Appendix II: The Coins from the 1976 Excavations

CARTHAGE, SITE 2: THE TIiEOOOSION WALL 11 calling this to my attention. 51 thank J. Riley for the dating of this piece. 6See , for discussion of these, J. Hayes, "Pottery" in J. Humphrey, ed . , Exaavations at Ctll'thage 1975, at p. 88, and "North African flanged bowls" in J. Dore and K. Greene, cds., Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond (B . A.R. Suplementary Series 1977) 279f. APPENDIX II THE COINS FROM THE 1976 EXCAVATIONS by R. C. BWCKLEY One hundred and eighty-two pieces of material were examined, most of them coins or parts of coins . 1 Of these, seventy-two pieces were identified in whole or in part and another sixty-eight pieces, whose surfaces had been entirely obliterated , could be classified by size of module only. The coins had been cleaned on the site; but in some cases further cleaning WOUld, or should, reveal more information. All the coins identified are AE2, with a preponderance of the smallest modules; in other words, small change . 3 The very worn or corroded coins, which could be classified by module only, offer almost identical proportions. ~ The pieces identified cover a period from the mid-third century A.D. to around, or shortly after, the Byzantine reconquest of Africa (533/4 A.D.); though nothing need be later than the first quarter of the sixth century . Fifty-six of the seventy-b'o pieces can be dated after 364 A.D., thirty-one of these being issues of the Pannonian and Theodosian dynasties, and twenty-five being fifth- and sixth-century AE 4, either Imperial issues or Vandalic imitations. 5 Only a few mint marks are legible. 6 The earliest coins found are Antoniniani, four in number, probably the remnants of the older coinage still in circulation, a common occurrence. 7 They are all of poor style and late (post 260 A.D.). There are nine coins of the sons of Constantine I, six or seven being of the commonest type, Fel. Temp. Reparatio with fallen horseman. 8 The Pannonian and Theodosian coins (which, if legends or mint marks are lacking, often cannot be further separated) , show, in those which can be more closely identified, a preponderance of the Theodosian.! The fifth- and sixth-century AE 4, which exhibit a number of reverse types, are, amongst the pieces examined, of the most interest, for it is a vexed question whether many of these coins are crude Vandalic imitations of late Roman types or Imperial issues of the Roman mint (whose assignable AE 4 certainly deteriorated after about 410 A. D.). Wroth, noting the large number of these coins found in Africa, regarded them as Vandalic lo ; but later many similar pieces were found elsewhere, and the more recent opinion is that they are mostly issues of the Imperial mint at Rome. 11 If the latter view is correct, then it provides important evidence upon contacts between Vandalic Africa and Italy, which thus exported large quantities of small change to Africa (the movement of soZidi is more easily explainable). 12 In fact, the question of the provenance of these coins is not settled, and if a significant number of them continue to turn up in Carthage, a special study might be indicated. Cal'uton Vriiversity 12 R. C. BLOCKLEY NOTES IA few of the fragments may not be of coins. 2.There was one large oxidized silver module, with nothing legible on it. It mayor may not be a coin. 33 AE.2. 22 AE.3, 42 AE . 4. The other five items identified were fragments which contained some legible details, but which were insufficiently large for the module size to be determined. Because it was often impossible to distinguish issues of the Pannonian from those of the Theodosian dynasty. and because the sizes of the modules diminish during the fourth and early fifth centuries, the absolute figures given in this and the following note are not wholly reliable, but as a general indicator the proportions are acceptable. "0 AE.2, 20 AE.3. 48 AE.4. 5There were also two AE.3 which could be of either the Constantinian or the Pannonian-Theodosian dynasties, and a coin, possibly Byzantine of...