Accessibility navigation


More than “the last monument of Byzantine rule in Cyrenaica” Taucheira in late antiquity

Williams, M., Penn, T. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4472-9031 and Jacobs, I. (2024) More than “the last monument of Byzantine rule in Cyrenaica” Taucheira in late antiquity. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 117 (3). pp. 901-956. ISSN 1868-9027

[img] Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only until 9 October 2025.
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

626kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1515/bz-2024-1170311

Abstract/Summary

The city of Taucheira (modern Tocra) in Cyrenaica, Libya, has played a prominent role in established narratives of the 7th-century Arab conquest of Byzantine North Africa ever since excavations by Richard Goodchild in the 1960s uncovered a substantial walled compound there. Goodchild interpreted the compound as a fortress — “the last monument of Byzantine rule in Cyrenaica” — built in haste in the face of the approaching Arabs inside a much larger set of walls traditionally ascribed to the reign of Justinian I (r. 527–565). In the more than half a century since Goodchild’s publication of the walled compound, late antique and Byzantine studies have undergone radical transformations, but narratives around the walled compound at Taucheira, and about the city itself, have not been considered critically. This article presents a combined historical and archaeological reassessment of the city in light of contemporary developments in scholarship and argues that Taucheira was a vibrant urban centre throughout late antiquity, provided with walls at some point between the late 5th century and the Justinianic period. Detailed re-examination of the walled compound indicates it could not have served an effective defensive function and is better interpreted as an administrative area. Moreover, an Anastasian construction date is more probable than the conventionally accepted date in the 640s CE.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Humanities > Classics
ID Code:119163
Publisher:De Gruyter

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation