bs_bs_banner

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2017) 46.1: 4871

doi: 10.1111/1095-9270.12212

The Harbour at Ptolemais: Hellenistic City of the Libyan

Pentapolis
Robert A. Yorke
Silver Birches, Bashurst Hill, Horsham, West Sussex, UK, RH13 0NY

David P. Davidson
Corner Cottage, Breedon Lane, Tonge, Derbyshire, UK, DE73 8BA

This article describes eldwork undertaken in 1972 at the harbour of the Hellenistic city of Ptolemais at Tolmeita in Cyrenaica,
Libya. This survey has shown that the city possessed a sophisticated Hellenistic harbour installation, now submerged by some
2 m. It consisted of a small shing harbour and a larger commercial harbour protected by extensive stone breakwaters built
around two offshore islands. Between the harbours, remains were found under water of an extensive block-built quay connected
to one island, where there was a system of submerged rock-cut tanks. These are interpreted as the foundations of a sh-processing
factory. Changes in sea-level are also discussed.
2017 The Authors

Key words: Ptolemais, harbour, underwater survey, block walls, sh tanks, sea-level.

I
n the summer of 1972, under the aegis of the
Society for Libyan Studies, the authors with John
H. Little undertook a marine survey of the remains
of the harbour at the site of Hellenistic Ptolemais,
in Libyan Cyrenaica. The ancient site of Ptolemais is
still largely unspoilt. It lies between modern Benghazi
and Derna at a point where the mountains of the
Djebel Akhdar come down to the sea and pinch off
the coastal plain, leaving a rocky steep coast as far as
Apollonia (modern Susa) to the east. In the hills behind
Apollonia lie the famous ruins of ancient Cyrene
(Fig. 1).
The interim report of the site was presented in
1972 (Yorke et al., 1972) and preliminary publication
appeared in Libyan Studies (Yorke, 1972), the IJNA
(Yorke et al., 1973), and the Proceedings of the
Underwater Association Minisymposium (Yorke and
Davidson, 1973).
The eldwork in 1972 involved a comprehensive
underwater visual survey of the whole harbour area
combined with some echo-sounder surveys. The
resulting overall outline plan of the site was published
at the time. As part of the survey, detailed plans were
also made of areas of submerged blocks, rock-cut
tanks, and quarries, which formed an important part
of the harbour installations. The opportunity has
therefore been taken, in the light of the authors
subsequent researches and an informal visit to site
in 2009, to publish the site in full using all the 1972
eldwork data. Moreover, recent sand movements
have exposed further shoreward sections of submerged
blocks and these have been added to the plans using
information from aerial photographs taken by Miron
Bogacki of the Polish Mission of 20062011 under the
late Professor Mikocki (Mikocki et al., 2010; Bogacki,
2012). We thank Dr Monika Rekowska-Ruszkowska
for providing this information.
The result is a two-basin harbour based on the
sandstone reef elements with inshore islets so common
all along the coast of North Africa. The scale of the
installations is very comparable to the better-known
harbour at Apollonia nearby, if not quite of the same
level of complexity. The site is characterized by a
headland, on which sits the modern lighthouse, with
two small islands to its east, and a long open sandy bay
to its west (Fig. 2).
There is a small natural harbour in a bay to the
east of the headland, where local shing boats moor
up. In antiquity the westerly of the two islands would
always have been a promontory, affording even better
protection, and to the east was the larger harbour basin
formed by the addition of articial rock breakwaters
to the small island, known from the Stadiasmus Maris
Magni #55 (Muller, 1855) as Ilus. The present-day
westerly island has no modern local name, and is
referred to herein as the Islet.

2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
Figure 1. Location map. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)
Figure 2. View eastwards from the headland over the
harbour at Ptolemais showing the two islands, the Islet and
Ilus, with the Djebel Akhdar in the background. (R. A. Yorke)
The modern authority on the site has been Kraeling,
who dug for four seasons in the city (Kraeling, 1962).
He apparently did not explore the harbour in any detail
and followed early travellers who believed there had
been an extensive articial harbour to the west of the
headland. The 1972 survey proved conclusively that
this was not the case. The site was visited both above
and below water by Carlo Beltrame (2012, 315326)
who conrmed the existence of underwater remains. A
Polish team excavated extensively here on the landward
side of the site from 2001 to 2010 (Zelazowski, 2011;
http://ptolemais.pl/publications/).
Historical background
First settled, according to Herodotus (iv. 151160)
(Beloe, 1825: 419423), by Greeks in the 6th century
BC (Boardman, 1966: 149156; James, 2005: 2),
Cyrenaica became a Roman province in 70 BC, and
shortly afterwards became a joint province with Crete.
Ptolemais appears in most of the ancient itineraries
(Kraeling, 1962: 33ff, Jones and Little, 1971: 7173).
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
It was initially known as the Harbour at Barca for
the city of Barca on the Djebel Akhdar behind, which
sat on a fertile plain but had needed an outlet via the
sea. Ptolemais became a named city in its own right in
252 BC under the Ptolemaic dynasty of neighbouring
Egypt (Mueller, 2004: 1ff). It achieved great renown in
the Roman world for its trade in the medicinal herb
silphium.
The region was subject to massive earthquakes in AD
262, and especially in AD 365 (Ambraseys et al., 2005),
which is spoken about in contemporary literature by
one of its most famous inhabitants, Bishop Synesius.
His later letters (Synesius, 413) tell us so much about
life in the late Roman province.
In any event, the incursions of the tribes from the
south took their toll, so that by the time of Procopius
in the mid 6th century, the city was but a shadow
of its former self, mainly because the majority of the
populace had departed when the water supply from
the Djebel Akhdar was destroyed. There was a brief
recovery in the renewal under the Emperor Justinian
(Ananeosis), using a much smaller perimeter plan, as
also at Apollonia.
By the time of the Arab invasion in the 7th century
AD the city was already in a reduced state as a
consequence of constant incursions by the Garamantes
tribes from the south. Ptolemais was so out on a
limb, away from the main east-west routes along the
Djebel Akhdar, that the city was bypassed for conquest
until the Arab eet arrived several years after the
fall of Cyrene, Barca and even Tauchira. Although it
never recovered any signicant commercial importance,
maritime traffic must have continued at a modest level
through to the turn of the millennium and beyond
(Kennet, 1994).
The site was visited by several early Arab authors
(see below). But there is then a great paucity of
detailed information until the early European travellers
ventured there from the end of the 18th century
(Rekowska-Ruszkowska, 2012), all of whom found a
deserted but virtually intact site with the exception of
49
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1
Figure 3. General plan of the visible structures at Ptolemais Harbour. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)
the harbour, which was by then completely submerged.
We rely almost exclusively on the survey undertaken by
the brothers Frederick and Henry Beechey who came
this way in 1822 (Beechey and Beechey, 1828: 376385)
and left a series of plans of extraordinary veracity of the
sites along the coast. Not until the survey of Kraeling
in 19561958 (Kraeling, 1962) do we learn more of
substance about the harbour.
The survey and sea-level change
It was clear from the 1972 survey that there had been a
rise in relative sea-level of around 2 m since antiquity.
The description here of the survey of the harbour
(Fig. 3) should be considered and interpreted on the
basis that when the structures were built and the
harbour was initially in use the sea-level relative to the
land was 22.5 m lower than in 1972. The evidence
50 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
for this movement was gathered in various parts of the
survey and is summarized below. In order to clarify
a description of the site, features described are given
letters and numbers on the plans.
Ptolemais headland
The headland (H), which lies in front of the scatter
of houses that constitute the present-day town of
Tolmeita, is the most salient point on the coast for
many miles (Fig. 3). Eastwards the generally bare, rocky
coast with occasional sandy bays is punctuated also by
small inshore islands such as these at Ptolemais, formed
also from a Pleistocene reef. To the west we are told
by the Stadiasmus that there is nothing much, apart
from Benghazi, in the way of natural shelter all the way
through to the Gulf of Sirte (Muller, 1855, 447450).
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
Figure 4. Plan of Ptolemais Headland. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)
The dry part of the headland is bounded by a low
cliff (H2), some 45 m in height with a reef (H1) awash
to seaward in front of it at, or just above, present sea-
level, dropping into the sea at a depth of a metre or two
(Fig. 4). The reef itself has been extensively quarried
and there are a number of rocky outcrops (H4), most
of which show signs of having been quarried.
The signicance of this promontory for shipping in
antiquity can have been no less than it is today, forming
as it does, sheltered bays to east or west according to the
weather. It also may be adjudged to have been provided
with some sort of navigation warning, judging by the
ancient foundations that appear in the footings of the
modern lighthouse (H3). A lighthouse is mentioned
by Kraeling (1962: 50, n41) and he joins the Beecheys
(1828: 378) in viewing this as the logical place for the
ancient pharos, as did Pacho (Pacho, 1827: 178).
At the highest level of the ground of the headland a
number of mainly circular silos were found cut down
into the bedrock, similar to many others found at
neighbouring sites (Hesein, 2014). There are no other
obvious signs of building on the headland dating from
antiquity. The other cuttings in the rock and a few
associated blocks of the native stone appear to be the
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
remains of quarrying. Some of these blocks are still
in situ and incomplete, while others may possibly have
been extracted before being re-laid.
In the north-west corner of the headland some of
the quarrying forms sloping beds close to sea-level,
which has prompted various interpretations elsewhere
as slipways or shipsheds (Kraeling, 1962: 60, plate
IIIA; Laronde, 1981: 62; Kenrick, 2013: 98; Baika,
2014: 497). The area is cut into the bedrock and slopes
marginally down to the waters edge. In one of these
there are two rock-cut ridges that divide the rock into
two compartments (H5, H6) having slightly differing
widths. H5 is the narrower of the two at 4 m, and, while
its form is clear from the landward end, the ridge on the
north side is only partially complete (Fig. 5a). However,
at the seaward end of H5 the rock ridge is very apparent,
effectively barring the potential for entry and exit of
boats.
In the walls of one of these dividers in H6 there are
horizontal ledges running at about one block height,
0.5 m, from the bedrock (Fig. 5b). These have been
proposed as mountings for the roof of a shipshed
(Baika, 2014), but appear to be simply the line of the
cutting of the blocks extracted at the higher level. In the
51
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1

Figure 5. a) Rock cutting H5 is not considered by the authors to have been a slipway; b) rock cutting H6 showing the horizontal
ledge on the right and the edge of the partially quarried block on the left; c) close up of the partially quarried block still engaged
in the quarry oor. (R. A. Yorke)

north-east corner of H6 one single partially quarried
block remains engaged in the bed of the quarry, adding
further doubt to the interpretation as slipways (Fig. 5c).
Closer inspection in the shallow water 15 m beyond
the seaward ends of these slipways shows extensive
evidence of quarrying and partly quarried blocks on
the seabed (H14). There is further quarrying nearby
at H15, now under water. This quarrying would have
been on dry land in antiquity and would have blocked
any access to the sea from H5 and H6. Furthermore
the fact that an upwards change in sea-level would also
have put the exit from any supposed slipways at perhaps
1.5 m above the sea-level in antiquity adds considerable
further doubt. Another important point to be taken
into account is that these features on the west side of
the headland face breaking seas driven by the prevailing
north-westerly wind that would have made launching
boats very dangerous.
The conclusion is that these are simply rock quarries
and could never have been slipways or shipsheds.
Beltrame (2012: 317) also came to the same conclusion.
Adjacent, to the south, H7 is a single quarry of 50 m
width, but otherwise similar nature, sloping down to the
sea with a ledge at the waters edge and some unnished
blocks remaining engaged in a water-eroded form. In
the north-west corner of H7 is a distinctive array of
blocks, 3 m 8 m (H8), which have been cut on all sides
except the base, and remain engaged in the bedrock.
A few metres away to the south-east, in contrast, is a
group of cut blocks (H9) differing in size and shape that
appear to have been deliberately laid for some unknown
purpose.
To the south of the quarry H7 were found signs of
silos cut vertically into the rock at the higher level of the
headland. One of these, H12, had been partially eroded
so that it was completely visible in section. It proved to
be 34 m deep and 0.4 m in diameter at its entrance at
the top, widening to 1.75 m diameter at the bottom. The
oor, which was well above present sea-level, was lined
with opus signinum and, so far as could be told, without
a drain. The entrance to a second similar bell-shaped
silo was found adjacent to H10, but was almost full
of sand, and again with signs of opus signinum. Some
1.5 m away was a further deep, and similarly belled,
cutting that was rectangular in form, also with signs of
opus signinum and communicating via a channel (H11).

52 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
Signs nearby of yet a third circular aperture (H13)
indicate that there may be others below the ground
surface. Similar silos are found in the rock at the waters
edge at sites in the province, including Apollonia and
Phycus (Arena, 2011: 167; Hesein, 2014: 135) but their
use remains uncertain. The silos on the headland may
simply have been water storage tanks for buildings that
have been effaced since antiquity. Alternatively, there
remains the possibility that they could have been used
for some wet product, perhaps salted sh or the sh-
sauce, garum.
The bay to the west
To the west of the headland, bay J is open with a long
shallow sandy beach that is sheltered from an easterly
wind, but the presence in 2009 of a small modern
coaster lying wrecked just offshore attests to its general
exposure to the prevailing westerly and north-westerly
wind and seas (Fig. 3).
There is a general assumption that ancient meteoro-
logical and wind patterns have changed little since
antiquity, discussed at length by Davis (2009: 33). The
Mediterranean Pilot shows winds at Derna station,
with the wind roses for January showing dominant
winds from SW to NNW, and NW to NNW for July
(Mediterranean Pilot: v. 5, 2005: 29ff). This has been
taken into consideration in reviewing the suitability of
the sea defences in the different sectors of the harbour.
At the same time the predominant sea current runs
anti-clockwise in the eastern Mediterranean, giving a
west to east ow, and a dominant swell from the north-
west sector (Mediterranean Pilot: v. 5, 2005, 21ff.). In
antiquity a similar pattern can be imputed from the
dominant directions of maritime trade (Aubet, 2001:
215).
Four echo-sounder runs carried out during eldwork
showed no trace of any protective breakwater having
been constructed westwards from the tip of the
headland that could have formed a sea defence enabling
this bay to have been used as a viable harbour.
The most that can be said about the west bay from
a maritime viewpoint is that it would always have been
available as a sheltered anchorage against a north-east
storm, and at any time small boats could have been
drawn up on the beach.
Beecheys wall
In 1820 the Beechey brothers (1828: 355, 378)
commented on a small internal harbour to the east of
the headland, but noted the presence of a signicant
wall on the beach to the west that has, from time to
time, been linked with harbour works. Hermann Barth
passed this way in 18451847, and Lehmann-Hartleben
reported (in translation) his conclusions thus:
. . . in a wide open bay to the west of the ancient city and
outside it, Barth also saw a long and strong wall running
from the city walls parallel with the shore, from which
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
cross-walls run to the shore. (Lehmann-Hartleben, 1923:
278, quoting Barth, 1849, Vol I: 399, 406)
Barth took these to be shipsheds and Kraeling (1962:
50) seems to buy wholeheartedly and directly into this
interpretation, as did Laronde (1986: 171). This is an
unlikely location for the main harbour, however, and
a trial excavation of the wall conrmed this through
the nature of the structure and its levels relative to
the sea. The full extent of the wall was also surveyed
(Fig. 6). The trial excavation was undertaken under
the supervision of the local Antiquities Department in
order to answer two specic questions: what was the
nature of the structure; and could it have formed a part
of the harbour?
This wall is built in ne ashlar masonry and is
over 300 m in length and 5 m in width, having two
parallel single lines of blocks with numerous cross-walls
every 2 m to 3 m, forming a conventional casement
conguration (Figs 6 and 7). It lies buried with its top
courses of blocks level with the sand, so that it is not
always apparent. It runs roughly parallel with the edge
of the sea and with the land behind. At its western end,
just short of the Wadi Khambish, it turns a curve of
approximately 45 towards the land and is then lost
beneath the sand. There is no sign of it continuing to
the west of the wadi.
At the eastern end, towards the headland and the
line of the city wall, the terminus is indistinct and
was not located. In the time available neither end of
the wall could be located, and a single section at the
commencement of the curved section was chosen at
which to excavate the structure down to its foundations
(Fig. 6).
The front wall, nearest to the sea proved to have
only two courses at the point investigated, with the
foundation level some 2.5 m above present sea-level.
The foundation layer was of ashlar header blocks
approximately 1 0.5 m in plan, with the long axis
towards the sea and a layer of stretchers of similar size
laid on top. The base layer was laid directly on to clean
sterile clay, and surrounded by clean sand.
The second, landward element of the wall had three
further courses, taking the foundation down to 1.5 m
above present sea-level. It was something of a surprise
that the foundations of the rear wall were deeper than
those of the front wall, which was down the slope of the
beach and closer to the sea.
One of the cross-walls was also revealed and was
found to be of a single line of headers and stretchers
and not engaged with either the up-slope or down-slope
element. This is not unusual in such casement walls,
as seen at Ptolemais itself and at Tauchira (modern
Tocra) nearby (Bogacki, 2012: 83). However, all of these
examples are only 23 m in overall width, whereas the
Beecheys wall is 5 m across.
In the bank behind the beach visible remains of
walls to the north of the Tauchira road were formerly
reported, but there are no current signs of these, nor
53
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1

Figure 6. a) General plan of Beecheys wall; b) detailed plan of the excavated area of Beecheys wall; c) section of Beecheys
wall. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)

any obvious connection. There is no clear sign of
any further continuation of the structure at beach
level to the west of the wadi that is just to the west
of the curved end of the wall. However, there are
some jumbled remains of a wall, ashlar masonry and
fragments of cisterns with opus signinum in the bank
behind the beach to the west of the wadi mouth. But
Beecheys wall contains nothing but the ashlar blocks,
and these are on a different line and are at a different
height.
The investigations showed that the lowest foundation
of the wall is 1.5 m above present sea-level, which
would have been at least 3.5 m above the sea-level
associated with rest of the harbour site in antiquity, and

54 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
Figure 7. Excavated section of Beecheys wall looking north-
east towards the headland, scale 1 m. (R. A. Yorke)
Figure 8. Modern shing boats moored in the bay to the east
of the headland. (R. A. Yorke)
demonstrate conclusively that the wall could never have
formed a part of the seaward defences or installations.
Because the lower wall is on the seaward side, it also
seems unlikely that it was built as a defence against
further sea-level rises after the earthquakes of AD 365
and later.
While there is still much to learn about the detail and
true nature of the Beecheys wall, it was clearly nothing
to do with the ancient harbour. The most plausible
interpretation at the present time is that it was some sort
of esplanade along the beach between the town and the
wadi.
The bay to the east
The bay to the east of the headland is sheltered from the
westerly prevailing wind and swell by the headland itself
and from any easterly wind by the two islands, Ilus and
the Islet (Fig. 3). Small shing boats are moored here or
drawn up on the beach to the present day (Fig. 8), just
as they must have been in antiquity in what is normally
a sheltered bay (G).
Where the beach joins the headland below the
lighthouse there are tumbled stones and a linear feature
that has been marked on previous plans (Jones and
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Little, 1971: 72, g. 6), and is apparent on aerial
photographs. This feature (H16, Fig. 4) is a long trench,
or foundation, cut into the rock of the reef about 60 m
long and now about 0.7 m under water. At its northern
end it is about 2 m wide emerging from the outer rock
boundary wall of the reef, and it widens at its southern
end before becoming less distinct and disappearing
under modern rubble below the modern lighthouse. On
the same alignment, some 50 m to the south, there is a
15 m-long construction of blocks (H17) at least three
blocks wide and 11 blocks long on the seabed in c.0.7 m
of water. Between H17 and the modern rubble to its
north the line of the rock-cut foundation is visible, but
any blocks that may once have been there appear to
have been robbed out to clear an entrance into the small
sandy bay to the west where shing boats are moored.
The line of H16 and H17 appears to align closely
with the street grid of Hellenistic Ptolemais (Fig. 3),
indicating that these features could have formed the
foundation of a continuous sea wall that ran along the
eastern side of the headland out to the edge of the reef.
Ilus and harbour entrance
The eastern of the two islands, Ilus (D) (Fig. 9), is
slightly higher than its twin, with its top level (D1) at
23 m above the 1972 water level. It is surrounded by
a reef (D2 and D6) at 12 m depth. It has obviously
been used for extracting stone, and shows three small
quarries D3, D4 and D5 (Fig. 10).
Quarry D3 faces the sea to the east at the eastern end
of Ilus. It slopes consistently down towards the sea, and
it terminates at a depth of 0.7 m below present sea-level.
It is clear from its exposed location and its rough plan
that it has not been constructed as a boat slipway, and it
is likely therefore that it is indicative of at least a 1.5 m
upward sea-level movement in order for quarrying to
have been carried out on dry land in antiquity. The
bases of quarries D4 and D5 are 0.51.0 m below sea-
level, and a similar argument therefore applies to rise in
sea-level since antiquity.
Ilus is devoid of other man-made structures, except
for two small cisterns/tanks D8 and D9 that contain
opus signinum mortar indicating that they had been
waterproofed for storing liquids. It is most probable
that their bases would have been above sea-level in
antiquity.
The only other visible features are two iron gun
barrels, presumed medieval (D10 and D11), that have
been let vertically into the surface of the rock in more
recent times to act as mooring posts. They serve as
a reminder that long after the site of Ptolemais was
abandoned as a classical city, boats continued to use
the shelter for anchorage (Kraeling, 1962: 49; Laronde,
1981: 65; Kennet, 1991: passim), and, following the
Italian invasion of Libya in 1911, the Italians are
reputed to have effected some modications in the
area to make the harbour more useful (Kraeling, 1962:
31). The removal of much ancient masonry, visible at
locations on the seabed around the site, could therefore
55
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1
Figure 9. Plan of Ilus and the eastern entrance to the harbour. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)
have taken place at many points in the past two
thousand years.
The rock shelf D6 continues on the south side of the
island where it leads down to an area (D7) of stones, of
size approximately 0.20.3 m, among which are some
squared stone blocks of c.0.8 0.4 0.3 m and pot
sherds in about 3 m of water. After 20 m or so these
disappear into a sandbank rising to 2 m depth. There
is no indication of how far they extend under the sand.
Various small nds (D12) with scatters of small stones
probably indicate the discharge of ballast in antiquity,
and support the proposition that the shelf (D67) on the
south of the island facing unobstructed, deeper water
would have constituted a mooring point for vessels in
the lee of the island.
From the eastern end of Ilus there is a man-made
structure of rubble and masonry, topped with small-
sized rubble and blocks, that has been articially
deposited in the water. It runs in a south-easterly
direction for 130 m from the island ending in a steep
edge down to channel B, some 6 m in depth, forming a
substantial breakwater (Mole C) on the eastern side of
the harbour. In the bottom of the channel there are a
substantial number of large cut blocks (C1) scattered
on the seabed indicating that there might have been
56 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
a building on the end of the mole that has subsided
into the channel. A prole across the mid section of
Mole C is shown in an echo-sounder trace (Fig. 11a).
From a depth of 5 m on its outer eastern edge the water
depth reduces to 2 m over the top of the mole and then
increases back to 3 m in the lee of Ilus.
At a point halfway to the shore from the southern
end of Mole C the scattered blocks disappear under
the sand, to be succeeded by a rising bank of rubble
forming a southern breakwater, Mole A, emerging from
the shore (Fig. 3). On the top of the mole there is an
abundance of blocks, monumental masonry, columns
and column drums and there is a clear line of quarried
stone on its outer (eastern) edge, conrming that it is a
man-made structure.
Mole C, which protects the main basin of the harbour
(K) from easterly and north-easterly seas, the deep
channel B, and Mole A rising to the land indicate
quite clearly that this was the eastern entrance to the
harbour. The presence of a large amount of masonry
on the seabed at the southern tip of C might suggest
that there had been a navigation light or lighthouse at its
end in antiquity, a not unreasonable supposition since
this would have been the logical place to indicate the
harbour entrance to incoming seafarers.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS

Figure 10. Remains of quarrying on Ilus looking north-west across quarry D5. (R. A. Yorke)

Figure 11. Echo-sounder traces: a) Mole C, mid section; b) Ledge E, between Ilus and the Islet east; and c) west. (R. A. Yorke
and D. P. Davidson)

2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 57
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1
The ledge between Ilus and the Islet
Between the two islands Ilus and the Islet there is a
rock ledge (E) covered with sand at a depth of c.2 m
below the surface (Fig. 3). Echo-sounder traces (Fig.
11 b, c) show two examples of the water depth reducing
rapidly from 9 m in the open sea to about 2 m across
the ledge and into the main harbour basin. Even now,
although submerged, the ledge breaks the force of the
north and north-westerly seas entering the harbour
basin K. On the basis of a rise in sea-level of at least
2 m since antiquity, the ledge would have been at or
near the surface and in all probability is the remains
of the base of a breakwater that connected the two
islands.
The current depth of ledge E shows that there would
have been insufficient water depth between the two
islands for this to form an entrance to the harbour
in antiquity. It seems almost certain that the natural
reef between Ilus and the Islet would have been built
up to form a rubble breakwater topped by a roadway
of blocks, which would also have provided access
for the stone quarried on Ilus to be brought to the
shore. This breakwater and the two islands would have
formed a large and totally secure harbour basin of 7
hectares. With the force of the waves over hundreds of
years the breakwater has been attened to its current
prole.
The Islet and block structures
This island is a rocky sandstone outcrop some
200 m offshore on which a considerable amount of
construction has taken place in the form of walls made
of blocks, rock-cut chambers and foundation trenches
(Fig. 12). The seabed around the island is now covered
with blocks and rubble that have fallen or been washed
away from previous constructions. Most of the area
from the shore to the tip of the island is now shallowly
submerged by 11.5 m, and on the assumption of a
sea-level rise of 22.5 m, the whole area would have been
dry land when the harbour was built.
Between the shore and the Islet there are four
parallel lines of submerged blocks and at their southern,
landward, end there is a cross-wall (Fig. 13). About 60%
of these blocks were visible in 1972 and were accurately
surveyed in from the shore nearby. A short visit by
Yorke in 2009, and aerial photographs taken by the
Polish mission from a balloon in 2008 (Bogacki, 2012:
81, g. 7; Rekowska, 2016: 84, g. 39) showed that
the sand had receded from the area at that time and
a further two lines of blocks that were under the sand
in 1972 had become visible to the west (Fig. 14). It
also showed that there was a south-easterly extension
to the structures previously surveyed and a cross-wall
of blocks (F6). The combination of both sets of data
gives a very clear layout of the overall block site with
its wide, level rubble core (F1) and will be described
as a whole. No excavation was undertaken, so all block
structures are those visible above the rather uid sand
of the seabed.
58 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
On its west side there is a wall (F2) 49 m long running
north-west under water consisting of a single visible line
of header blocks, average size c.1.3 m 0.65 m, that
sit one course above the seabed. At its landward end it
disappears into the sand of the beach at F2.1 and at its
seaward end it merges into an area of rubble and blocks
at F2.2 and becomes indistinct.
Running parallel with this wall towards the Islet,
and 5 m to the east, there is similar line of underwater
blocks, 75 m long (F3), although the blocks do become
indistinct in three places. After 30 m the wall is
constructed of two lines of headers (F3.2) for about
10 m, which could indicate that F3 was originally two
blocks, or 3 m, wide. At F3.3 the wall becomes two
courses high for 6 m and the second line of blocks re-
appears for a short distance at F3.4. The wall then turns
through 10 to the north before terminating at right
angles against the side of F7.
F7 comprises two parallel lines of blocks (1.5 m x
0.65 m) separated by four spaced-out blocks 0.6 m
square (Fig. 15). Some 17.5 m of the northern line
and 16 m of the southern line remain in place. The
eastern end of this structure (F7.1) is 0.8 m below the
surface and 13.2 m to the west (F7.2) the block surface
is 1.3 m below sea-level, indicating a downward slope
of 4% into the bay. There is also evidence from the
aerial photographs (Figs 14 and 16) that the structure
probably continued further out into the bay. On the
assumption of a rise in sea-level of 22.5 m, the
western end would have been at sea-level and the whole
structure can be interpreted as a 2 m-wide slipway for
bringing small shing boats up on to the quay F1.
In the area to the east of F7, Beltrame (2012: 317)
found within the area of F1 the remains of an ancient
boat which he describes as mortise-and-tenon and
treenail fastened, but with no secure date.
A further 25 m to the east of F3 there is another
parallel single line of blocks (F4). The shoreward end
(F4.1) is marked by a line of some nine blocks that, with
another four lines of blocks up to F4.2, form a small
seemingly paved area between it and F5. Although there
is no knowing if this is the original surface of the quay
it would seem to be of similar type of construction. The
line of F4 north-westwards is visible mainly as a robbed-
out trench leaving no blocks visible in the seabed for
41 m until F4.3, where it becomes a single course of
blocks, 0.7 m wide and c.1.2 m below sea-level. These
blocks are smaller, varying from 0.7 m 0.6 m to
0.7 1.0 m in plan, and the line becomes indistinct after
17 m, re-emerges at 22 m and nishes at F4.4.
Joining F3 and F4 at their southern ends by the beach
there is a cross-wall (F6) of which at least 22 blocks
(c.1 m 0.5 m) are visible on the occasions when the
sand has been washed away. At its western end (F3.1)
there is a semi-circular array of blocks, which might
have been the foundation of a round structure. Either
side of F6 there is a large amount of masonry and
blocks lying in the water indicating that this may once
have been a more substantial structure.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS

Figure 12. General plan of the Islet with submerged blocks and tanks. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)

2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 59
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1

Figure 13. Detailed plan of the submerged blocks south-east of the Islet. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)

60 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
Figure 14. Aerial view looking north-east showing submerged tanks on the Islet and submerged block walls between the Islet
and the shore. Ilus is in the background. (Polish Mission to Ptolemais, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, author:
Miron Bogacki)
Figure 15. Two parallel lines of blocks with spacer blocks
between at F7, possibly part of a slipway. (R. A. Yorke)
The four walls F2F5 separate the two harbour
basins and it was sometime the custom of harbour-
builders to incorporate a sluice channel between basins
to provide a ow of seawater to prevent silting up of
the harbours, much as found at el-Haniyeh nearby (De
Graauw, 2012). If there had been such a feature in this
harbour the only feasible place would have been to the
south of, and adjacent to, wall F6. There is no evidence
of this as the seabed is packed with jumbled blocks
(although some coherently ordered) but, based on the
similar features at el-Haniyeh, the possibility of there
having been a sluice here cannot be excluded.
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
From the eastern end of the cross-wall (F6), wall F5
runs for a distance of 73 m, parallel with, and about
5 m to the east of, wall F4, towards the Islet (Fig. 17a).
The wall consists of one course of blocks (average 1
0.7 m), 2.1 m wide, consisting of stretchers and headers
as far as F5.1, where there is a second level of blocks
and the headers and stretchers reverse. At F5.2 there is
a second course of blocks for 12 m with headers and
stretchers reversed from the course below (Fig. 17b).
The tops of the base course of blocks vary from 1.2 m
to 1.5 m below sea-level. At F5.3 wall F5 is abutted
by F9 and becomes indistinct. Wall F8 is of an entirely
different form of construction and cuts through the line
of F5 at an acute angle.
In between the parallel lines of blocks F4 and F5
there is stone rubble and random large blocks indicating
that these two line of blocks may have formed a
retaining wall about 8 m wide.
At the northern end of F5 a wide structure of blocks
(F9), one course high, in a water depth of 1 m, leads
off east-north-east from F5.3. It is four blocks wide
of varying widths for 9 m to F9.1, where it reverts to
a pavement, 2.1 m wide, of alternating headers and
stretchers. At F9.2 a second course is still in place for
6 m (Fig. 18a). This course is constructed with headers
and stretchers reversed from the course below, but is
missing its stretchers on the northern side.
The lower course of F9 extends for 34 m and the tops
of the blocks are 1.4 m below sea-level at its eastern end,
an increase in depth of 0.4 m from its root at F5.3. The
61
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1
Figure 16. Aerial view of the Islet showing submerged rock-cut tanks, submerged lines of block walls F3, 4, 5 and 9 and the
slipway F7. (Polish Mission to Ptolemais, Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, author: Miron Bogacki)
structure consists of about 49 blocks (counting headers
measuring 1.3 0.7 0.5 m) except for some smaller
ones 0.5 0.5 0.5 m at its base. The construction of
structure F9 is identical to F5.
Another single course of blocks (F10) (1.3 m 0.7 m
in plan) runs for 22 m parallel to F9 and 4 m to its south.
While the visible blocks of F10 are headers, those of F9
are stretchers. Nonetheless, both F10 and F9 appear to
form the retaining walls of a structure such as a quay or
a roadway similar in construction to F4/F5.
On the northern side of F9 by its root, the seabed is
covered with small blocks and rubble but from about
12 m along its length the water depth increases to
2 m into an enclosed sandy lagoon (F12) (Fig. 13),
on the bottom of which are random larger blocks,
column drums and a spiral-uted column at F12.1
(Fig. 18b). From the end of F9 the seabed is covered
with concretion, small blocks and rubble at a depth of
2 m (F12.2) until it drops off the rock ledge to sand at
3 m depth on which large blocks and a stone anchor
were found at F12.3 (Fig. 18c).
To the north of the submerged lagoon at F12 there
is a deep channel (F12.4), 3 m deep, that runs along
the southern edge of the Islet by wall F16.1 (see below)
into the deeper water of the eastern harbour basin.
The bottom of the channel is lled with masonry and
rubble so the original depth is unknown. The existence
of deeper water surrounding F9 and F10 could mean
that together they form a quay 5 m wide, and boats
could have been loaded and unloaded on both sides.
62 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
To the south of F9/F10 the seabed (F13) is again
covered in concretion, small blocks and rubble for a
further 15 m in a water depth of about 1 m.
Continuing north-westward from F5.3 there is
another block structure (F8), 2 m wide, comprising
four lines of blocks (single course), that runs straight
in shallow water at a depth of 0.2 m for 14 m
and then curves northwards for 2 m, and ends in
sand at F8.1 just south of the rock-cut tanks on the
island. However, both the orientation of F8 and its
construction technique are quite different from the
adjacent structures F5 and F9, and the water depth is
0.2 m compared to 1 m where F5 and F9 join. The
details of the join between F8, F9 and F5 are not clear
under water, but because the orientation of F8 is quite
different from F5, it may be a later addition.
At the northern end of F8 a 2 m-wide rock-cut
channel (F14) runs initially westward at right angles to
the end of F8 at a depth 1 m. This channel then curves
northward round the rocky western edge of the island
for c.60 m until it peters out on the wave-swept shelf at
F14.1 (Fig. 12). Halfway along, at F15, a column drum
and rectangular blocks in 3 m of water were found off
the edge of the island.
Discussion of block structures
The block structures described are currently in water
depths varying from 0.2 m to 1.2 m and so would have
been above sea-level in antiquity, probably topped by
further construction. It must be assumed that all blocks
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
above water were robbed out over the years, leaving only
those below the surface that were difficult to reach.
The two double lines of blocks appear to form a pair
of double retaining walls either side of a wide platform,
F1, some 40 m wide. The interior of the platform
would have been lled with rubble and the surface
Figure 17. a) Line of blocks comprising F5; b) header and
stretcher blocks on wall F5 looking south from point F5.2.
(R. A. Yorke)
Figure 18. a) Second course of blocks on wall F9; b) spiral-uted column found at point F12.1; c) stone anchor found at point
F12.3. Scale intervals 0.10 m. (R. A. Yorke)
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
perhaps paved with blocks to form a smooth roadway.
The existence of many cut blocks lying on the seabed
between the walls adds substance to this interpretation.
Similar paved harbour structures are seen at Apollonia,
some 100 km to the east (De Graauw, 2014).
The Islet would have been connected to the shore at
the time of the use of the harbour by this elaborately
constructed structure in ashlar masonry, in the manner
of a roadway and quay. The quay would have provided
access to the Islet and been at the heart of the harbour.
Ships could have been moored on either side and off-
loaded their cargoes on to its broad surface before
transportation into the city close by or on to the island
itself.
The structure formed by F9 and F10 to the east of the
platform could have formed a further quay some 35 m
long, and 5 m wide, where boats could be moored along
both sides. Being close to the Islet they could have been
used for loading or unloading sh or other products for
processing on the island.
The sloping parallel line of blocks at F7 may be
interpreted as a 2 m-wide slipway for pulling small
shing boats up on to the quay from the bay (G)
between the Islet and the headland.
Rock cuttings on the Islet
The rock surface on the southern half of the Islet
is rough but approximately level at a water depth of
generally around 0.2 m in calm water. It would be
difficult to determine whether this had been levelled
articially, or as a result of sea action behind the rock
outcrops to the seaward side of the island. There are
certainly outcrops in this atter section that are visible
up to 0.5 m above the water, but the most remarkable
feature is an elaborate layout below current water level
of tanks and slots cut in the bedrock (Fig. 19). While
they vary in the ways in which they relate one to
another, they have been created in a clearly deliberate,
functional manner.
63
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1

Figure 19. Detailed plan of the submerged tanks on the Islet. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)

64 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
The most striking features are two long channels
(F51 and F52) cut into the rock that run at an acute
angle to each other towards the sea to the north,
converging from 25 m apart in the south to 15 m apart
in the north, without appearing ever to have intersected.
The more western of the two (F51) runs almost due
north from the edge of the rock shelf in the south. It
is 1.8 m wide with a slight kink at halfway and slopes
from a depth of 0.7 m at the south end to 0.9 m where it
becomes indistinct in the north after 75 m. The second
of these two angled channels (F52) terminates at a
different point in the edge of the rock shelf F50 in the
south, is the same width, and appears to be cut at a more
constant depth of 0.9 m.
Between these two channels there are no tanks cut,
but several linear rock ridges (F55) have been left
protruding from the rock surface, which therefore must
have been articially levelled in that area. A channel
0.2 m wide (F54) leads at an angle from the eastern
channel (F52) to the edge of the rock shelf to the south.
A further channel (F53), 1 m wide, cuts across the two
long channels (F51 and F52), but at a slightly shallower
depth. This peters out at its eastern end, but, where
it crosses the larger channel (F51) to the west, it is
barred by a rock-cut system of slots in the rock before
continuing into a system of tanks (F80 and F81). F81
is notable in this location in having an array of part-
cut blocks still engaged in the rock, although a similar
feature is seen on the west side of the headland (Fig. 4).
Further along the length of the western channel
(F51) is one small tank (F56) with which it
communicates at a constant level, and a second
one with one curved end (F57), from which it is clearly
separated. A channel leads off F51 around the curved
edge of tank F57 leading to a cruciform tank (F58) with
side tanks (F59). The western end of the cruciform tank
terminates crudely and next to the rocky outcrop (F93)
that is adjacent to an area of rectangular quarrying.
Nearby the single small tank (F61) is not connected.
Nor are two further tanks to the south-east, (F78 and
F79).
Along the main axis of the cruciform array extends
a collinear set of four tanks (F60F63) at decreasing
depths, so that the southernmost (F63) is at the highest
level of 0.3 m depth. This tank, and the only one
apparent in the entire system, shows extant signs of opus
signinum waterproof cement lining (F64) conrming its
use as a holding tank for liquids. This run of tanks ends
in a rock outcrop (F86) that has rectilinear cuttings
in it, which appear to be un-detached blocks (F85),
and a further eroded tank adjacent (F87). There is
no indication how many others of the tanks might
have had opus signinum lining, and this clearly would
inuence the interpretation of the levels and what
structure there might have been above the existing rock
foundations.
Aligned with this, but unconnected, are two further
tanks (F84 and F83). Tank F84 is separate and at a
depth of 0.7 m, while the other, F83, is at a higher level
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
of 0.3 m. This tank connects into tank F66 at a depth
of 0.6 m via a long narrow channel (F82), showing
that water could ow from F83 to a pair of tanks
F66 and then into F60 via a rock-cut sluice with eight
slots (F65).
Along the east side of the main axis of the cruciform
array (F60F63) is a further line of tanks (F68-F77) all
at levels between 0.8 m and 0.6 m. None of them show
communication with each other at this level. Opposite
the sluice F65 in tank F60, and adjacent to tank F68 a
sill and a slot have been carved into a stone ag (F67)
let into the bedrock, of unknown purpose.
At the base of the cruciform array is a further
separate system of tanks (F88F92), which also show
blocks attached in situ (F94 and F93), perhaps part of
some superstructure.
The foundation levels of the rock cutting all lie within
a range of up to 1 m below present sea-level. They are all
awash at all tidal conditions, but must have been 12 m
above sea-level in antiquity. This conclusion, of course,
raises the question of when in antiquity the change in
relative sea-level took place, and when the complex was
constructed and went into, and out of, use.
Surrounding wall
On the south edge of the rock-cut channel F14 there is
a line of 15 masonry blocks (F11) that runs westward
from the edge of F8 for 12 m following the curved line
of F14 (Figs 12 and 13). This line of blocks is clearly
associated with structure F14. Given the position of
F14 following the edge of the island, it is likely that
this channel was cut to house the footings of a seawall
that ran round the western side of the island to protect
the interior from incoming seas driven by the prevailing
NW wind. In its position right on the edge of the rock-
cut foundation, F11 could have formed part of the
ashlar-block facing of that wall.
To the north-east of the rock-cut channel F14, there
are intermittent signs of the channel continuing (F16),
and along the line there is a considerable amount of
blocks and masonry. At F16.1 the channel re-appears
and within it there is a course of blocks comprising
headers and stretchers c.2 m wide that continues for
12 m. This would appear to conrm that the rock-cut
channel, and the sea wall within it, extended all the
way along the southern side of the Islet from F14.1
on the west to F16.2 on the east. As well as providing
protection from the sea, a wall along the south of the
island would have provided security for activities on the
Islet itself.
Fish processing on the Islet
The remains of rock-cut trenches from F14.1 to F16.2
(Fig. 12), and associated external blockwork, could
be interpreted as the foundation trench for a wide
protecting wall that extended around the whole island,
although all signs on the seaward side presumably have
been lost to erosion. Given the extensive nature of the
tank constructions on the island there would have been
65
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1
a need to protect this industrial activity from the waves
breaking on to the island, and also provide security
from unauthorized access.
The features found on the Islet are very remarkable
and appear to constitute the remains of a sh-
processing factory with the series of rock-cut tanks
accurately cut in carefully sequenced levels. These
workings have been reported elsewhere as quarries
(Beltrame, 2012: 316), but this detailed survey reveals
something a great deal more purpose built.
There are in excess of 30 tanks in the array, plus
associated channels and sluices. The current differences
in levels between the bases of the tanks could indicate
that there was a sequence of ow between sets of tanks
as at Kenchreai, one of the ports of Corinth (Scranton
et al., 1978). The overall arrangement is highly
suggestive of what the Roman author Varro (de Re
Rustica III 17.4) calls a paint-box of tanks (piscinae
loculatae). Unfortunately we have no graphical
representations of anything remotely comparable, even
in Higginbothams comprehensive study of the sh
tanks (piscinae) of Italy (Higginbotham, 1997).
Tank F83 owing into F66 and then through a sluice
into F60 is an example of sequence of ow. However,
at their base, or foundation level, there are few other
interconnecting channels between tanks in the spine
of the cruciform array F60F63 and F68F77. On the
contrary, there are clear ows into the long channel F51
at F53 and F57 and it is possible to conclude from the
falling levels that the channel F51 owed northward
into the sea beyond the harbour.
At least one of the tanks on the Islet was lined
with waterproof opus signinum type mortar, and it
is reasonable to assume that they had signicant
walls built up on their rock-cut foundations to give
them reasonable holding capacity. However, the precise
nature of how the process worked is not clear to the
authors from the remains that exist. No precise parallels
have been found for such a complex elsewhere in the
classical world.
The nearest parallel might be seen at a 2nd4th
century AD site at Pachino in Sicily, where there are
signs of extensive tunny shing and the vats for salting
the processed sh are cut in the rock close to the
Table 1. Evidence for sea-level rise at Ptolemais
No. Feature
1 Quarry oor on Ilus
2 Top of slip F7.1
2 Top of slip F7.1 adjusted
3 Channel F51 on the Islet
4 Top of blocks F5.2
4 Top of blocks F5.2 adjusted
5 Top of blocks F2
5 Top of blocks F2 adjusted
66 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
waters edge (Felici, 2012). The parallel with the tunny
shing at Pachino with its lookout tower is particularly
interesting in view of the descriptions we have of life in
Cyrenaica and Ptolemais, in particular in the writings
of Synesius. One of the letters of Synesius (Ep. 57) talks
about a tunny lookout tower (thynnoskopeion) for the
prospection for incoming schools of sh at Ptolemais.
The facilities at Pachino were found with what seem
to be the foundation sockets for a traditional lookout
tower (Felici, 2012: 116, g 20). Such towers indeed
survive to this day in Croatia (Anon, nd).
There seems to be little doubt that in some way
the facilities at Ptolemais were, at least in the time of
Synesius in the late 4thearly 5th century AD (Ep. 57),
used in the harvesting of pelagic sh such as tunny
(Wilson, 2004: 148). Quite how the tanks were used
and what role each one played in the processing
presumably for saltingis not easy to visualize at
present, but it represents an important addition to
our growing knowledge of the shing economy in the
classical world.
Sea-level changesthe evidence
There are a number of areas throughout the site that
indicate there has been a relative sea-level rise since
the harbour was built in the Hellenistic period. Mostly
these are construction features that would have been
built on dry land and are now below the water. There
is only a small tidal movement of c.0.20.3 m in the
Mediterranean, but in order to remain dry against tide
and wave action it can be postulated that the surfaces
of quays or quarries would therefore have needed to
be between 0.5 m and 1 m above the ancient sea-level
(Table 1). However, the depths for examples 2, 4 and
5 in Table 1 were taken to the tops of the blocks, and
so it is necessary to add the thickness of these blocks
(c.0.3 m) to reach the foundation level that would have
had to be dry.
On the assumption that the deepest place would have
been dry in antiquity it is reasonable to assume that
the sea-level has risen by between 2 and 2.5 m since the
harbour was rst in use.
Estimated Sea-level Rise (m)
Current Submersion (m) Minimum Maximum
0.7 1.2 1.7
0.8 1.3 1.8
1.1 1.6 2.1
0.9 1.4 1.9
1.5 2.0 2.5
1.8 2.3 2.8
1.2 1.7 2.2
1.5 2.0 2.5
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS

Figure 20. Schematic reconstruction of Ptolemais harbour. (R. A. Yorke and D. P. Davidson)

Discussion and conclusions
The harbour
The survey of 1972 conclusively demonstrated the
layout of the ancient harbour and recent research has
added further insight into how the original installations
would have operated. Strong evidence has been found
to support a proposition that sea-level at Ptolemais has
risen by 22.5 m since antiquity. This is comparable
with other sites along the coast of Cyrenaica as far
as Apollonia and beyond (Tusa, 2009: 191216; De
Graauw, 2012, 2014).
The research has shown that the harbour consisted of
two basins located to the east of the headland (Fig. 20).
The smaller basin of about 2.5 hectares under the
headland would have been used by the local shing
and coasting eet (Fulford, 1989), for vessels the size
of the contemporary Kyrenia ship (Casson, 1994). The
main harbour basin of 7 hectares would have provided
shelter and anchorage space for a large number of ships
after arrival and awaiting off-loading, although Rouge
concluded that it was never part of the Roman Annona
system (Rouge, 1966). The size of this basin is the same
as that of Apollonia just along the coast, where the
inner, military harbour was 5 hectares, slightly larger
than the smaller basin at Ptolemais. The entrance to
the harbour was between the two easterly moles, one
running south from the small island called Ilus, spoken
of in the 2nd century AD in the Stadiasmus Maris
Magni, and a short mole facing it running north from

2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 67
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1
the shore. On the southern tip of the mole from Ilus
there are signs that there could have been a lighthouse
or beacon marking the entrance.
The main harbour basin would have been enclosed
from the north by a breakwater between Ilus and the
Islet, which would have protected it from the prevailing
wind and sea. There would have been a road along
the breakwater to provide access to the stone quarries
on Ilus, the lighthouse and to ships moored in the lee
of the island. Kraeling noted in the 1960s that larger
vesselsshing eet leaderssheltered under the lee of
this easterly island.
The westerly island, the Islet, would have been
connected to the mainland by a wide quay built in
ashlar masonry, quite analogous to the road pavements
on shore at Ptolemais, and at neighbouring Tauchira
(Bogacki, 2012: 83). Ships in the main easterly basin
would have docked against this quay for loading and
unloading, as well as at a separate quay by the island.
The smaller second basin lay between the Islet and
the headland with direct access northwards to the
sea. This basin was probably home to the local shing
eet, as it is today, and it is reasonably sheltered. In
extremis, boats could have been drawn up on to the
beach. The shing eet could have landed their catch
on to the main quay for further sale or processing.
There are the remains of what appears to be a small
slipway at the north-western end of the quay that could
have been used to pull smaller boats on to the quay for
maintenance.
The Islet itself would have been encircled by a
substantial wall, at least 2 m wide, to protect it both
from the sea and from unauthorized access. Within
these walls there appears to have been a sizeable sh-
processing factory. Fish landed by the local eet on
the west of the quay could have been processed on the
island, and then what was not for local consumption
would have been loaded for export on to larger
ships in the main basin. This interpretation of the
complex of rock-cut tanks on the Islet as a sh factory
demonstrates the importance of these remains and
provides a reason why there was a need for such a
substantial quay connecting the Islet to the mainland.
It also potentially shows that Ptolemais was a more
important harbour than had previously been supposed,
and that, from an early date, it possessed a sophisticated
factory for the processing of tunny, along the lines of
that seen at Pachino (Felici, 2012).
It may not be entirely co-incidental that the quay
connecting the Islet to the shore appears to align
with the position where the aqueduct running down
through the city could have arrived at the shore. This
is clearly shown in the Beecheys plan of the site, but
not by Kraeling. If this is an intentional adjunct to
the resources provided on this island, either for the
provisioning of boats or as a part of the processes taking
place there, it would have fundamental implications for
the place of the island in the laying-out of the Hellenistic
city. A number of major sh facilities in Italy used fresh
68 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
water as an adjunct to the processing (Higginbotham,
1997: passim).
The headland would have had no less signicance to
shipping in antiquity than it does now, providing shelter
in bays to the east or the west according to the weather.
Undoubtedly, there would have been a light tower at its
northern end, judging by the ancient foundations that
appear in the footings of the modern lighthouse. It is
possible that it also served as a shing lookout tower
for the eet moored in the bay below.
The main use of the headland, however, appears
to have been as a large quarry for stone to build
the town and the harbour. The conclusion has also
been reached that what some commentators have
described as slipways, or shipsheds, on the western side
of the headland are simply rock-cut quarries, which
continued out seaward, and could never have been
used to launch vessels because of their height above
ancient sea-level and their exposure to the prevailing
sea.
Beecheys wall
The open bay to the west of the headland, while useful
as a shelter when the weather is from the east, was
certainly not the location of the main harbour as some
commentators have suggested, because it is too exposed
to the prevailing wind and sea. Beecheys wall at the
back of the beach was found to be set at a height that
would always have been signicantly above sea-level at
any historic period, and was not part of the harbour
works. The most plausible interpretation is that it was
some sort of esplanade along the beach between the
town and the wadi.
The style of constructionoutside faces widely
separated, interior divided into squarish rubble-lled
voidsis very similar to the wall foundation either
side of the Tocra Gate, and would therefore appear
to be contemporary with the Hellenistic defensive
circuit. The nish of the inner face is also neat work,
quite unlike the Byzantine works at Ptolemais that use
second-hand materials that do not t together very well.
The conclusion may be drawn that Beecheys wall is
more likely to be Hellenistic than later (Philip Kenrick
and David Blackman, pers. comm.).
Relative dating and phasing
Surface survey and recording did not produce
any denitive dating evidence for the phasing and
development of the harbour. However consideration
of historical evidence and the practical necessities of
operating a harbour at Ptolemais can help to provide a
possible chronology.
In the 6th century BC Ptolemais was reported as
being the harbour for Barca and the city itself developed
extensively in the Hellenistic period from 322 BC. The
Stadiasmus Maris Magni of c.1st century BC mentions
the harbour, but with just the one island that it calls Ilus.
It would seem reasonable to assume that the harbour
developed from the 6th to the 1st century BC to make
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS
it a safe anchorage and loading point for ships in all
weathers.
At that time, when relative sea-level was 22.5 m
lower, there may originally have been shallow sand bars
from the shore to the Islet, and between the Islet and
Ilus. It would still, however, have been necessary to
build a stone causeway to the Islet to provide quays for
mooring and unloading ships, and to provide access to
the quarries on the Islet. It is also likely that walls F4
and F5 were part of the early or Hellenistic construction
as they gave access directly to the Islet and would have
provided quay facilities.
In addition it would have been necessary to build a
stone breakwater between the Islet and Ilus to protect
the anchorage from the prevailing north-westerly seas
and northerly storms, without which the harbour would
have been untenable. It is therefore likely that stone
quarried from both islands would have been used to
make the initial sea defences. The harbour would still
have remained exposed to storms and seas from the east
and the north-east and so it is likely that the eastern
breakwater, Mole C, would have been added during this
period using stone quarried from Ilus.
In this development Ptolemais would not have been
alone. During the Hellenistic period the harbour at
Apollonia was built in a similar fashion. The two
offshore islands there were connected with a stone
breakwater. Quays were built out from the land to
the islands, with buildings and slipways on them and
an eastern breakwater with a lighthouse at its end
protected the entrance to the harbour (Flemming,
1971: 99, g. 14; Taylor, 1965: 173). The conguration
of the harbour at Ptolemais is thus very similar to
Apollonia and so it is not unreasonable to assume that
similar designs and technologies could have been used
contemporaneously at Ptolemais, on a smaller scale, but
with harbour basins of similar areas.
Cyrenaica and the cities of the Pentapolis passed into
Roman hands on the death of Ptolemy Apion in 96 BC,
and were in a state of neglect from their Hellenistic
heyday. It was probably not until the 1st century AD
that much new public building took place. It seems
logical that expansion of the Hellenistic harbour would
have commenced in this period to provide the facilities
that the growing city required. If not already built, the
causeway to the Islet (F) could have been expanded
to include F2 and F3, providing a large working quay
for loading and unloading ships, and the additional
quay F9 would presumably have been added at that
time.
Causeway F also provides access to the important
sh-processing facilities on the Islet. The fact that
these are rock-cut tanks would seem to place them
technologically with those at Matala in southern Crete
(Mourtzas, 2012: 2392ff), which belong to the 1st
century AD and the period when Crete and Cyrenaica
were conjoined as a Roman province. The presence of
opus signinum in one of the tanks seems to signify a
Roman date.
2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
It is, however, the position of the tanks on the island
that is important. They have been cut into the rock
at the point nearest to land whereas all the extensive
general quarrying activity is less accessible and beyond
them. It would seem likely therefore that this area was
reserved for some sort of commercial activity from
the earliest stage of the development of the Islet. It
remains a possibilty that there could also have been sh-
processing facilities here in the Hellenistic period, which
were then further developed by the Romans.
Despite the destruction recorded in Cyrenaica
especially in Cyrenefrom the earthquakes of AD
264 and of AD 365 there is actually no evidence that
the harbour at Ptolemais underwent any fundamental
change in use or deterioration from the 1st to the 6th
century AD. Diocletian had made Ptolemais the capital
of Cyrenaica under the reforms of AD 296 and there
is circumstantial evidence that Ptolemais was made
capital of the province of Creta and Cyrenaica after the
earthquake of AD 365 critically damaged the previous
capital, Gortys, in Crete. In the early 5th century AD
Synesius reports on-going shing activity and trade at
Ptolemais.
None of this would have happened if the harbour at
Ptolemais had not possessed the facilities required of a
coastal city of some importance.
When did submergence occur?
The precise period in which this submersion took place
is not immediately clear. Strong earthquakes causing
severe damage as far as Cyrene are known to have been
experienced in the locality in AD 264 and AD 365, but
there is no visible evidence at Ptolemais of destruction
under water, neither is there at Apollonia (Laronde,
1996: 349). It is believed that commercial activity
continued through the time of Synesius and the reign
of Justinian, but by the time the rst Europeans visited
the area in the 18th century, the harbour works were
entirely below water. Laronde was of the opinion that
both Ptolemais and Apollonia continued as working
administrative centres beyond the 7th century (1996:
47). It is a plausible possibility, for which, however,
there are no witnesses, that the submergence of the
harbour could have occurred in the earthquake in AD
796, during the long silent period following the Muslim
incursion in AD 642. This huge earthquake in the
Hellenic Arc and centred on Crete (Ambraseys et al.,
2005: 26) did much damage at Alexandria and was
probably also responsible for the famous submergence
of Thonis-Heraclion and Alexandria Portus Magnus
in the Nile delta. It is also the case that there was
a multitude of smaller seismic events in unrecorded
medieval history that may well have caused a gradual
sinking of the coastal area (Synolakis et al., 2014).
Ptolemais appears in the Cosmographia of Ravenna
of around AD 700 and the later re-work by Guido
of Pisa in AD 1119 (Campbell, 1987); but not
in Abd-el Hakm (Leuven, nd). We nd references
in el-Bekri (Slane, 1859) in the 12th century, and in
69
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.1

Aboulfeda (Reinaud and Guyard, 1848) in the 13th
century, but without clear evidence that the place was
more than a sheltered anchorage for light shipping.
Kennet bases his evidence for Islamic presence on a
few (27) sherds, mainly of the 12th century (Kennet,
1994: 275). According to Kennet (1994: 278279), al-
Yaqubi mentions three ports in 9th-century Cyrenaica;
Tolmeita, Benghazi and Ajdabiya, 6 miles south of
Benghazi, of which only Benghazi seems to have been
able to offer ships good protection, while Tolmeita was
usable only at certain seasons of the year.
The 15th-century map and text of Benincasa
referring to medieval Ptolemais (Brentjes, 2012) cited by
Rekowska-Ruszkowska (Rekowska-Ruszkowska, 2012:
15) supposedly following the 11th-century Al-Idrisi
(Dozy and Goeje, 1866) may be incorrect. It seems,
through some possible medieval transposition, to be
referring to Ptolemais in Palestine, to which this
description bears a remarkable resemblance (see plate
in Calmet, 1720, 470 Vol. II. E). Ptolemais appears
on many of the lists of ports of the Middle Ages
(portolani) (Nyssen, 2010), but none of the authors seem
to have visited the site, any more than apparently did the
originators of the Peutinger Itinerary or the author of
the Cosmographia. Otherwise there is no evidence that
Ptolemais had any signicant commercial role after the
Arab invasion in the 7th century AD.
Conclusion
This underwater survey has shown that the important
Cyrenaican city of ancient Ptolemais possessed
a sophisticated commercial harbour installation
comparable even with that of Apollonia further along
the coast. This is attested by the extensive letters of
Bishop Synesius in which he portrayed the busy life
and commerce at Ptolemais in the 5th century AD.
However, the historical sources appear to show that the
harbour became of less signicance by the 9th century
and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the
present-day submergence that brought its commercial
life to an end could have been caused by the earthquake
of 796 AD.

Acknowledgements
Our thanks are due to the Society for Libyan Studies who sponsored the initial project, Faculty of Classics, University of
Cambridge, the Russell Trust who provided nancial support, the Honor Frost Foundation who funded the digitisation of the
maps and plans, Andrew Yorke who prepared the plans, and to Awad Sadawya, Abdul Hameed and Budzama Abdusalem and the
contemporary Libyan Department of Antiquities. Thanks are also due to two anonymous referees who made valuable comments
that have resulted in improvements in the text.

References
Ambraseys, N. N., Melville, C. P. and Adams, R. D., 2005, The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia and the Red Sea: A Historical Review.
Cambridge.
Anon, nd, Big game shing in CroatiaTuna hunting. http://www.nautilus.hr/tuna_hunting.htm, (accessed 2/7/2014).
Arena, G., 2011, Siti costieri ed attivita produttive nella Cirenaica tardoantica. Babesch 86, 167184.
Aubet, M. E., 2001, The Phoenicians and the West: Politics Colonies and Trade. Cambridge.
Baika, K., 2014, Ptolemais in D. J. Blackman and B. Rankov (eds), Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean, 494500. Cambridge.
Barth, H., 1849, Wanderungen durch die Kustenlander des Mittelmeeres, ausgefuhrt in den Jahren 1845, 1846 und 1847. Wilhelm
Hertz.
Beechey, F. W. and Beechey, H. W., 1828, in Proceedings of the expedition to explore the northern coast of Africa, from Tripoly
Eastwards, in 1821 and 1822, 355, 376385. London.
Beloe, Rev. W., 1825. Herodotus, translated from the Greek, with Notes. London.
Beltrame, C., 2012, New Evidence for the Submerged Ancient Harbour Structures at Tolmetha and Leptis Magna, Libya. IJNA
41.2, 315326.
Boardman, J., 1966. Evidence for the Dating of Greek Settlements in Cyrenaica. The Annual of the British School at Athens 61,
151152.
Bogacki, M., 2012, Archaeological kite aerial photography in Ptolemais in years 20062008, in J. Zelazowski (ed.), Ptolemais in
Cyrenaica. Studies in memory of Tomasz Mikocki, Ptolemais 1, 7791. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology University of Warsaw.
Brentjes, J., 2012, Medieval portolan charts as documents of shared cultural spaces, in R. Addellatif, Y. Benhima, D. Konig and
E. Ruchaud (eds), Acteurs de transferts culturels en Mediterranee medievale, 135147. Munich.
Calmet, A., 1720, Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, geographique et litteral de la Bible. London.
Campbell, T., 1987, Portolan Charts from the Late Thirteenth Century to 1500, in J. B. Harley and David Woodward (eds), The
History of Cartography. Volume 1, 371463. Chicago.
Casson, L., 1994, Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times. London.
Cretu, D., 2011, The Silphium Plant and Cyrene Perfume. Transylvanian Review XX (2:1), 5566.
Davis, D. L., 2009, Commercial Navigation in the Greek and Roman World. Austin, TX.
De Graauw, A., 2012, El Hanieh ancient anchorage in Ancient Ports online database. http://www.ancientportsantiques.
com/a-few-ports/el-hanieh-ancient-anchorage/ (accessed 6/10/2010).

70 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
R. A. YORKE & D. P. DAVIDSON: SURVEY OF THE HARBOUR AT PTOLEMAIS

De Graauw, A., 2014, Apollonia in Ancient Ports online database http://www.ancientportsantiques.com/a-few-ports/apollonia/#1

(accessed 6/10/2016).
Dozy, R., and Goeje, M. J. de, 1866, Geographie del Idrisi. Description de lAfrique et de lEspagne. Leiden.
Felici, E., 2012, Un impianto con thynnoskopeion per la pesca e la salagione sulla costa meridionale della Sicilia (Pachino, SR).
Eliano, Oppiano e la tonnara antica, in E. Felici, P. Gianfrotta, L. Quilici, S. Gigli, and E. Tortorici (eds), Topografia Antica
2: Tradizione, Tecnologia e Territorio, 107143. Rome.
Flemming, N. C., 1971, Cities in the sea. Garden City, NY.
Fulford, M. G., 1989, To East and West: the Mediterranean Trade of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania in Antiquity. Libyan Studies
20, 169191.
Hesein, M. A. H., 2014, Ancient marine resource exploitation in the coastal strip of Cyrenaica: Some evidence of sh-related
industry in Cyrenaica, in V. Leitch and E. Botte (eds), Fish and Ships: Production and commerce of salsamento during Antiquity,
129141. Paris, Aix en Provence.
Higginbotham, J., 1997, Piscinae: Artificial Fishponds in Roman Italy, Studies in the History of Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill:
NC.
James, P., 2005, Archaic Greek colonies in Libya: historical vs. archaeological chronologies? Libyan Studies 36, 120.
Jones, G. D. B. and Little, J. H., 1971, Coastal Settlement in Cyrenaica. Journal of Roman Studies 61, 7179.
Kennet, D., 1991, Some Notes on Islamic Tolmeita. Libyan Studies 22, 8389.
Kennet, D., 1994, Pottery as Evidence for Trade in Medieval Cyrenaica. Libyan Studies 25, 275285.
Kenrick, P. M., 2013, Cyrenaica (Libya Archaeological Guides). London.
Kraeling, C., 1962, Ptolemais, City of the Libyan Pentapolis. Chicago.
Laronde, A., 1981, Variations du niveau de la mer sur les cotes de Cyrenaque a lepoque historique. Les Dossiers de lArcheologie
50, 6065.
Laronde, A., 1986, Les ports de la Cyrenaque : Ptolemas et Apollonia, in LAfrica Romana Atti del III Convegno di studio,
Sassari 1985, 167177. Sassari.
Laronde, A., 1996, Apollonia de Cyrenaque: Archeologie et Histoire. Journal des savants, 1996.1, 349.
Lehmann-Hartleben, K., 1923, Die Antiken Hafenanlagen des Mittelmeeres. Klio XIV, 6774.
Leuven, K. U., nd, Trismegistos interdisciplinary portal of papyrological and epigraphical resources. http://www.trismegistos.
org/index.html (accessed 27/10/2016).
Mediterranean Pilot: v. 5 (Admiralty Sailing Directions), 2005, London: UK Hydrographic Office.
Mikocki, T., Yacoub, G. and Lewartowski, K., 2010, Archaeological research in Ptolemais (Cyrenaica) in years 20012007. Libya
Antiqua 5, 99107.
Mourtzas, N. D., 2012, Fish tanks of eastern Crete (Greece) as indicators of the Roman sea level. Journal of Archaeological
Science 39.7, 23922408.
Mueller, K., 2004, Dating the Ptolemaic city-foundations in Cyrenaica. A brief note. Libyan Studies 35, 110.
Muller, C. F. W., 1855, Stadiasmus Maris Magni (Africa section), in Geographi Graeci Minores, Vol 1, 427514.
Nyssen, M. W., 2010, From Varro to Peutinger. www.semafoor.net/actueelSEMsiteTP-RavDOCeng.pdf (accessed 28/10/2016).
Pacho, J.-R., 1827, Relation dun voyage dans la Marmarique., 2 Vols., Paris.
Reinaud, J. T. and Guyard, S., 1848, Geographie dAboulfeda. Paris.
Rekowska-Ruszkowska, M., Kijak, A., 2016, In pursuit of ancient Cyrenaica: two hundred years of exploration set against the
history of archaeology in Europe (17061911). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Rekowska-Ruszkowska, M., 2012. Ptolemais in early European research and topography of the city in travellers accounts, in J.
Zelazowski (ed.), Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. Studies in Memory of Tomasz Mikocki. Ptolemais I, 134. Warsaw.
Rouge, J., 1966, Recherches sur lorganisation du commerce maritime en Mediterranee sous lEmpire romain. Paris.
Scranton, R. L., Shaw, J. W. and Ibrahim, L., 1978, Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth: Vol 1: topography and architecture. Leiden.
Slane, M. G. de (transl), 1859, Description de lAfrique septentrionale par El-Bekri. Paris.
Synesius. (d. AD 413). Letters. Retrieved from http://www.livius.org/susz/synesius/synesius_letters.html (accessed 6/10/2016).
Synolakis, C. E., Findikakis, A. N., Valle, B. L., Kalligeris, N., Okal, E. A. and Melilla, L., 2014, Plausible megathrust tsunamis
in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering and Computational Mechanics 167.3, 99105.
Taylor, J. du P., 1965, Marine Archaeology: Developments During Sixty Years in the Mediterranean. London.
Tusa, S., 2009, Rapporto preliminare della missione italiana per lo studio dellarcheologia costiera. https://www.academia.
edu/10004545/ (accessed 20/8/2015).
Varro, Marcus Terentius, de Re Rustica, Liber III., in W. D. Hooper and H. B. Ash, (trans.), 1934, Cato and Varro on Agriculture.
Loeb Classics, London.
Wilson, A., 2004, Cyrenaica and the Late Antique Economy. Ancient West and East 3, 143154.
Yorke, R. A., 1972, A Survey of Ancient Harbours in Cyrenaica. Libyan Studies 3, 34
Yorke, R. A. and Davidson, D. P., 1973, Tolmeita and TocraRoman Harbours of Cyrenaica, in Davis, M. (ed.), Underwater
Association Minisymposium, 2023. http://www.academia.edu/5180894/Tolmeita_and_Tocra_-_Roman_Harbours_of_
Cyrenaica_Yorke_and_Davidson._UA_Minisymposium_1973 (accessed 27/10/2016).
Yorke, R. A., Davidson, D. P. and Little, J. H., 1972, Pentapolis Project 1972A Survey of Ancient Harbours in Cyrenaica
interim report. Unpublished report.
Yorke, R. A., Davidson, D. P. and Little, J. H., 1973, A survey of ancient harbours in Cyrenaica. IJNA 2, 200201.
Zelazowski, J., 2011, Polish Archaeological Research in Ptolemais (Libya) in 2007-2009. Preliminary Report, in Annual of the
Institute of Archaeology of University of Warsaw VIII, 928. Warsaw.

2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 71