A great part of the aqueduct, however, is built in a far less solid manner—of concrete blocks or of small irregular stones. The arches were still of cut masonry, but much inferior in execution, and there was a considerable space between the top of the extrados and the bottom of the specus. The mere fact of masonry of this character being used, pisé in fact, by no means proves it to be of modern origin, as Pliny informs us that this description of masonry was much in use amongst the ancient Carthaginians.[101] In some places a threatened danger had been guarded against by the erection of rough and massive counterforts. Along the plain of the Oued Melian, in a length of nearly two miles, we counted 344 arches still entire.

The aqueduct passed the river on a double series of arches. These were all destroyed in order to make use of their foundations for the modern bridge which now carries the water across, and serves at the same time as a viaduct. One cannot but deplore that such a miserable economy was effected at so great a price. We dare hardly vent our feelings of indignation at the wholesale destruction of antiquities daily carried on by the Arabs, after such an act of needless Vandalism.

From this point to Carthage, along the plains of the Mohammedia, the Manouba and Ariana,[102] the ancient aqueduct is completely ruined. It is not clear when Bruce visited this locality, probably during the ‘some weeks excursion of no moment’ which followed his first return from the south. He thus describes the aqueduct:—

There is a magnificent aqueduct, still in a great many places entire. The beginning of this ruin is at Arriana, a village about six miles from Tunis. It is built of a particular species of stone, nearly of the colour of chalk, but of an exceeding hard quality, which seems to have been brought from the neighbourhood of that city, where there are whole mountains of it, probably the cause why it was called Λευκὸν Τύνετα. Fifteen of its arches only are standing; the rest are entirely ruined, and scarcely a vestige of them to be seen as you approach nearer Carthage.

Dr. Shaw states that this is the most entire part, as well as the most magnificent, which is not true, for in the plains under Uthina there is a continuation of the aqueduct over a very large valley . . . .[103] of whose arches are still standing, superior in height, solidity, and ornament to those at Arriana, of a brownish stone, brought from the neighbouring quarries at Uthina. The river Miliana runs below it, and notwithstanding the great pains taken to secure it [the river] has at length undermined the foundation, and brought down two of the largest and most beautiful rows of arches, which were built across it.

Bruce’s illustrations of this work are:

1. A perspective view of five bays of the aqueduct, probably from the plain of Ariana, where it has been entirely destroyed to supply building material for the modern city of Tunis ([Pl. X.])

2. A drawing in Indian ink to scale, of elevation of an arch and a half of the above. Also a section and an enlarged drawing of four of the stones.

The dimensions marked on this are:

Ft.in.lines.
Total height69112
Height to top of impost45116
Height of arch785½
Height above arch1626½
Breadth of pier1185
Thickness of pier at base1641
Space between piers1553