The Tripolitanian countryside and a monetary economy: data from the archaeological survey of the territory of Leptis Magna (Libya)

THE

JOURNAL

OF

ARCHÆOLOGICAL

NUMISMATICS

VOLUME 3 – 2013

CEN – BRUXELLES

JAN 3, 2013, P. 67-88

– 67 –

THE TRIPOLITANIAN COUNTRYSIDE AND A MONETARY ECONOMY:DATA FROM THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE TERRITORY OFLEPTIS MAGNA (LIBYA)

MassimilianoMunzi *

Abstract – In identifying forms of a cash economy in the countryside of Roman times a persisting pro-blem is the shortage and dishomogeneity of numismatic documentation. e findings from investigatedsites and the occasional recoveries of hoards appear a sort of window of archaeological and numismaticvisibility in a rural environment apparently characterized by a lack of metallic currencies, as shown bythe majority of archaeological surveys, which seldom recover coins, and then in minimal numbers. As aconsequence, the spatial dimension of monetary circulation in rural areas still remains difficult to define.e survey conducted by the University Roma Tre in the territory of Leptis Magna (Tripolitania, Libya)could help to fill this gap. e surfaces of the settlements identified have produced abundant numismaticmaterial, which give a reasonable idea of the monetary circulation in rural Tripolitania.

Riassunto – Nell’identificare forme di economia monetaria nelle campagne d’età romana la difficoltàprincipale rimane l’oggettiva penuria di documentazione. Le monete che pure emergono puntualmentedai contesti rurali sottoposti a scavo e i recuperi occasionali di tesoretti appaiono quasi delle finestre divisibilità archeologico-numismatica in un panorama di apparente assenza di moneta, quale è quellorestituito dalle ricerche archeologiche di superficie, che generalmente non raccolgono materiale numisma-tico, se non in ridottissime quantità. La conseguenza è che rimane difficilmente definibile la dimensionetopografica della circolazione monetaria in ambito rurale. Le ricognizioni dell’Università Roma Tre nelterritorio di Leptis Magna (Tripolitania, Libia) possono contribuire a colmare questa lacuna documen-taria. L’abbondante rinvenimento in superficie di materiale numismatico permette di farsi un’idea ab-bastanza articolata della circolazione monetaria nella Tripolitania rurale.

Résumé – Un problème de fond perdure dans l’identification des formes d’économie monétaire dans lescampagnes de l’époque romaine, celui de la pénurie ou, mieux, de la disparité de la documentation. Lestrouvailles sur les sites fouillés et les récupérations occasionnelles de trésors ne peuvent apparaître quecomme des fenêtres de visibilité archéo-numismatique dans un environnement rural présentant une ap-parente absence de monnaies, tel que restitué par les prospections archéologiques de surface, qui générale-ment ne récoltent pas le matériel numismatique, si ce n’est en infime quantité. La conséquence est que ladimension topographique de la circulation monétaire en milieu rural demeure difficilement définissable.Les prospections conduites par l’Université Roma Tre dans le territoire de Leptis Magna (Tripolitaine,Libye) ont permis de combler cette lacune documentaire. Les abondantes découvertes de matériel numis-matique lors de prospections de surface permettent de se faire une idée assez précise de la structure de lacirculation monétaire dans la Tripolitaine rurale.

Is it possible to talk about monetary economics for the countryside of Roman times?If Crawford still in 1970 believed that in the ancient world only cities were affected by

monetary economy [1], the studies of the last decades, especially those of Chr. Howgego,now suggest the extension of monetization also to rural areas [2]. A մեndamental problem,

* Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali; Missione Archeologica dell’Università Roma Tre in Libia;[email protected] warmly thank Richard Reece for the revision of the English version of this paper.

[1] Crawford 1970, p. 43-44.[2] On the spread of the monetary economy in the countrysides of Roman Imperial times: de Ligt 1990;

Howgego 1992, p. 20; Ørsted 1994.

Massimil iano MUNZI

– 68 –

however, persists in identifying forms of a cash economy in a rural context and the short-age and disparity of numismatic documentation. Urban settlements provide most of theancient numismatic material, simply because it is in the urban context that archaeologicalexcavations have been traditionally focused. However, it is misleading to think that nu-mismatic findings are lacking in the countryside. Indeed coins appear regularly in almostall rural contexts archaeologically investigated, not only in the central and more developedregions of the Roman Empire, such as Italy for example, but also in the more peripheralprovinces such as Britannia [3]. e phenomenon of hoarding also seems to be widespreadin rural areas. e findings from investigated sites and the occasional recoveries of hoardsappear to provide good evidence – a sort of window of archaeological and numismaticvisibility in a rural environment apparently characterized by a lack of metallic currencies.is superficial picture is shown by the majority of archaeological surveys, which seldomrecover coins, and then in minimal numbers [4]. As a consequence of this state of research,the spatial dimension of monetary circulation in rural areas still remains difficult to define.

Fig. 1 – Survey of Lepcitan territory: the settle-ments in the 2nd cent. ad. utm grid (each square

is 10#10 km) (© Missione archeologicadell’Università Roma Tre in Libia)

Fig. 2 – Survey of Lepcitan territory:settlements with numismatic finds.

utm grid (each square is 10#10 km)(© M. Munzi)

[3] Reece 1988.[4] On the interpretation of the numismatic finds from archaeological surveys: Munzi & Felici 2011.

TRIPOL ITANIAN COUNTRYSIDE

– 69 –

e survey conducted between 1995 and 2007 in the territory of Leptis Magna (Tripoli-tania, Libya) by the Archaeological Mission of the University Roma Tre, led by Luisa Musso, represents one of the few exceptions to the framework described above [5] (fig. 1). e co-pious finding of numismatic material recovered on the surface of the documented sites can give a reasonable idea of the monetary circulation in rural Tripolitania [6]. It is obvious that in the Tripolitanian context the circulation might have specific local aspects, but some basic characteristics may apply to other rural, mainly agricultural, aspects of the Roman period.

e numismatic analyses concerning Tripolitania have, until now, been based on the coins, lost or hoarded, revealed by the excavations in the monumental coastal cities, pri-marily Leptis Magna and Sabratha. Extra-urban numismatic discoveries have so far been few. Among these huge treasure recovered at Suk el-Kedim near Misurata stands out, dating from the time of Constantine, perhaps the pay of a military detachment or a deposit of coins withdrawn from circulation [7]. But this can still give only minimal information about the daily use of coins in the countryside. e diachronic evolution of the circulation (the identification of eventual trends of diffusion and reduction of monetary use) and its topographical dimension (in what types of settlement and land-use the money was distri-buted) have completely escaped research. When, where and in what quantity the money circulated in the countryside, these are still open questions.

e Roma Tre archaeological survey in the Lepcitan territory helps to fill this docu-mentary gap. e surfaces of the 392 settlements identified in the survey samples of the wadi Caam-Taraglat (trg), Silin (sln) and Khoms (khm), located between the fertile oases of the coast and the arid pre-desert, have produced not only a huge quantity of pottery, but also abundant numismatic material. In particular, 287 ancient coins were found in association with 37 of these settlements (fig. 2 and 3).

trg sln khm total

Settlements with coins 26 3 8 37

Coins 273 3 11 287

Fig. 3 – Numismatic finds according the survey samples: trg = wadi Caam-Taraglat; sln = coastal area of Silin;

khm = area between Ras al-Mergheb and Ras al-Hammam immediately south of Leptis Magna and the modern town of Khoms

ese are mainly villas and farms, equipped with torcularia for olive-oil production

(fig. 4). Created during the Punic-Numidian centuries or, more frequently, at the begin-ning of the Roman Imperial period, such rural buildings were inhabited until late Anti-quity, when some of them received a defensive restructuring. e coins found on their surfaces (belonging to the category of the coins lost and not recovered) can give an idea of the intensity of monetary use and give the chance to follow, as an overall trend, the oscilla-tions in frequency of monetary presence in the region over the centuries (fig. 5). [5] Recently Munzi 2010a-b. I take this opportunity to thank the friends Enrico Cirelli, Fabrizio Felici, Mua Hadad, Jabar Matoug, Gianluca Schingo and Andrea Zocchi for their collaboration to the survey project.

[6] Munzi 2004. A similar abundance of numismatic finding was documented in the survey of Segermes (Tunisia): Grinder-Hansen 1995.

[7] e hoard consists of 108,000 nummi, ranging from the years of the first Tetrachy to ad 333; the coins were contained in jars hidden in a rural building or cursus publicus station, affected by a violent des-truction in ad 333-334: Garraffo 1996, p. 179-181 2012.

Massimi l iano MUNZ I

– 70 –

Fig. 4 – Open villa trg 197, built in opus africanum and equipped with torcularia, 1st – first half

of the 5th cent. ad, post-antique occupation: 12 coins have been found on its surface (© M. Munzi)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

iii-ii bc

i-ii ad

260-270 ad

radiates imitations

294-330 ad

330-348 ad

348-364 ad

364-402 ad

402-425 ad

protovandales

illeg. iv-v ad

x-xi ad

modern

Fig. 5 – Chronological distribution of the numismatic finds

On this documentary basis it appears immediately evident that during Hellenistic and early Roman Imperial centuries, until at least the middle of the 3rd century ad, coin losses remained at very low levels. Indeed only a few bronze Punic, Numidian and early Imperial


– 71 –

coins have been recovered [8], to which an Augustan silver denarius of Peloponnesian mint must be added (cat. no 28). It seems probable that during this long period the small every-day transactions within villas and farms were frequently made without monetary means. Coins perhaps assumed the role of wealth preservation. is մեnction is attested for the Punic-Numidian period by the phenomenon of hoarding, documented in the Jebel Tar-huna [9] and in the Tripolitanian pre-desert [10], just outside the area of our archaeological investigation.

e marked rise of coin losses dates to the second half of the 3rd century ad. is ar-chaeological evidence could mirror an actual intensification of monetary circulation. e low quality antoniniani of Gallienus, Claudius II, the Gallic Empire and especially their imitations (the so-called barbarous radiates) might well at that time have become the basis of the circulation [11].

e spreading of the monetization of the countryside continued and improved in the following century. e coins of the 4th century ad have been found in even larger quan-tities in the surveyed settlements. Even without reaching the exceptional levels recorded in Egypt [12], daily exchanges in the Lepcitan countryside, particularly along the wadi Taraglat, seem then to have been converted to metallic money. Beyond the emissions of Constantinian, Valentinian and eodosian emperors, the already mentioned radiate imi-tations were certainly still in use. is emergency money was well difմեsed in Tripolitania, in urban as well as in rural areas [13]. Such bronze fractions, lower in value than any con-temporary official billon or bronze coins, were the most suitable monetary means to regulate the small transactions, specific to the poorest segment of the population [14]. us, in daily practice, a joint monetary system took form, in which the radiate imitations were fractions of the official currencies. Such a system was perhaps particularly suited to the needs of the rural Tripolitanian settlements, where internal transactions were lower in value then the smallest official coin, and therefore probably paid in kind until the intro-duction of the radiate imitations. Inside and around the farms the small transactions between settlers, shepherds, artisans and itinerant traders required small cash. Also those between domini, conductores / tenants and coloni could occasionally require the use of bronze coins, for example for low fees of the rental of small and scattered plots of land [15]. On the other hand, recourse to credit systems, a possible alternative for the internal ex-

[8] Catalogue nos 1, 31, 38, 204, 246, 274 (Punic coins), 277(?), 280 (Numidian) and 32, 36 (?), 257, 275 (early Roman Imperial).

[9] Hoard of 176 Numidian coins at al-Khadra/Breviglieri: Alexandropoulos 2000, p. 150, 169-170. [10] Hoard of Punic coins in the wadi Soffegin: Jenkins 1974, p. 32. [11] Catalogue nos 2-6, 19-21, 23, 29, 37, 184, 205, 211, 221-225, 235-241, 272, 278. On the radiate imitations in Tripolitania: Macaluso 1992; Garraffo 1996.

[12] On the high level of monetarization in Egypt and Levant: Morrisson 2004. [13] For the inventory of Tripolitanian hoards with radiate imitations: Macaluso 1992. In the rural context, properly inside our survey area, it is worth noting the treasure found during the colonial period at Gasr Silin (Bartoccini 1922).

[14] e unofficial radiates may be culturally confronted with the wooden, lead, and copper tlacos used in Nueva Espana, remembered by Fernand Braudel (1979, p. 392), and with the tokens used in the haciendas and fazendas of 19th century Latin America (cfr. Moreno Fraginals, Pulido Ledesma s.d. p. 66-67 for the Cuban case).

[15] At the end of the 5th century ad the payments of small sums with coins of little value should be registered in the Tablettes Albertini: Ørsted 1994.


– 72 –

changes well known in the economically more advanced rural Fayoum [16], appears in no way attested.

e monetization developed at just the time when Tripolitanian rural settlements were affected by a general defensive restructuring, substantially on private initiative, with the creation of a new rural architectural type, the gasr (pl. gsur) (fig. 6). According to the sur-vey data, between the middle of the 3rd century and the 4th century ad, in connection with the partial dismantling of the Tripolitanian limes which exposed the oriental region to the raids of the nomads coming from the Syrtic oases, fortified farms were built ex novo or produced by restructuring previous open villas or farms. ese buildings, like the pyrgoi of Levant [17], had a double մեnction, residential (house and store) and defensive, equipped to repel low-intensity dangers, such as nomadic raiders. At the same time the imports of fine pottery from other provinces, which characterized the previous centuries, stopped and the production of a local fine pottery (Tripolitanian sigillata) started. As a consequence the economic vitality of the region, which continued to send oil to Rome [18], probably in-creased.

Fig. 6 – Fortified farm trg 184, built in ashlar masonry, 4th-first half 5th cent. ad, post-antique occupation: 12 coins have been found on its surface (© M. Munzi)

e Lepcitan territory was not reached by new arrival of Imperial coinage aer the third decade of the 5th century ad. While the emissions of the first decade are still present in the record, only few later coins have been brought to light by the survey (nos 67-69). To a more advanced time of the same century belong just some proto-Vandalic imitations of the Imperial nummi, bearing on the reverse the cross or the eight-pointed star in wreath, minted in Carthage or elsewhere in Vandalic Africa [19] (no 214-215, 258). is does not ne-

[16] Rathbone 1991. [17] On the Tripolitanian gsur see now Cirelli, Felici & Munzi 2012; on the pyrgoi of Levant cf. Decker 2006. [18] Ciotola & Munzi 2012. [19] For the chronology of the proto-Vandalic emissions: Asolati 2005, p. 47-51 2006, pp. 121 and 127-133 (third quarter of the 5th century); Arslan 2007, p. 19-25 (possible continuation of the production in Italy until the Longobard period).


– 73 –

cessarily mean that the rural economy had lost its monetary character. It is quite likely that in rural areas the old 4th century coins continued to be used [20]. e same could be said for the radiate imitations, whose production perhaps went on for a long time. Indeed the ra-diates remained in use at least until the beginning of the 6th century ad: in a hoard hidden in the Asabaa church (Jebel Gharyan) in that period, they were associated with Imperial coins datable from Constantine to Arcadius, but also with Vandalic and Byzantine pre-Justinian minimi [21].

e failure in renewal of bronze cash in the Lepcitan hinterland, both reflects the reduction in the volume of western emissions which occurred in the first half of the 5th

century, and could be read in relation to the exit of the region from the Imperial political and economic space, determined by the inception of the short-lived Vandalic control in ad 439. A similar shortage in the monetary supply seems to have occurred, aer the Van-dal conquest, even in Carthage [22]. e destruction of the agricultural system, which had survived the crisis of the 3rd and the turmoil of 4th century ad, and the consequent wea-kening of economic relations that bonded the province to the Mediterranean market constituted the structural reasons for the end of the monetary circulation in the in the Lepcitan territory. Bronze coins could no doubt continue to circulate in Romano-Bar-barian Mediterranean, without limitations imposed by the new political frontiers [23], but to support this an economic structure had to survive. With the collapse of agricultural land-use, and the following interruption of the oil exports, these conditions were lacking in Tripolitania in the mid 5th century ad.

e situation did not change aer the Byzantine reconquest. Urban centres, despite the investments of Justinian’s administration, and in general the Mediterranean market, no longer stimulated an exploitation of Tripolitanian countryside, geared to the production of an olive-oil surplus to export. e few surviving rural settlements had to face their eco-nomic needs without the help of the new Byzantine coins as a medium of exchange; none of them has been found so far by the survey. As shown by the comparison with urban areas, where the Byzantine coinage is attested in significant quantity [24], such an absence in the countryside is not due to lack of supplies in the reconquered province. If the Byzantine coinage did not leave the cities, this was due to the irreversible collapse of the economic structure of the territory.

e Arab conquest of Tripolitania did not immediately produce substantial disconti-nuity in the development of the rural landscape, in which the last remaining form of agri-cultural life disappeared in the course of the 7th century ad. But more than a century aer the conquest, with the creation of the Aghlabid emirate along the coast and the Berber imamate of Rostemides in the interior, territory returned again to agriculture. Between the second half of the 8th and the 12th centuries, granary-towers and strongly fortified

[20] e continued circulation until the Vandalo-Byzantine age of the 4th century coins is suggested also by Grinder-Hansen 1995 on the basis of the numismatic finds from the Segermes survey.

[21] Bartoccini 1928-1929, p. 77-92; Ward-Perkins & Goodchild 1953, p. 35-37. [22] e excavations in Carthage documented an interruption of monetary supply aer ad 420 and the parallel permanence in circulation of the old coins of ad 350-430: Reece 1984, p. 174 1994, p. 253-254.

[23] Carlà 2007, p. 210-216. [24] Leptis Magna, theater: Joly, Garraffo & Mandruzzato 1992, p. 83-84, nos 482-491; Sabratha, temple of the

‘divinità ignota’: Garraffo 1984, p. 179-183, nos 125-151; Sabratha, excavations 1948-1951: Burnett, Jen-kins & Kenrick 1986, p. 262.


– 74 –

villages populated internal Tripolitania (fig. 7). e dump of one of the “castles” along the wadi Taraglat (Gsur Shadhufa Bu) produced for the surveyors a quarter (rubā’ī) of a gold dīnār (no 22), issued by the Fatimid caliph Abu Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim bi Amr Allah (ad 996-1021). It is noteworthy that gold and silver coins of the same period appeared, outside our territorial samples, in two other Tripolitanian rural contexts: a hoard of 10 gold dīnārs of Aghalbid and Fatimid caliphs in the fortified settlement of Gasr Sidi Hassan (Syrtica) [25]; 14 Abbasid and Fatimid silver dirhams in the building 32 of Ghirza [26]. Aer a long ab-sence, coins therefore reappeared in the countryside, but their մեnction had changed. In-stead of being the means of poor daily transactions inside the farms – a մեnction which the coins continued to have in the quarters still inhabited of Leptis-Lebda and Sabratha [27] as well as in the quasi-urban settlement of Surt (Medina Sultan), the ancient Syrte [28] – they allowed the conservation of the renewed agricultural wealth and high level transactions.

Fig. 7 – Two granary-towers in the wadi Taraglat, 8th-13th cent. ad (© M. Munzi)

[25] Faraj 1995. [26] J. Walker in Brogan & Smith 1984, p. 274 et pl. 147. [27] Leptis-Lebda, artisanal area of the Flavian Temple, a half dirham attributed to Abdullah I (ad 811-816) or II (ad 902-903) and an Aghlabid fals: Balog 1968-1969; Leptis-Lebda, Chalcidicum, Aghlabid et Fatimid մեlûs: Cirelli 2001, p. 431-432; Sabratha, excavations 1948-1951, Abbassid մեlûs: Burnett, Jenkins & Ken-rick 1986, p. 263.

[28] Noteworthy in particular the discovery of two dirhams of the caliphs al-Muizz (952-975) and al-Hakim (996-1021): Munzi 2005.


– 75 –

bibliography Alexandropoulos 2000

J. Alexandropoulos, Les monnaies de l’Afrique Antique 400 av. J.-C. - 40 apr. J.-C. Toulouse, 2000.

Arslan 2007

E.A. Arslan, Ancora sulla questione della cosiddetta ‘moneta in rame nell’Italia longo-barda’. Una replica e problemi di metodo. rin 108, 2007, p. 11-28.

Asolati 2005

M. Asolati, Il ripostiglio di Falerii Novi. Nuovi contributi sulla monetazione italica in bronzo degli anni di Ricimero (457-472 d.C.). Padova, 2005.

Asolati 2006

M. Asolati, Il ripostiglio di Camporegio (Gros-seto). Note sulle imitazioni bronzee di v sec. d.C. e sulla questione della cosiddetta ‘moneta in rame nell’Italia longobarda’. rin 107, 2006, p. 113-161.

Balog 1968-1969

P. Balog, Missione archeologica dell’Università di Perugia a Leptis Magna (Libia). Monete rin-venute nella iv e v campagna di scavo. Annali dell’Università di Perugia 6, 1968-1969, p. 394.

Bartoccini 1922

R. Bartoccini, Ripostiglio di piccoli bronzi del iii secolo rinvenuto a Gasr Selim (Homs). Mis-cellanea Numismatica 3.7, Napoli, 1922, p. 3.

Bartoccini 1928-1929

R. Bartoccini, Scavi e rinvenimenti di Tripoli-tania negli anni 1926-1927. AfrIt 2, 1928-1929, p. 77-110.

Braudel 1979

F. Braudel, Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, xve-xviiie siècle, 1, Les structures du quotidien: le possible et l’impossible. Paris, 1979.

Brogan & Smith 1984

O. Brogan & D.J. Smith, Ghirza. A Libyan Settle-ment in the Roman Period. Tripoli, 1984.

Burnett, Jenkins & Kenrick 1986

A. Burnett, K. Jenkins & P.M. Kenrick, Coins from the excavations. In: P.M. Kenrick (ed.), Excavations at Sabratha 1948-1951. London, 1986, p. 246-274.

Carlà 2007

F. Carlà, Il sistema monetario in età tardo-antica: spunti per una revisione. aiin 53, 2007, p. 155-218.

Ciotola & Munzi 2012

A. Ciotola & M. Munzi, L’apporto tripolitano al commercio mediterraneo: insediamenti, der-rate e contenitori. AfrRom 19, 2012, p. 1381-1430.

Cirelli 2001

E. Cirelli, Leptis Magna in età islamica: fonti scritte e archeologiche. Archeologia Medievale 28, 2001, p. 423-440.

Cirelli, Felici & Munzi 2012

E. Cirelli, F. Felici & M. Munzi, Insediamenti fortificati nel territorio di Leptis Magna tra iii e xi secolo. In: P. Galetti (ed.), Paesaggi, comunità, villaggi medievali (Atti del convegno internazionale di studio, Bologna, 14-16 gen-naio 2010). Spoleto, 2012, p. 763-774.

Crawford 1970

M.H. Crawford, Money and Exchange in the Roman World. jrs 50, 1970, p. 40-48.

Decker 2006

M. Decker, Towers, Reմեges, and Fortified Farms in the Late Roman East. Liber Annuus 56, 2006, p. 499-520.

de Ligt 1990

L. de Ligt, Demand, Supply, Distribution: e Roman Peasantry between Town and Coun-tryside: Rural Monetization and Peasant Demand. Münsterschen Beiträge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte 9/2, 1990, p. 24-56.

Faraj 1995

M.O. Faraj, Gasr Sidi Hassan. LibAnt n.s. 1, 1995, p. 154, pl. lxii-lxv.

Garraffo 1984

S. Garraffo, Le monete. In: E. Joly & F. Toma-sello, Il tempio a divinità ignota di Sabratha. Roma, 1984, p. 165-186.

Garraffo 1996

S. Garraffo, Notes on coin production, use and circulation in Tripolitania and Crete in late Ro-man and early Byzantine times. In: C.E. King & D.G. Wigg (ed.), Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world. Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 10, Berlin, 1996, p. 179-184.

Garraffo 2012

S. Garraffo, Il grande tesoro monetale di Suk el Kedim (Misurata). Recenti studi e ricerche. In: Pagani e Cristiani a Sabratha e Leptis Magna tra iii e xi secolo d.C. Monumenti e reperti, tradizioni e immagini (Atti del seminario di studio Polo Universitario della Provincia di Agrigento, 26-27 Gennaio 2012). Palermo, 2012, p. 231-252 (cd-rom).


– 76 –

Grinder-Hansen 1995

K. Grinder-Hansen, e Numismatic Material. In: S. Dietz, L. Ladjimi Sebai & H. Ben Has-sen (ed.), Africa Proconsularis. Regional Stu-dies in the Segermes Valley of Northern Tune-sia, ii. Copenhagen, 1995, p. 631-647.

Howgego 1992

C. Howgego, e Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 bc to ad 300. jrs 82, 1992, p. 1-31.

Jenkins 1974

G.K. Jenkins, Some Ancient Coins of Libya. LibSt 5, 1973-1974, p. 29-35.

Joly, Garraffo & Mandruzzato 1992

E. Joly, S. Garraffo & A. Mandruzzato, Ma-teriali minori dallo scavo del teatro di Leptis Magna. qal 15, 1992, p. 25-233.

LRBC I

P.V. Hill & J.P.C. Kent, Late Roman Bronze Coinage ad 324-498. Part i. e Bronze Coin-age of the House of Constantine, ad 324-346. London, 1960.

LRBC II

R.A.G. Carson & J.P.C. Kent, Late Roman Bronze Coinage ad 324-498. Part ii. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, ad 346-498. London, 1960.

Macaluso 1992

R. Macaluso, I ‘radiati barbari’ e la circolazione monetaria in Tripolitania nel iv secolo d.C. Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia 15, 1992, p. 327-332.

Martini & Vismara 1995

R. Martini & N. Vismara, Quadranti anonimi imperiali del Gabinetto Numismatico di Lo-carno. Annotazioni Numismatiche, Suppl. vi, Milano, 1995.

Mazard 1955

J. Mazard, Corpus Nummorum Numidiae Mauritaniaeque. Paris, 1955.

Moreno Fraginals & Pulido Ledesma s.d.

M. Moreno Fraginals & J.A. Pulido Ledesma, Cuba a country and its currency. Paris Havana, s.d.

Morrisson 2004

C. Morrisson, La monétarisation en Égypte et en Syrie-Palestine du ive à la fin du viie siècle : le témoignage de l’archéologie. L’Antiquité Tardive 12, 2004, p. 405-413.

Munzi 2004

M. Munzi, Circolazione monetaria in contesto

rurale. Il caso della Tripolitania tardoantica alla luce delle recenti ricognizioni archeolo-giche. AfrRom 15, 2004, p. 327-341.

Munzi 2005

M. Munzi, Madina Sultan. In: Enciclopedia Archeologica, Africa. Roma, 2005, p. 528-529.

Munzi 2010a

M. Munzi, Ricognizioni archeologiche nel terri-torio di Leptis Magna. LibAnt n.s. v, 2010, p. 50-54.

Munzi 2010b

M. Munzi, Il territorio di Leptis Magna. Insedia-menti rurali, strutture produttive e rapporti con la città. In: I. Tantillo & F. Bigi (ed.), Leptis Magna. Una città e le sue iscrizioni in epoca tardoantica. Cassino, 2010, p. 45-80.

Munzi & Felici 2011

M. Munzi & F. Felici, Moneta e ricognizione: riflessioni sull'esperienza tripolitana. In: G. Pardini (ed.), Numismatica e archeologia. Monete, stratigrafie e contesti. Dati a confronto (Preatti del I Workshop Internazionale di Numismatica). Roma, 2011, p. 99-101.

Nicol 2006

N.D. Nicol, Corpus of Fatimid coin. Trieste, 2006.

Ørsted 1994

P. Ørsted, From Henchir Mettich to the Alber-tini Tablets. A Study in the Economic and Social Significance of the Roman Lease System (location-conductio). In: J. Carlsen, P. Ør-sted & J.E. Skydsgaard (eds.), Landuse in Roman Empire. Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, Suppl. 22. Roma, 1994, p. 114-126.

Rathbone 1991

D. Rathbone, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in ird-Century ad Egypt. Cambridge, 1991.

Reece 1984

R. Reece, Coins. In: H.R. Hurst & S.P. Roskams (ed.), Excavations at Carthage. e British Mission, i.1, e Avenue du President Habib Bourghiba, Salammbo. e Site and Finds other than Pottery. Sheffield, 1984, p. 171-181.

Reece 1988

R. Reece, Coins and villas. In: K. Branigan & D. Miles (ed.), e economy of Romano-British villas. Sheffield, 1988, p. 34-41.

Reece 1994

R. Reece, Coins. In: H.R. Hurst & S.P. Ros-kams (ed.), Excavations at Carthage. e British Mission, ii.1, e Circular Harbour,


– 77 –

North Side. e Site and Finds other than Pottery. Oxford, 1994, p. 149-260.

RIC I²

C.H.V. Sutherland, e Roman Imperial Coinage. Volume i. Revised edition. From 31 bc to ad 69. London 1984.

RIC II

H. Mattingly & E.A. Sydenham, e Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. ii, Vespasian to Hadrian. London, 1926.

RIC III

H. Mattingly, E.A. Sydenham, e Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. iii. Antoninus Pius to Commodus. London, 1930.

RIC V.1

P.H. Webb, e Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. v Part 1, Valerian to Florian. London, 1927.

RIC VII

P.M. Bruun, e Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume vii, Constantine and Licinius ad 313-337. London, 1966.

RIC VIII

J.P.C. Kent, e Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume viii, e Family of Constantine I ad 337-364. London, 1981.

RIC IX

J.W.E. Pearce, e Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume ix, Valentinian I to eodosius I. London 1951.

RIC X

J.P.C. Kent, e Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume x, e divided Empire and the fall of the western parts ad 395-491. London, 1994.

SNG Cop. 42

G.K. Jenkins, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, 42, North Africa, Syrtica – Mauretania. Copenhagen, 1969.

Ward-Perkins & Goodchild 1953

J.B. Ward-Perkins & R.G. Goodchild, e Christian Antiquities of Tripolitania. Archaeologia 95, 1953, p. 1-83.

CATALOGUE OF THE COINS

1. Caam-Taraglat (trg)

open farm trg 1, 1 - 2ⁿ cent. ad: 1 coin

1. CARTHAGO, Sicilian mint (?), late 4th-early 3rd cent. bc. Head of Tanit l. Horse standing r., palm-tree behind, pellet to r. Ae: 2.7 g – 16.6 mm – '. sng Cop. 42, no 109; Alexandropoulos 2000, p. 366-367, no 18.

open farm trg 3, 1 - first half 5 cent. ad,

post-antique occupation: 17 coins

2. CLAUDIUS II deified, ad 270. Illeg. Radiate bust r. Illeg. Altar. Antoninianus: 1.4 g – 14.1 mm – !.

3. CLAUDIUS II: imitation, late 3rd - 4th cent. ad. IMPCLAVDIVS[ Radiate bust r. Illeg. Standing figure with vertical spear. Ae radiate: 0.9 mm – 11.3 mm – ..

4-5. CLAUDIUS II deified: imitations, late 3rd - 4th

cent. ad. DIVO CLAVDIO Radiate bust r. CONSECRATIO Altar. Ae radiate: 0.9 g – 13.5 mm. Obv. illeg. Rev.]TIO. Ae radiate: 0.8 g – 11.6 mm – !. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. (clipped).

6. Radiate imitation, late 3rd - 4th cent. ad. Illeg. Radiate bust r. Illeg. Traces of figure. Ae radiate: 0.7 g – 9.4 mm.

7. HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE: imitation of Gloria exercitus (2 standards), 4th cent. ad. ]NT/IV[ ]PF[ Laureate bust r. Rev. illeg. –/–/[ ] Type Gloria exercitus, two soldiers holding spears and shields, two standards between them. Ae: 0.7 mm – 12.2 mm – ! (fragment or clipped).

8. CONSTANTIUS II or CONSTANS, ad 347-348. Illeg. Diademed bust r.


– 78 –

VOT/WW /MVLT/WWW in laurel wreath, –/–/[ ] Nummus: 1.1 g – 14.1 mm – ..

9. CONSTANTIUS II or CONSTANS, Aquileia (?), ad 347-348. Illeg. Diademed bust r. ]NN –/–/[AQ]P (?) Two Victories facing one another, each holding wreath and palm. Nummus: 1.5 g – 14.5 mm – !. ric viii, p. 322, nos 90-93; lrbc ii, p. 18, nos 712-713.

10. Uncertain, 4th cent. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Nummus: ? g – ? mm.

11. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 354-357/358. ]SPFAVG Diademed bust r. ]EPARA[ –/–/[ ] Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 2.3 g – 16.8 mm – ..

12-14. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 358. DNCONSTAN/TIVSPFAVG Diademed bust r. SPESREI/PVBLICE –/–/[ ] Virtus/emperor standing r. holding globe and spear. Aes 4: 1.5 g – 17.7 mm – !. Obv. ]/TIVSPFAVG. Rev. SPES[. Aes 4: 1.2 g – 15.0 mm – !. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 1.0 g – 15.5 mm – !. Obv. ]STAN/[ Rev. illeg.

15. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/ [ ]" (?). Victory advancing l. holding wreath and palm. Aes 3: 0.6 g – 14.6 mm (clipped to a quarter).

16. HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 388-402. Obv. illeg. Illeg. //–/[ ] Victory advancing l. carrying trophy and dragging captive. Aes 4: 0.6 g – 12.5 mm (fragment).

17. Uncertain, 4th - early 5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg., bust. Rev. illeg. Aes 3: 1.6 g – 17.0 mm (half).

18. Uncertain, second half 4th - early 5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 1.1 g – 12.0 mm.

open farm trg 4, 1 -first half 5 cent. ad,


19. TETRICUS I: imitation, late 3rd - 4th cent. ad. Illeg. Radiate and bearded bust r. Illeg. Draped figure standing. Ae radiate: 0.7 g – 14.3 mm – 1 (half).

20-21. Radiates imitations, late 3rd - 4th cent. ad. Ae radiate: 0.8 g – 15.7 mm (half). Ae radiate: 0.4 g – 9.8 mm.

fortified village trg 6, 8 - 13 cent. ad:

1 coin

22.* ABU ALI AL-MANSUR AL-HAKIM BI-AMR ALLAH, 386-411 ah / ad 996-1021. Epigraphic type (Quran, ix, 33) Epigraphic type. rubā’ī (1/4 dīnār): 1.05 g – 12.8 mm – ' – clipped? Cfr. Nicol 2006, p. 113, C2. anks to Marilì De Luca for the identification.

open farm trg 10, 2ⁿ - first half 5 cent. ad:

2 coins

23. CLAUDIUS II deified, ad 270. Illeg. Radiate bust r. CON[ Eagle with folded wings. Antoninianus: 2.6 g – 12.5 mm – ..

24. Uncertain, 4th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 3: 0.9 g – 13.0 mm (half).

open then fortified farm trg 16, 1 -

first half 6 cent. ad: 3 coins

25. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 358. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Virtus/emperor standing r. holding globe and spear. Aes 4: 1.3 g – 15.3 mm – ! (in two fragments).

26. AELIA FLACILLA, Oriental mint, ad 383-392. AELFLAC/CILLAAVG Diademed bust r. SALVSREI/PVBLICAE –/–/[ ] Victory seated r., writing Chi Ro on shield resting on small column. Aes 3: 1.2 g – 15.2 mm – ..


– 79 –

27. Uncertain, 4th-5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 1.3 g – 10.7 mm.

open farm trg 31, 1 - first half 5 cent. ad:

3 coins

28. AUGUSTUS, North Peloponnesian mint, ca. 21 bc. AVGVSTVS Bare head r. [IOVI - OLVM] Hexastyle temple of the Olympic Zeus. Denarius: 3.8 g – 22.0 mm – #. ric i², p. 79, no 472 (dies not adjusted).

29. CLAUDIUS II deified, ad 270. ]LAV[ Radiate bust. r. CONSECRATIO Eagle, head r., with folded wings. Antoninianus: 2.0 g – 15.2 mm – !.

30. CONSTANTINOPOLIS, ad 330-336. ]NSTANTINO[ Helmeted bust of Constantinopolis with reversed spear. Victory standing on prow, holding sceptre and resting l. hand on shield, –/–/[ ] Nummus: 2.4 g – 18.8 mm – !.

open farm trg 33, 1 - first half 5 cent. ad:

4 coins

31. CARTHAGO, 221-210 bc. Head of Tanit l. Horse standing r., head turned back. Ae: 7.0 g – 23.0 mm – !. sng Cop. 42, no 307; Alexandropoulos 2000, p. 384-385, no 88.

32. TRAJAN, Rome, ad 112-114. Illeg. Laureate bust r. FELICITA[ [S/C]. Felicitas standing l. (holding caduceus and cornucopiae). As: 10.0 g – 22.8 mm – !. ric ii, p. 288, no 625.

33-34. Uncertain, 4th - 5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 1.6 g – 15.9 mm (fragment). Aes 4: 0.9 g – 12.5 mm.

fortified farm trg 41, 4 - first half 5

cent. ad: 1 coin

35. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 354-357/358. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 1.3 g – 15.4 mm.

open farm (?) trg 42, 3 - first half 5 cent.

ad, post-antique occupation: 2 coins

36. Uncertain, 2nd-3rd cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Sestertius (?): 6.1 g – 21.5 mm (clipped to a quarter).

37. TETRICUS: imitation, late 3rd - 4th cent. ad. IMPTE[ Radiate bust. r. Illeg. Figure standing l. Ae radiate: 0.6 g – 12.4 mm – ..

coastal village trg 44, 1 - 6 cent. ad:

119 coins (or fragments)

38.* CARTHAGE, Sardinian mint (?), ca. 300-264 bc. Head of Tanit l. Horse head r. Ae: 4.8 g – 19.7 mm – 4. sng Cop. 42, nos 144-178; Alexandropoulos 2000, p. 375-376, no 57.

39. CONSTANTIUS I or CONSTANTINE, ad 293-313. ]VS [ Bust r. Rev. illeg. Nummus: 2.7 g – 23.6 mm (half).

40. HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE, Heraclea or Cyzicus, ad 324-329. Illeg. Bust r. ]AECAESS –/–/SMHA• or –/–/SMKA•. Camp-gate. Nummus: 3.3 g – 20.0 mm. lrbc i, p. 22, nos 877-878, p. 28, nos 1180-1183.

41. HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE, ad 336-341. Illeg. Bust. r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Two soldiers, between them one standard. Nummus: 0.8 g – 13.6 mm – . (fragment).


– 80 –

42. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 348-351. ]NCONST[ Diademed bust r. Illeg. Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 2: 4.1 g – 22.0 mm – !.

43.* CONSTANTIUS II, Rome, ad 356-358. ]NSTANTIVSPFAV[ Diademed bust r. ]TI[ –/–/ R•M[•.]. Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 2.2 g – 18.5 mm – .. ric viii, p. 278, no 314; lrbc ii, p. 60, no 684.

44.* JULIANUS II caesar, Rome, ad 356-358. DNCLIVL[ Nude bust r. FELTEMP /[ –/–/ [R•]M•[.] Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 1.2 g – 18.4 mm – . (fragment or half). ric viii, p. 278, no 315; lrbc ii, p. 60, no 685.

45-50. CONSTANTIUS II (or GALLUS or JULIANUS), ad 353-358. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 2.6 g – 19.7 mm – .. Aes 3: 2.3 g – 18.3 mm – .. Aes 3: 1.8 g – 16.0 mm – .. Aes 3: 1.5 mm – 13 mm. Aes 3: 1.1 g – 12.6 mm. Aes 3: 0.6 g – 14.1 mm – * (half).

51-52. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 358-361. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Virtus/emperor standing r. holding globe and spear. Aes 4: 1.6 g – 16.5 mm – .. Aes 4: 1.3 g – 16.1 mm – $.

53-54. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Victory advancing l. holding wreath and palm. Aes 3: 1.5 g – 16.1 mm – !. Aes 3: 0.6 g – 11.4 mm – ! (half).

55.* VALENTINIAN I, ad 364-375. DNVALENTIN/[ Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Emperor dragging captive and holding labarum. Aes 3: 2.3 g – 17.8 mm – ..

56.* HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. ]/MANORVM –/–/[ ] Emperor dragging captive and holding labarum. Aes 3: 2.6 g – 17.6 mm – 7.

57. GRATIAN, ad 367-383. ]IA/NVS[ Diademed bust r. Rev. illeg. Aes 3: 1.0 g – 17.2 mm (fragment).

58. Uncertain, ad 353-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Rev. illeg. Aes 3: 2.5 g – 18.3 mm.

59. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg., bust. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Emperor to l. holding labarum (?), possibly Gloria

Romanorum type. Aes 3: 1.2 g – 18.6 mm.

60. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Obv. illeg. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Emperor or Victory to l., Securitas Reipublicae or Gloria Romanorum types. Aes 3: 2.0 g – 15.5 mm.

61. Uncertain, second half 4th cent. ad. Illeg., bust r. Illeg., wreath, possibly Vota type, –/–/[ ] Aes 3/4: 1.6 g – 15.4 mm.

62. Uncertain, late 4th cent. ad. ]AVG Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Traces of figures, possibly Victoria Augg/Auggg - two Victories. Aes 4: 0.7 g – 11.2 mm – 4 (?).

63. HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, Rome or Aquileia, ad 383-388. Obv. illeg. VI[ –/–/[ ] Two Victories facing one another, each holding wreath. Aes 4: 0.9 g – 11.6 mm.

64. HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 388-402. Illeg. Diademed bust r. ]/PVBLICAE //–/[ ] Victory advancing l. carrying trophy and dragging captive.


– 81 –

Aes 4: 0.4 g – 10.9 mm – ! (fragment or half).

65.* HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 395-408. Illeg., Diademed bust r. ]ORD/IAAVG[GG?] –/–/[ ] Cross. Aes 4: 0.7 g – 12.0 mm – ..

66. Uncertain, late 4th-early 5th cent. ad. Illeg., bust r. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 0.8 g – 11.0 mm (half).

67. HONORIUS, Aquileia, ad 408-423. Illeg. Diademed bust r. GLORI[ –/–/AQ[ ] Emperor standing between a captive and a suppliant. Aes 3: 3.1 g – 14.4 mm – .. ric x, p. 338, no 1358; lrbc ii, p. 68, no 1114.

68.* JOHANNES or THEODOSIUS II, Rome, ad 423-425. Illeg. Diademed bust r. SAL[ ]ICE T (or/and /) /–/[RM] Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. Aes 4: 1.3 g – 12.7 mm – .. ric x, p. 361, nos 1912-1917; lrbc ii, p. 63, nos 831-834.

69.* JOHANNES or THEODOSIUS II, Rome, ad 423-425. ]AVG Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/PRM Victory advancing l., holding trophy and dragging captive. Aes 4: 0.9 g – 11.4 mm – ". ric x, p. 361, nos 1918-1921; lrbc ii, p. 63, nos 835-837.

70-181. Uncertain, 4th-early 5th cent. ad. Obv. Illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.8 g – 18.3 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.7 g – 17.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.6 g – 16.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.5 g – 20.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.5 g – 16.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.4 g – 16.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.4 g – 16.1 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.3 g – 18.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.3 g – 16.6 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.2 g – 18.2 mm. Obv. bust r. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.2 g – 16.8 mm.

Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.2 g – 15.6 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.2 g – 13.9 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.1 g – 17.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.1 g – 17.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.1 g – 15.2 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.0 g – 17.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.0 g – 17.3 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.0 g – 16.8 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.0 g – 15.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 2.0 g – 14.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.9 g – 17.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.9 g – 16.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.9 g – 15.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.9 g – 15.0 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.9 g – 14.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.8 g – 19.0 mm (half). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.8 g – 17.2 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.8 g – 13.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.8 g – 13.6 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.7 g – 17.9 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.7 g – 17.2 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.7 g – 14.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.7 g – 14.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.7 g – 13.2 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.6 g – 17.1 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.6 g – 16.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.6 g – 15.6 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.6 g – 13.8 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.5 g – 15.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.5 g – 14.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.5 g – 13.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.5 g – 12.3 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.4 g – 18.5 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.4 g – 16.5 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.4 g – 14.6 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.4 g – 14.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.3 g – 17.5 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.3 g – 14.9 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.3 g – 14.2 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.2 g – 14.9 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.2 g – 14.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.2 g – 13.3 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.2 g – 12.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.1 g – 12.6 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 16.8 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 15.9 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 15.7 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 15.0 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 14.1 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 13.8 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 1.0 g – 12.6 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.9 g – 16.2 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.9 g – 13.8 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.9 g – 13.7 mm (clipped?). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.9 g – 13.6 mm. Aes 3: 0.9 g – 13.4 mm (half), second half 4th-early


– 82 –

5th cent. ad. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.9 g – 11.8 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.9 g – 11.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.8 g – 17.6 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.8 g – 13.2 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.8 g – 12.2 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.8 g – 11.7 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 17.0 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 14.3 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 14.3 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 13.9 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 13.8 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 12.0 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 12.0 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 11.8 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 11.7 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.7 g – 11.3 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 13.6 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 12.9 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 12.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 11.7 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 10.9 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 10.4 mm. Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.6 g – 10.0 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.5 g – 12.5 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.5 g – 12.2 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.5 g – 12.1 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.5 g – 11.6 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.5 g – 10.5 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.5 g – 9.1 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.4 g – 9.8 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.4 g – 9.8 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.4 g – 8.5 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 11.6 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 9.6 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 9.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 8.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 8.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 8.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.3 g – 7.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.2 g – 9.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.2 g – 9.4 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.2 g – 9.3 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.2 g – 8.7 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.1 g – 9.1 mm (fragment). Aes 3 or aes 4: 0.1 g – 9.1 mm (fragment).

open then fortified farm trg 54, 1-first

half 5 cent. ad, post-antique occupation:

1 coin

182. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Obv. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Victory advancing l. holding wreath and palm. Aes 3: 1.9 g – 13.0 mm – ..

open farm trg 81, 2ⁿ-5 cent. ad: 1 coin

183. HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 388-402. Illeg. Diademed bust r. ]CAE //–/[ ] Victory advancing l. carrying trophy and dragging captive. Aes 4: 1.2 g – 10.9 mm.

open then fortified farm trg 97, 2ⁿ-first

half 5 cent. ad, post-antique occupation:

9 coins

184. Uncertain, late 3rd-4th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Illeg. Draped figure standing. Ae radiate (?): 1.5 g – 16.6 mm. 185. CONSTANTIUS II, Rome, ad 354-355. DNCONSTAN/[ Diademed bust r. ]ATIO –/–/R ᛌ Q Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 1.6 g – 14.9 mm – !. ric viii, p. 274, nos 276-277; lrbc ii, nos 674-675.

186. VALENS, ad 364-378. DNVALEN/[ Diademed bust r. ]PVBLI[ –/–/[ ] Victory advancing l. holding wreath and palm. Aes 3: 1.1 g – 15.7 mm – !.

187. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Obv. illeg. Illeg. Figure standing with a vertical labarum (?) in l. hand (Gloria Romanorum type?). Aes 3: 1.5 g – 13.5 mm.

188. THEODOSIUS II, Oriental mint, 402-408. ]/VSPFAVG Diademed bust r. CONCORD/IAAVGGG –/–/[ ]Γ Cross. Aes 4: 0.3 g – 11.2 mm – -.

189. Uncertain, second half 4th - first half 5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Bust. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 1.4 g – 12.1 mm.

190. Uncertain, 5th-6th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Victory to l. –/–/[ ] Aes 4: 0.8 mm – 8.6 mm.


– 83 –

191-192. Uncertain, 4th-5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 0.6 g – 8.2 mm (fragment). Aes 4: 0.3 g – 10.5 mm (fragment).

open villa trg 98, 1-first half 5 cent. ad,


193. CONSTANTIUS II or CONSTANS, ad 347-348. Illeg. Diademed bust r. ]RIAEAV[ –/–/[ ] Two Victories facing one another, each holding wreath and palm. Nummus: 1.2 g – 14.1 mm – ..

194. CONSTANTIUS II, Constantinople, ad 355-356. DNCONSTANTIVSPF[ Diademed bust r. ]TIO –/–/ [CO]NS$• Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 2.0 g – 17.9 mm – !. ric viii, p. 460, no 135; lrbc ii, p. 87, no 2041.

195. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 354-357/358. DNCON[ Diademed bust r. ]TEMP[ ]AR[ –/–/[ ] Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 1.5 g – 15.5 mm – -.

196. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 354-357/358. Illeg. Diademed bust r. ]TIO –/–/[ ] Soldier spearing fallen horseman. Aes 3: 1.3 g – 12.2 mm – !.

197. ARCADIUS, Constantinopolis, ad 388-395. ]RC[ ] PFAVG Diademed bust r. ]PVBLICAE –/–/CONSΘ Victory advancing l. carrying trophy and dragging captive. Aes 4: 0.7 g – 13.3 mm – .. ric ix, p. 236, no 90; lrbc ii, p. 89, nos 2185, 2193.

open farm trg 118, 1-first half 5 cent. ad:

5 coins

198.* CONSTANTIUS II, Cyzicus, ad 331-335. FLIVLCONSTANTIVSNOBC Laureate bust r. GLOR/IAEXERC/ITVS –/–/ SMKΓ(?) Two soldiers holding spears and shields, two standards between them. Nummus: 2.9 g – 17.8 mm – .. ric vii, p. 655, nos 84-86; lrbc i, p.28, no 1228.

199. CONSTANTINE II or CONSTANTIUS II or CONSTANS, Rome, ad 337-340. ]VG Diademed bust r. GLOR[ ]TVS –/–/R ª [ ] Two soldiers holding spears and shields, one standard between them. Nummus: 1.6 g – 15.7 mm – !. ric viii, p. 250, nos 36-38; lrbc i, p. 16, nos 623-625.

200.* CONSTANTIUS II or CONSTANS, Rome, ad 347-348. ]STAN[ Diademed bust r. ]RIAEAV[ –/–/R ª P Two Victories facing one another, each holding wreath and palm. Nummus: 1.1 g – 15.0 mm – .. ric viii, p. 254, nos 91-92; lrbc i, p. 16, nos 641-642.

201. Uncertain, second half 4th cent. ad. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg., traces of type. Aes 3: 0.8 g – 13.9 mm (clipped).

202. Uncertain, 4th-5th cent. ad. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Aes 4: 1.2 g – 13.4 mm.

open villa trg 167, (3 cent bc?) 2ⁿ-4 cent.

ad: 6 coins

203. CARTHAGO (?), 3rd-2nd cent. bc. Obv. illeg. Rev. illeg. Ae: 2.3 g – 13.2 mm, (half).

204.* CARTHAGO, 221-210 bc. Head of Tanit l. Horse standing r., head turned back. sng Cop. 42, no 307; Alexandropoulos 2000, p. 384-385, no 88. Ae: 5.2 g – 21.1 mm – !.

205. CLAUDIUS II (?), ad 270. Illeg. Radiate bust r. Illeg. Antoninianus: 2.3 g – 16.6 mm.

206.* CONSTANTIUS II, Rome, ad 358-361. Illeg. Diademed bust r. S[ ]S[ ]BLICE –/–/Rᛌ[ ] Emperor standing l., holding globe and vertical spear.


– 84 –

Aes 3: 1.6 g – 14.7 mm – 7. ric viii, p. 279, no 320; lrbc ii, p. 60, no 691.

207.* HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Traces of emperor standing (possibly Gloria

Romanorum or Perpetuitas imperi). Aes 3: 2.0 g – 15.0 mm – !.

208. Uncertain, 4th-5th cent. ad. Obv. Illeg. Rev. Illeg. Aes 4: 1.6 g – 11.6 mm.

open then fortified farm trg 173, 1-

first half 5 cent. ad: 2 coins

209. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. Victory advancing l. holding wreath and palm (Securitas Reipublicae type). Aes 3: 1.2 g – 15.0 mm – . (half).

210. Uncertain, second half 4th cent. ad. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. Traces of figure (Victory to l.?). Aes 3: 0.7 g – 11.3 mm – . (fragment).

fortified farm trg 175, 4-second half 6

cent.: 8 coins

211. CLAUDIUS II (deified?), ad 270. Illeg. Radiate bust r. (?). Illeg. Altar (?). Antoninianus: 1.2 g – 13.1 mm.

212. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Illeg. Victory advancing l. (holding wreath and palm), possibly securitas reipublicae type. Aes 3: 1.9 g – 15.8 mm – !.

213. Uncertain, 4th-early 5th cent. ad. Obv. Illeg. Rev. Illeg. Aes 3: 1.2 g – 17.7 mm (clipped to a third).

214.* PROTOVANDALIC, middle 5th-early 6th cent. ad. III[ ] in vertical Diademed bust r.

Star in wreath. Aes 4: 0.6 g – 10.7 mm – '.

215.* THEODOSIUS II, VALENTINIANUS III or PROTOVANDALIC, 5th-early 6th cent. ad. Illeg. Diademed bust r. Cross in wreath. Aes 4: 0.7 g – 10.5 mm – ! (?).

216-218. Uncertain, 4th-early 6th cent. ad. Obv. Illeg. Rev. Illeg. Aes 4: 1.3 g – 10.3 mm. Aes 4 (or radiate): 0.6 g – 11.6 mm. Aes 4 (or Vandalic aes 4): 0.2 g – 7.9 mm.

fortified farm trg 178, 4-first half 5

cent ad, post-antique occupation: 2 coins

219.* THEODOSIUS I, ad 379-383. DNTHEODO/SI[ Diademed bust r. Illeg. –/–/[ ] Wreath, Vota type. Aes 4: 1.0 g – 13.1 mm – !.

220. Uncertain, 4th-early 5th cent. ad. Illeg. Bust r. Rev. Illeg. Aes 4: 0.9 g – 12.5 mm.

fortified farm trg 184, 4-first half 5

cent. ad, post-antique occupation: 12 coins

221.* CLAUDIUS II deified, ad 270. Illeg. Radiate bust r. Illeg. Altar. Antoninianus: 0.8 g – 13.1 mm –..

222.* TETRICUS I: imitation, late 3rd-4th cent. ad. ]TETRICVS [ (rough letters) Radiate bust r. ]/ET[ (rough letters) Figure standing l. with cornucopia. Ae radiate: 1.5 g – 15.3 mm – 7.

223.* CLAUDIUS II or TETRICI: imitation, late 3rd-4th cent. ad. Illeg. Radiate bust r. RA[ (rough letters) Standing figure with spear. Ae radiate: 0.7 g – 12.3 mm – !.

224-225. Radiates imitations, late 3rd-4th cent. ad. Illeg. Radiate bust r.


– 85 –

Rev. Illeg.Ae radiate: 1.5 g – 13.4mm.Ae radiate: 1.1 g – 13.2mm.226.* CONSTANTIUS II, Cyzicus, ad 331-334.]VLCO[ ]TANTIVS[Laureate bust r.GLOR/IAEXERC/ITVS –/–/ SMKΔTwo soldiers holding spears and shields, twostandards between them.Nummus: 2.6 g – 19.3mm –..ric vii, p. 655, nos 84-85; lrbc i, p. 28, no 1228.227. HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378.Obv. Illeg.GLO[Traces.Aes 3: 1.6 g – 16.5mm (fragment).

228-232. Uncertain, 4th-early 6th cent. ad.Obv. Illeg.Rev. Illeg.Aes 4: 0.9 g – 14.1mm.Aes 4: 0.7 g – 13.8mm (clipped to a third).Aes 4: 0.5 g – 9.3mm (Protovandalic or Vandalic?).Aes 4: 0.4 g – 9.4mm.Aes 4: 0.4 g – 10.7mm (Fragment).

rural house trg 195, ottoman period: 1 coin

233. Modern coin.Obv. Illeg.Rev. Illeg.Ae: 2.0 g – 22.4mm (half).

open villa trg 197, 1-first half 5 cent. ad,post-antique occupation: 12 coins

234. CARTHAGO (?), 3rd -2nd cent. bc.Obv. Illeg.Rev. Illeg.Ae: 4.7 g – 21.6mm.235. CLAUDIUS II - TETRICI, second half 3rd (-4th) cent. ad.Illeg.Radiate bust r.Rev. illeg.Antoninianus (or large module radiate): 1.8 g – 17.2mm.

236.* TETRICUS I: imitation, late 3rd-4th cent. ad.Corrupt legend.Radiate bust r.Corrupt legend.Standing figure .Ae large module radiate: 2.0 g – 16.6mm –1.

237.* CLAUDIUS II deified: imitation, late 3rd-4thcent. ad.Illeg.

Radiate bust r.Illeg.Altar.Ae small module radiate: 0.6 g – 11.4mm – ..238.* CLAUDIUS II deified: imitation, late 3rd-4thcent. ad.Illeg.Radiate bust r.Illeg.Eagle.Ae small module radiate: 0.7 g – 11.7mm – ..239.* CLAUDIUS II - TETRICI: imitation, late3rd-4th cent. ad.Illeg.Radiate bust r.Illeg.Draped figure l. sacrificing over altar.Ae small module radiate: 0.6 g – 11.4mm –4.240. CLAUDIUS II - TETRICI: imitation, late 3rd-4th cent. ad.Illeg.Radiate bust r.Illeg.Draped figure l.Ae small module radiate: 0.5 g – 11.0mm –'.241.* CLAUDIUS II - TETRICI: imitation, late3rd-4th cent. ad.Illeg.Radiate bust r.Traces of corrupt legend.Traces of figure.Ae small module radiate: 1.0 g – 12.3mm –7.242-244. Uncertain, late 3rd-early 6th ad.Obv. Illeg.Rev. Illeg.Aes 4 (or mall module radiate): 0.7 g – 9.2mm.Aes 4 (or mall module radiate): 0.4 g – 8.5mm.Aes 4 (or mall module radiate): 0.3 g – 10.4mm(fragment).

245. Uncertain, 4th cent. ad.Illeg.Bust r.Illeg.Figure standing r.Aes 3: 0.6 g – 14.4mm – . (?, fragment).

open then fortified villa trg 201, 1-firsthalf 5 cent. ad, post-antique occupation:

11 coins

246.* CARTHAGO, 221-210 bc.Head of Tanit l.Horse standing r., head turned back.Ae: 4.8 g – 21.1mm –'.

Massimil iano MUNZI

– 86 –

sng Cop. 42, no 307; Alexandropoulos 2000, p. 384-385, no 88.

247.* CONSTANTIUS II, ad 353-358.DNCONSTAN/TIVSPF[Diademed bust r.FELTEMP/[ –/–/[ ]Soldier spearing fallen horseman.Aes 3: 2.8 g – 16.6mm – ..

248.* HOUSE OF VALENTINIAN, ad 364-378.Illeg.Diademed bust r.GLORIARO/MANORVM –/–/[ ]Emperor dragging captive and holding labarum.Aes 3: 2.2 g – 16.4mm – ..

249.* HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 383.Obv. Illeg.VOT /V in wreath, –/–/[ ]Aes 4: 1.6 g – 14.3mm.

250. Uncertain, second half 4th cent. ad. (?).Illeg.,Diademed bust r.Illeg. –/–/[ ]Figure to l., Spes Reipublice or Securitas Reipublicae(?).Aes 3: 1.1 g – 15.5mm – !.

251. CONSTANTINOPOLIS, ad 330-336.Illeg.Helmeted bust of Constantinopolis with reversedspear.Victory standing on prow, holding sceptre andresting l. hand on shield, –/–/[ ]Nummus: 2.7 g – 18.1mm – ..

252-253. Uncertain, second half 4th cent. ad.Illeg.Diademed bust r.Rev. Illeg.Aes 3: 1.9 g – 15.7mm.Aes 3: 1.0 g – 16.1mm (half or fragment).

254-256. Uncertain, 4th-5th cent. ad.Obv. Illeg.Rev. Illeg.Aes 3 ou 4: 1.9 g – 15.1mm.Aes 3 or 4: 0.7 g – 13.2mm (half).Aes 3 or 4: 0.4 g – 10.8mm (fragment, coin?).

open then fortified farm trg 210, 1-firsthalf 5 cent. ad, post-antique occupation:

15 coins

257.* ANONYMOUS, Rome, ca. ad 80-140.Diad. bust of Venus r.Dove standing r.Cu quadrans: 2.6 g – 14.0mm – ..

ric ii, p. 218, no 24; Martini, Vismara 1995, p. 18-20, nos 41-52.

258.* THEODOSIUS II or PROTOVANDALIC,5th-early 6th cent. ad.Illeg.Diademed bust r.Rev. Cross in wreath, –/–/[ ]Aes 4: 1.3 g – 10.5mm – !.

259. HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 383-387.DN[Diademed bust r.Illeg. –/–/[ ]Two Victories facing one another, Victoria Augggtype.Aes 4: 0.7 g – 12.8mm – ! (half).

260-267. Uncertain, second half 4th-early 5th cent.ad.Obv. illeg.Rev. illeg.Aes 3 or 4: 1.6 g – 14.5mm. Obv. bust r.Aes 3 or 4: 1.4 g – 12.0mm.Aes 3 or 4: 1.4 g – 11.6mm.Aes 3 or 4: 1.1 g – 14.2mm. Rev. traces of figure,Gloria Romanorum type (?).Aes 3 or 4: 0.8 g – 15.2mm (half). Obv. diademedbust r.Aes 3 or 4: 0.8 g – 11.7mm. Obv. bust r.Aes 3 or 4: 0.7 g – 10.6mm.Aes 3 or 4: 0.4 g – 10.1mm (fragment).

268-271. Uncertain, 4th-5th cent. ad.Aes 3 or 4: 0.5 g – 14.9mm (fragment).Aes 3 or 4: 0.4 g – 11.1mm (fragment, coin?).Aes 3 or 4: 0.4 g – 9.6mm (fragment).Aes 3 or 4: 0.3 g – 7.6mm (fragment).

open then fortified farm 211, 2ⁿ/1 cent. bc- second half 5 cent. ad, post-antique

occupation: 2 coins

272.* CLAUDIUS II - TETRICI: imitation, late3rd-4th cent. ad.Illeg.Radiate bust r.Illeg.Standing figure l. holding vertical spear.Ae radiate: 1.2 g – 15.4mm – !.

273. THEODOSIUS I (?), ad 388-395.Obv.DNTHEO[Diademed bust r.Rev. Traces of figures, possibly Salus Reipublicaetype (Victory advancing l. carrying trophy anddragging captive), –/–/[ ]Aes 4: 1.5 g – 12.8mm –$.


– 87 –

2. silin (sln)

coastal village sln 6, 4 cent. bc - firsthalf 3 cent. ad, 10 cent. ad: 1 coin

274.* CARTHAGO, Sardinian mint (?), 300-264 bc.Head of Tanit l.Horse head r., pellet to r.Ae: 5.0 g – 18.9mm –$.sng Cop. 42, nos 144-178; Alexandropoulos 2000,p. 375-376, no 57.

maritime villa sln 28, 1 - end 3/4 cent. ad: 1 coin

275. ANTONINUS PIUS, ad 153-155.ANTONINVSAVGPI/VSPPTRP[Laureate bust to r.FELICITASCOS IIII, S/CFelicitas standing l., holding caduceus and corn-ears.As: 9.2 g – 28.5mm –9.ric iii, p. 141-142, nos 924, 937.

farm, then marabout sln 34: 1-4/5 cent.ad, post-antique occupation: 1 coin

276. HOUSE OF THEODOSIUS, ad 388-402.]N[Diademed bust to r.]EI/[ //–/[ ]Victory to l., trophy on shoulder, dragging captive.Aes 4: 1.5 g – 11.9mm –'.

3. khoms (khm)

villa khm 24, 1 cent. bc - 5 cent. ad: 1 coin

277. Uncertain, 2nd cent. bc.- 2nd cent. ad.Obv. illeg.Rev. illeg.Ae: 5.9 g – 26.4mm (half).Uncertain: Numidian bronze or Roman imperialas.

villa/farm khm 47, 2ⁿ cent. bc - 5 cent. ad:2 coins

278.* GALLIENUS, Rome, ad 264-266.GALL[Radiate head r.FORTVN[ ]RE[ ς/–/–Fortuna standing l., holding cornucopia andrudder.ric v.1, p. 147, no 193 var.Antoninianus: 1.9 g – 18.3mm – ..

279. CONSTANTIUS II, ad 354-358.Illeg.Diademed bust r.

Illeg. –/–/[ ]Soldier spearing fallen horseman.Aes 3: 2.5 g – 15.6mm – !.

farm khm 49, 2ⁿ cent. bc - 2ⁿ cent. ad: 1 coin

280. MASSINISSA - MICIPSA, 208-118 bc.Laur. bearded head l.Horse galloping l., below.Ae unit: 13.8 g – 26.6mm – !.Mazard 1955, 19-56; sng Cop. 42, nos 504-519.

unidentified site (destroyed) khm 63, 2ⁿcent. bc - 5 cent. ad: 1 lead tessera or seal

281.* Tessera or seal, 1st cent. bc. - 2nd cent. ad.Obv. Dauphin r.Rev. Amphora (in laurel wreath?).Pb: 9.0 g – 19.3mm – thick. 4.3mm –'.

farm, gasr khm 73, 2ⁿ cent. bc - 6 cent. ad:3 coins

282. Uncertain, half 4th-early 5th cent. ad.Obv. illeg.Bust.Rev. illeg.Aes 3/4: 0.5 g – 11.5mm (fragment).283-284. Uncertain, half 4th-5th cent. ad.Obv. illeg.Rev. illeg.Aes 4: 0.4 g – 8.2mm (fragment).Aes 4: 0.2 g – 8.0mm (fragment).

unidentified rural site khm 76, 2ⁿ cent. bc -6 cent. ad: 1 coin

285. Uncertain, late 4th-5th cent. ad.Obv. illeg.Rev. illeg.Aes 4: 0.8 g – 10.6mm.

villa then gasr khm 78, 2ⁿ cent. bc - 6 cent.ad: 1 coin

286. CONSTANTIUS II, AE 3, ad 354-358.Illeg.Diademed bust r.]TIO –/–/[ ]Soldier spearing fallen horseman.Aes 3: 2.0 g – 17.4mm – ..

villa khm 90, 2ⁿ cent. bc - 6 cent. ad: 1 coin

287.* THEODOSIUS I, ad 388-395.DNTHEODO/SIVSPFAVGDiademed bust r.SALVSREI/PVBLICAE //–/[ ]Victory to l., trophy on shoulder, dragging captive.Aes 4: 1.2 g – 15.1mm – ..

Massimil iano MUNZI

– 88 –

Documents

The Tripolitanian countryside and a monetary economy: data from the archaeological survey of the territory of Leptis Magna (Libya)