Every time I lead tours to Cherchell, I witness the same reaction from the people who travel with me. It starts with slight mistrust as we drive through the town’s chaotic streets to reach the Esplanade and Place des Martyrs, but at the end of the visit this is replaced by utter excitement after they have learned about the glorious past of Caesarea, and have seen its physical remains on display in the local museum and sticking out of the modern urban fabric here and there. I think many students and researchers have a similar experience of Cherchell when they approach it for the first time. The fragmentation of the datasets and the inaccessibility of much of the archaeological evidence can be disheartening, but it is a very rewarding process once one has put all the pieces together. The aim of this book is to overcome some of these issues through the creation of an epigraphic corpus of ancient Caesarea, gathering the results of past and present research and assessing these inscriptions within Mauretania’s broader historical and archaeological framework. The focus is on Juba II and Ptolemy’s client kingdom (25 BC to AD 40), but the earlier stages of the Mauretanian kingdom during the second–first centuries BC and its final transition into a Roman province are also taken into account. This publication is therefore a most welcome initiative.

The first chapter of the book (13–19), co-authored by Bruno Baudoin and Stéphanie Satre, explains the origin of the project with the creation of the open-access EpiCherchell database hosted by the Centre Camille Jullian, Aix-en-Provence (https://ccj-epicherchel.huma-num.fr/fr/le-projet-epicherchel/). Easily navigable and searchable, this web-based resource complements other recent projects that have enhanced the accessibility of North African inscriptions substantially, in particular the digital editions of the epigraphic corpora of Roman-period Cyrenaica (IRCyr2020: https://ircyr2020.inslib.kcl.ac.uk/en/) and Tripolitania (IRT2021: https://irt2021.inslib.kcl.ac.uk/en/). Indeed, the EpiCherchell database represents the core of the Corpus des Inscriptions Antiques de Caesarea Mauretaniae (ICaesMaur), while the present book engages with a selection of texts on the specific period under examination.

The next two chapters offer a general discussion, contextualization and synthesis of the analysis of the inscriptions catalogued in the second part of the book. In chapter 2, Philippe Leveau traces the history of archaeological discoveries at Caesarea and outlines the urban development of the city at the time of the client kingdom (21–86). Drawing upon his numerous contributions, including his pivotal study of the ancient city and its hinterland (Leveau Reference Leveau1984), the author presents an up-to-date, detailed account and brings together data that otherwise one could only find scattered across old and new reports, chronicles, articles, books, and archival fonds. The archaeology of Cherchell has suffered from the typical deficiencies of colonial-period research and from the obliteration of the ancient city underneath the modern fabric. Apart from more conspicuous buildings such as the theatre, the amphitheatre, the West Baths, and a small portion of the (Severan) forum, the rest of the archaeological evidence is represented by tantalizing bits of walls or decorative elements that came to light during past, very limited, excavations and are no longer visible today. The remains of a residential complex on the Esplanade, interpreted as a probable palace of Juba II, and those of Roman houses in the east and west districts of the town are a case in point. The same applies to the traces of masonry belonging to the lighthouse on the Îlot Joinville. Luckily, to this scant evidence one can add numerous works of art, large- and small-scale sculpture, architectural ornament, and mosaics, many of which are on display in the Musée National de Cherchell and in the Musée National des Antiquités in Algiers. These have been thoroughly discussed in recent and less recent scholarship and have shaped our understanding of the kingdom of Juba II, his wife Cleopatra Selene, and their son Ptolemy – a special place where Greek, Roman, and North African cultures were blended together (see, in particular, on sculpture: Landwehr Reference Landwehr1993; Reference Landwehr2000; Reference Landwehr2006; Reference Landwehr2008; on architectural ornament: Pensabene Reference Pensabene1982a,Reference Pensabeneb; on mosaics: Ferdi Reference Ferdi2005).

In the absence of other evidence, the proposed chronology of some buildings rests upon the typology of masonry of the extant walls. One should be aware of the limitations of using building techniques for dating purposes. While it is ascertained that reticulate masonry (‘opus reticulatum’ according to Vitruvius’ terminology) was introduced to Caesarea at the time of Juba II, it is unclear for how long the technique remained in use afterwards. For instance, the reticulate framed by brick masonry on a wall of the Ennabod residential complex also resembles examples of Trajanic-Hadrianic date (a useful online tool for the study of ancient building techniques is the multilingual ACoR – Atlas des techniques de la Construction Romaine: https://acor.huma-num.fr). A thorough study of building techniques at Caesarea – and at other archaeological sites in Algeria – is a major desideratum, which would finally allow us to fill this gap.

The absence of stratigraphic data is a problem, but in those cases where stratigraphic excavation was possible, such as in the forum sector investigated by a British-Algerian team in 1977–81, the results have been illuminating (Benseddik and Potter Reference Benseddik and Potter1993). The stylistic analysis of the Corinthian capitals from the forum portico points to a date in the Augustan/Julio-Claudian period, but the stratigraphy has demonstrated that the portico and piazza were built in the early third century AD, so those elements must have been recycled from an earlier building. Comparanda from other areas of the Roman world are discussed in the chapter in relation to Juba and Ptolemy’s residential complexes at Caesarea, which help readers contextualize the kings’ cultural and political agendas. A note of caution is required on the so-called ‘palace of Lixus’, which is problematic due to the recent misinterpretation of part of the archaeological evidence and stratigraphic data (for a review of these issues, see Mugnai Reference Mugnai2018, 156–64, with bibliography). I should stress that these observations and small critiques do not detract from the value of Leveau’s chapter, which is an indispensable resource for the study of Caesarea and will become a standard reference for anyone interested in the subject.

Chapter 3, co-authored by Leveau and Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, engages with the epigraphic dataset and examines social and cultural practices under the Mauretanian kingdom (87–115). The remarks presented in these pages add further information to appreciate the character of the local society at this crucial stage of Mauretania’s history, supplementing previous studies of Juba’s reign (especially Coltelloni-Trannoy Reference Coltelloni-Trannoy1997; Roller Reference Roller2003). The first section deals with the origin of Algeria’s epigraphic collections, focusing on past efforts to collect and study the texts from Cherchell. The reasons that led to the choice of inscriptions in the present book are outlined, with particular regard to the criteria used to date the texts (see further below). Given the predominance of funerary inscriptions in the corpus, some hypotheses are advanced to propose a more precise location of tombs in the necropolises to the west and east of Caesarea. The possible topographic connections between cemeteries and sanctuaries of Ba’al Hammon/Saturn (the cult is attested by numerous dedications) are also explored. The last part of the chapter looks at the physical characteristics of the inscriptions: types of stone employed; shape of the stone support; iconography; and relationship between language and the visual message these texts were meant to convey.

The catalogue (117–326) encompasses 189 texts grouped as follows: inscriptions related to the client kings, their extended household, as well as the military (ICaesMaur I, 1–46); religious dedications (ICaesMaur I, 47–71); funerary epitaphs (by far the largest group in the corpus: ICaesMaur I, 72–157); stonemasons’ marks (ICaesMaur I, 158.1–14); and inscriptions in languages other than Latin (ICaesMaur I, 159–89). Along with Punic/Neo-Punic and Libyan texts, the latter group includes two statues inscribed with hieroglyphs and attesting to Cleopatra Selene’s Egyptian legacy (ICaesMaur I, 166–67), while the majority of non-Latin inscriptions is represented by Greek, mostly funerary, texts (ICaesMaur I, 168–89). The catalogue entries are written by different authors (a list of contributors is given at the beginning of the book), but readers will appreciate the consistency in their structure and contents. Each entry features: a description of the stone support and epigraphic text; the indication of the findspot, if known, and the current location; measurements; previous bibliography; a transcription of the extant text (plus expanded reading in the case of Latin inscriptions) and translation into French; a commentary on the text and the proposed date. A single black-and-white photograph is included for each inscription (unless it has gone missing), but those interested can find additional images (some also in colour) on the EpiCherchell online database. An index of personal names (including those of rulers and divinities), places, and ancient professions is provided (357–61), followed by tables of concordances between the ICaesMaur I and other epigraphic corpora (362–76).

As pointed out in chapter 3, the chronology of some inscriptions is not easy to establish. The specificities of epigraphic formulas on Latin funerary texts, such as the absence of an opening dedication to the D(iis) M(anibus) and other criteria, are used here to propose a date within the period of Mauretania’s client kingdom, but the distinction is not always straightforward. In fact, some of these texts may date to the Roman provincial period, post-AD 40 (this is actually ascertained for a group of Greek epitaphs: ICaesMaur I, 177–89). These are common problems epigraphers have to deal with, and it is appreciated that the dating criteria are explained in each entry so that readers can judge for themselves. Unless the text is particularly fragmentary, commentaries are comprehensive and engage with the relevant literature.

In conclusion, this is an important and timely publication that will assist scholars and students alike in their research on ancient Caesarea. It fits well with other recent initiatives to enhance the accessibility of Cherchell’s cultural heritage, in particular the reorganization of the ‘Old Museum’ collections that was made possible thanks to a partnership between the Algerian authorities and the German Archaeological Institute in Rome (see Amedick and Froning Reference Amedick and Froning2012; Kreilinger and Atif Hamza Reference Kreilinger and Atif Hamza2019). Hopefully a solution will be found soon to enable access to the collections of the ‘New Museum’ as well (the building has been shut for many years due to structural problems). The expansion of the tourism sector also attests to a growing interest in the country’s heritage, and the recent publication of an English-language archaeological guidebook has been a major step in this direction (Blas de Roblès et al. Reference Blas de Roblès, Sintes and Kenrick2019). There are ongoing issues that make field research in Algeria complicated (see Ardeleanu Reference Ardeleanu2021), but one can hope this renewed attention to Caesarea’s history, urbanism, epigraphy, and archaeology – as shown by this book and other projects – will act as a catalyst to encourage especially local archaeologists and researchers to carry out new fieldwork. For example, advanced non-invasive techniques of archaeological prospection (in particular GPR) have been employed successfully in densely urbanized contexts elsewhere, and these could be tested in areas such as Place des Martyrs and surroundings, Place de la Mosquée Er-Rahmane, portions of the sea front, and the town outskirts to achieve a better understanding of Caesarea’s ancient urbanism. It would be delightful to see some of these field activities under way on one of my next visits to Cherchell.