Proceedings of the expedition to explore the northern coast of Africa, from Tripoly eastward

by Frederick William Beechey; H. W. Beechey

A great part of the city has been constructed with brick; and the material which has been used in the instances here alluded to maintains remarkably well the high character which Roman brick has so deservedly acquired. The remains of the stadium are perhaps the most interesting, in speaking of the buildings which have been constructed with stone; they have been partially excavated by Captain Smyth, (to whose account we refer the reader) together with some other buildings; but the task of clearing them entirely would be too Herculean for limited means, and the same may be observed with respect to other parts of Leptis Magna in general.

For our own part, however much we might have been inclined to remain some time at Lebida, the necessity of our immediate advance precluded the possibility of doing so; for the approach of the rainy season made it absolutely necessary that we should cross the low grounds of the Syrtis without delay: and it must be remembered that the coast-line of the Syrtis and Cyrenaica was the principal object of the Expedition.

Leptis Magna was built at an early period by the Phœnicians, and was ranked, after Carthage and Utica, as the first of their maritime cities. After the destruction of Carthage it flourished under the government of the Romans, and was remarkable, as we are informed by Sallust, for its fidelity and obedience[2].

After the occupation of Northern Africa by the Vandals, the walls and fortifications of Leptis appear to have been dismantled or destroyed[3]: they were probably afterwards restored under Justinian, when the city became the residence of the Prefect Sergius; and we find them, on the authority of Leo Africanus, to have been finally demolished by the Saracens[4].

From that time the city appears to have been wholly abandoned; and its remains were employed in the construction of Modern Tripoly, as Leo has also informed us.

During the Prefecture of Sergius, who presided over the district of Tripolis[5], Leptis Magna was attacked by a neighbouring African tribe; and Sergius himself, after some previous successes, was reduced to seek shelter within the walls of the city, to which alone he appears to have been indebted for safety. A party of Moors, of the tribe called Levatæ, had encamped under the walls of Leptis, to receive from the governor the reward of past fidelity, and the bribe for their future good conduct. Eighty of their deputies were accordingly introduced into the town, and admitted to a conference with the Prefect. On the statement of certain grievances of which they complained Sergius rose to leave the tribunal; but one of the suppliants detained him by the robe, while the rest of the deputies pressed nearer to his person and urged their demands in louder terms. Provoked at this insolence, an officer of the Prefect drew his sword and plunged it into the Moor, and the death of this imprudent offender became the signal for a general massacre. One only of the Levatæ escaped from the city to bear the melancholy news of the slaughter of his companions to the rest of the tribe without the walls. They instantly took up arms and invested the city; and though at first repulsed with great loss by a sally of the Romans, they shortly after succeeded in defeating the Prefect; and his general Pudentius, having incautiously exposed himself, was cut off and slain in the field. Sergius retired with the remainder of his army upon the city, and shut himself up within its walls; but as he was incapable of continuing the contest with advantage, he finally withdrew to Carthage, in order to claim the assistance of his uncle, and induce him to march his army against the Moors[6]. The result of the engagement which afterwards took place was fatal to the cause of the Romans; for Solomon, who had so ably filled the place of Belisarius, was slain in the field of Tebeste[7], and the Prefect was once more compelled to seek safety in flight[8].

The tribe Levatæ, mentioned in the Narrative of Procopius, of which we have just given the substance, has in later times been noticed by Leo Africanus, and said to have inhabited that part of the desert of Libya which lies between Augela and the Nile[9]. The same author adds that they are of an African race; and we may further remark, with respect to this tribe, that the appellation of Levatæ, by which it was distinguished, has been supposed by Major Rennell (in his illustrations of Herodotus) to have given birth to the Grecian term Libya[10].

It will be observed that the suggestion of the ingenious author quoted below, with respect to the retreat of the Levatæ into the interior, is confirmed by the account of Procopius; who tells us that “the Moors, called Levatæ, dwelt in the neighbourhood of Leptis Magna[11];” and we have seen that they were found in the time of Leo Africanus to have inhabited the parts between Augela and the Nile.

With regard to the derivation of the term Libya, suggested by Major Rennell, we may remark that Herodotus has himself derived it from the name of a female native of Africa bearing the same appellation[12]; and it is probable that had there been any other tradition existing in his time on the subject, it would have been mentioned with that which he has recorded. The several tribes which in his æra inhabited the northern coast of Africa have also been enumerated by Herodotus; and no mention is made among these of any race of people called Levatæ. It is evident also that his knowledge of Africa was not confined to recent occurrences or to the actual state of the country in his own time; for he has given us very clear and minute details of events which took place several centuries before that period, among which may be instanced the account which he has transmitted of the first occupation of the country by the Greeks, described in the Fourth Book of his Geography, and alluded to in the passage above quoted from Major Rennell.

We may observe, on the ground of these objections, that, if the derivation suggested be actually correct, it must, in all probability, have taken place long before the period of Herodotus; but there is at the same time no positive proof on their authority that it may not have been possibly the true one.