Les sepultures du Sahara Nigérien, Paris: ORSTROM.
Paris F. (2000), African livestock remains from Saharan mortuary contexts, in The Origins and Development of
    African Livestock: Archaeology, Genetics, Linguistics, and Ethnography, edited by Roger M. Blench & Kevin C.
    MacDonald, London: UCL Press, 111-126.
Paris F. & Ghaki M. (2010), Les monuments mégalithiques du Sud tunisien: état de la question, Les nouvelles
    de l’archéologie, 120-121, 71-74.
Peacock D. P. S., Bejaoui F. & Ben Lazreg N. (1990), Roman pottery production in central Tunisia, Journal of
   Roman Archaeology, 3, 59-84.
Reygasse M. (1950), Monuments funéraires préislamiques, Paris: Arts Mèt. Graphiques.
Silvermann B. W. (1986), Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Monographs on Statistics and Applied
    Probability, London: Chapman and Hall.
Tanda G., Ghaki M., Cicilloni R. (2009) [eds], Storia dei paesaggi preistorici e protostorici nell’alto tell tunisino,
   Cagliari: Edizioni AV.
Tauveron M., Ferhat N. & Striedter K. H. (2009), Neolithic Domestication and Pastoralism in Central Sahara
   The cattle necropolis of Mankhor (Tadrart Algérienne), in Roland Baumhauer & Jurgen Runge [eds], Ho-
   locene Palaeoenvironmental History of the Central Sahara. CRC Press, 179-186.




                                                         25
                                       Andrea Monaco et al.


Riassunto /Abstract



   Riassunto: I monumenti megalitici sono una caratteristica archeologica distintiva del pae-
saggio sahariano. Partendo da una base piuttosto limitata di lavori editi, e nell’ambito di un
programma di ricerca dedicato al Sahara settentrionale, abbiamo avviato nel 2015 un’indagi-
ne territoriale sui monumenti in pietra della pre-protostoria e della storia antica della Tunisia
meridionale. L’area di studio selezionata è localizzata a est e a sud-est della depressione del
Chott el Jérid (governatorato di Kebili). In questo lavoro viene presentata la strategia di ricerca
adottata, modulata sulle specifiche caratteristiche locali, quali il pessimo stato di conservazio-
ne dei monumenti e la loro incerta cronologia. I nostri risultati, basati sulla combinazione di
analisi di telerilevamento, ricognizioni di superficie e scavi di alcuni monumenti, evidenziano
una densa occupazione di questa regione del Sahara settentrionale, dove edifici monumentali
di possibile funzione funeraria si collocano cronologicamente dalla tarda preistoria fino all’età
romana. L’uso persistente dell’area in un arco di tempo molto lungo ne conferma la posizione
centrale nelle antiche vie di collegamento transahariane.

   Abstract: Megalithic monuments are a distinctive archaeological feature of Saharan land-
scape, as indicated by different systematic research projects undertaken so far. Starting from a
very low baseline of previous archaeological research, and as part of a comprehensive research
programme focussed on northern Sahara, we launched in 2015 a territorial investigation of
stone monuments of the pre-protohistory and early history of southern Tunisia. To do this,
we selected a sample study area east and south-east of the Chott el Jérid depression (Kebili re-
gion) where to conduct field research. In this paper we present the research strategy adopted,
planned to address some issues such as the poor state of preservation of the monuments or
their uncertain chronology, also known from other parts of the Sahara. Our results, based on
the combination of remote sensing analysis, field survey and selected excavations, highlight
a dense occupation of this area of northern Sahara, where monumental buildings of possible
funerary function tentatively trace back to the late pre-protohistory up to the roman age. The
persistent use of the area across a long-time span corroborates its pivotal location in ancient
trans-Saharan connection routes.

  Parole chiave: Sahara; tardo Olocene; strutture megalitiche; archeologia funeraria; telerile-
vamento; indagine sul campo e scavi

   Keywords: Sahara; Late Holocene; Megalithic Structures; Funerary Archaeology; Remote
Sensing; Field Survey & Excavations


   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper

Andrea Monaco, Lotfi Belhouchet, Hedi Bel Hadj Brahim, Tarek Ben Fraj, Jaâfar Ben Nasr,
Ridha Boussoufara, Emanuele Cancellieri, Moufida Jnen, Enrico Lucci, Rocco Rotunno, Savi-
no di Lernia, Megalithic Structures of the northern Sahara (Chott el Jérid, Tunisia), CaSteR 5
(2020), doi: 10.13125/caster/4078, http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/


                                                26
