Papadopoulou
Papadopoulou, P. "Tétartèra d'imitation du XIIIe siècle : à propos du trésor de
Durrës (Albanie)" in
Revue numismatique, volume 161 (2005), pp. 145 - 162, pl. XIII - XIV.
Imitative Tetartera from the 13th Century: About the
Durrës Hoard (Albanie).
The hoard discovered in
Durrës (Albania) was long believed to contain copper coins of Alexius I Comnenus. A more detailed study of its content and similar coins from
Greece has shown that it actually contains imitative tetartera dating from the beginning of the 13th century, probably issued by the Venetians in Corinth.
Available Online
The French text translated to English by Joseph Sermarini (
corrected and slightly modified from Google Translate results). See the original text for the entire article, including footnotes, a map, the catalog, and plates.
The
Durrës hoard was discovered in 1967 near the apse of the chapel of the amphitheater of Dyrrachion, but was only published in detail in 1994. According to Afrim Hoti, it is a hoard of 908 copper coins, of which 799 identifiable: half-tetartera of Alexius I Comnenus of the same
type (
obverse cross adorned and cantoned with the letters С О ΛΛ A and on the
reverse the
bust of Alexis I); the author discerns there two great varieties according to the form of the
cross on the
obverse - Maltese or Greek - and several variants. Based on the
attribution of this
type at the
Thessalonica mint during the period 1081-1092, and linking his emission to the particular needs caused by the Norman attacks concludes that the hoard was buried between 1081 and 1085, i.e. between the first Norman invasion and the end of the siege of Dyrrachion. Even without having access to the coins themselves, there are points weak in the description and interpretation of Hoti. Judging by the plates accompanying his article, the hoard coins imitate the tetartera
type from the fourth issue of Thessaloniki by Alexis I (DOC IV-1 40), pl. XIII, fig. A, and therefore the letters surrounding the
obverse cross are C - Φ / AΛ − ∆ (
Σταυρε Φυλαττε Aλéξιος ∆εσποτη). Moreover, their
weight and module show that it is copper tetartera, dating from after 1092, which excludes a burial in the period of the first Norman invasions, as Hoti suggests it.
In June 2003, I had the opportunity to study this hoard, currently preserved at the Archaeological Museum of
Durrës. Asking to see the whole hoard, all the 908 currencies mentioned by Hoti, I discovered that the coins published were only a selection entrusted to him for study. Above all, it struck me that the original composition of the hoard is lost; indeed, the coins that I was shown, in addition to the published coins, cover a long chronological space and have very different patinas. The storage conditions at the Museum of
Durrës allowed me to conclude that they actually are coins of local origin preserved in the Museum, but many were never
part of the hoard of the amphitheater. This is why in the present study we will examine only the coins with the decorated
cross, whose
provenance is certain.
The find actually includes 862 ornamented cross-type copper coins, as described above. One discerns, according to the shape of the
cross on the
obverse, the decoration of the
field on the
reverse, etc., the following 8 varieties:
Variety I: Greek Cross (127 specimens)Variant Ia: without X in the center of the
cross (47 examples, Fig. 1)
Obv: Greek
cross surrounded by the letters C Φ AΛ ∆ (without X in the center of the
cross).
Rev: Bust of the emperor holding the cruciger
scepter in his right hand and the
globus cruciger in left hand.
Variant Ib: small X in the center of the
cross (13 examples, Fig. 2)
Obv: Greek
cross cantoned with the letters C Φ AΛ ∆, with an X in the center which does not exceed the outline of the
cross.
Rev: Same as above.
Variant Iс: large X in the center of the
cross (55 examples, Fig. 3)
Obv: Greek
cross cantoned with the letters C Φ AΛ ∆ and radiated (X in the center that exceeds the outline of the
cross).
Rev: Same as above.
Variant Id:
in the left
field of the
reverse (12 copies, Fig. 4)
Obv: Similar to above, or variant.
Rev: Bust of the emperor holding the cruciger
scepter in right hand and the globe cruciger in left hand,
in left
field.
Variety II: Maltese Cross (597 specimens)Variant IIa: without X in the center of the
cross (63 examples, Fig. 5)
Obv: Maltese
Cross cantoned with the letters C Φ AΛ ∆ (without X in the center of the
cross).
Rev: Bust of the emperor holding the cruciger
scepter in right hand and the globe cruciger in left hand.
Variant IIb: large X in the center of the
cross (287 examples, Fig. 6)
Obv: Maltese
Cross cantoned with the letters C Φ AΛ ∆ and struck out (X in the center of the
cross).
Rev: Same as above.
Variant IIс(i):
in left
field of
reverse (182 examples, Fig. 7)
Obv: Same as above.
Rev: Bust of the emperor holding the cruciger
scepter in right hand and a
globe cruciger in left hand.
Variant IIс(ii): + in left
field of
reverse (63 examples, Fig. 8)
Dr.: Likewise.
Rev. :
Bust of the emperor holding the cruciger
scepter in right hand and the globe cruciger in left hand, + in left
field.
Unidentified (102 specimens)Coins of the same
type, whether their state of conservation or the quality of their manufacture do not allow to classify in one of the above variants.
Others (36 specimens, 827-862, pl. XIV, fig. 9-16)Coins of the same
type but with irregularities iconographic, such as the inversion of imperial insignia, retrograde letters, etc. (the following is from the catalog in the original article, p. 162).
0.87/ 19/ -: Maltese
cross with X / Transposition of the imperial insignia
1.50/ 18/ 7: Maltese
Cross with X / Transposition of the Imperial Insignia,
in right
field1.29/ 18/ 3 (Fig. 9): Maltese
Cross with X / Transposition of Insignia imperial, + in right
field0.62/ 19/ 10: Greek
cross with large X / Transposition of insignia imperial
1.20/ 19/ 2; 1.05/ 19/ - (Fig. 10):
Bust of the Emperor /
Bust of the Emperor
2.87/ 18/ 11; 2.05/ 16/ 6; 3.40/ 17/ 6: Maltese
Cross with X / WC or WV in the
field2.62/ 19/ 1: Maltese
Cross with X / W in left
field2.32/ 17/ 6: Maltese
cross with X / WV in left
field2.19/ 16/ 12 (Fig. 11): Maltese
Cross with X / TU V in left
field2.37/ 17/ 7: Maltese
Cross with X / Ul in left
field2.55/ 18/ 7: Maltese
Cross with X / TWK in left
field1.09/ 17/ 1; 2.87/ 20/ 9; 1.67/ 17/ -; 1.17/ 18/ -: Maltese
Cross with X / +
globus cruciger instead of
globus cruciger1.55/ 18 / - (Fig. 12): Maltese
cross with X, inverted letters / +
globus cruciger instead of
globus cruciger1.64/ 19/ 12; 2.22 /18 / 11 (Fig. 13); 2.94/ 19/ 10: Maltese
Cross with X / + in left
field1.07/ 17/ -; 1.89/ 17/ 8: Greek
cross with big X / + in the
field left
1.67/ 18/ 1; 1.82/17/9 (Fig. 14); 1.09/ 17/-: Maltese
cross without X / the emperor wears the simplified lows
1.32/ 18/ 12; 1.72/ 19/ 12; 1.40/ 20/ -: Maltese Cross/ +
globus cruciger instead of
globus cruciger,
in left
field1.62/ 20/ 10: Greek
cross with small X /
labarum instead of crucifix
scepter0.92/ 18/ 3; 1.89/19/-; 1.07/ 18/- (Fig. 15): Greek
Cross with X / ornate
labarum instead of cruciger
scepter1.79/ 19/ - (Fig. 16); 1.44/ 19/-: extremely barbaric
style
One could consider the coins of the
Durrës Hoard as tatartera of Alexis I Komnenus from the fourth issue of Thessaloniki (DOC IV-1 40), if they did not differ by the iconography, the quality of engraving and striking and by metrology. They are divided into several variants, are of a very crude
style, reminiscent of the barbaric broadcasts of the 5th-6th centuries, and their
weight is much lower than the theoretical
weight of the tetartera. More precisely:
- the imperial tetartera are characterized by a homogeneous iconography: the
obverse cross is always a Maltese
cross above two steps, decorated with an X in the center and with globules at the ends, confined with letters clearly
engraved; on the
reverse, the
legend TW KOMNHNW, or at least its first
part, is legible and the left
field remains empty. The hoard coins do not have this homogeneity; we sometimes find within the same variant of different stylistic groups;
- the quality of the engraving of the dies and the striking of the
Durrës tetartera are much lower than those of the originals. The globules are very often missing at the extremities of the
cross, as well as the two steps below, the letters are retrograde or inverted, the
inscription on the
reverse almost never exists, the the imperial insignia are confused and the representation of the imperial
bust confined to caricature. In addition, the
axis of the parts differs from the orientation classic at 6 or 12 o'clock and presents all possible variations.
- the tetartera of the hoard are struck on irregularly shaped blanks (sometimes octagonal), smaller and thinner than those of the originals, and by therefore much lighter: their
average weight is 1.54 g, i.e. almost the half that of imperial tetartera (3.25 g).
For all these reasons - iconographic, stylistic and metrological - it is obvious that one cannot consider the "barbarian" tetartera as products of the Thessalonian workshop.
Coins of this kind are not unknown in numismatic literature but they have never been given much attention. In 1954 Margaret
Thompson mentions, among the 602 tetartera from the fourth issue discovered in the excavations of the
Agora of
Athens, two "barbarian
style examples of the ornate cross"
type without further comment. In 1969 Michael
Hendy notices, among the coins of the Thessalonian
type, the presence of some pieces of a coarser manufacture and a
weight lower than the other coins of the same mint, but does not attribute them to another mint due to lack of evidence.
Grierson, commenting on the same
type of tetartera in 1982, which he describes as "abnormal," proposes to allocate all the coins - treated or not, heavy or light - to a workshop outside
Greece. In 1989, in a
fundamental publication for the study of tetartera, Mme Oikonomidou and her
colleagues distinguish among the tetartera of the fourth issue, on the one hand
the neater and heavier examples they attribute to Thessaloniki, and
on the other hand, the light pieces "having an appearance of imitations" which they
attribute to the undetermined Greek mint. Finally, in 2000, Anna-Maria Kasdagli
noted the presence of tetartera of the decorated cross type, with thinner flans, lighter weight and lower quality among the finds
currencies of the island of Rhodes.
All these allusions to "barbarian" tetartera of the type of the decorated cross
always remain mere remarks without conclusions being drawn. The
only exception is the contribution of Vasso Penna, who considers them as
"faithful imitations," issued at the end of the 12th century, alongside the imitations
"Bulgarians." The author attributes their emission to separatist archons -
like Leon Sgouros in Argos or Manuel Kamytses in Macedonia and Thessaly
- or to Western businessmen, in any case not to the Byzantine State.
At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between the different imitation tetartera
or hybrids, bearing the ornate cross of type DOC IV-1 40a and 40b, and the "barbarian" tetartera referred to here: the hybrids with the ornate cross on the reverse,
discovered in Corinth and Athens and published by Zervos are not part of the
"barbarians", although they share certain characteristics (errors of
engraving, irregular corner axes - other than at 6 or 12 o'clock -, legends
incorrect etc). Their study demonstrated that these hybrids divide according to the flan form in two categories (5 and 3 copies respectively) and are all linked
of dies except one copy of the second category. Another copy of
same type (first category) in the collection of Dumbarton Oaks, is
also struck by the same coin. It is therefore a very limited production,
probably local and contemporary or shortly after Alexis I Komnenus. From the same period also date counterfeit coins of the cross type
adorned with the bust of the emperor on the reverse, found in Corinth, much larger than the "barbarians," with whom they should not be confused. Finally, there are
contemporary imitation tetartera of the decorated
cross type of Alexis I and different from the "barbarians" found in northern
Syria.
Apart from the
Durrës hoard, the only known hoard including coins "barbarians" with the decorated
cross is that of Thessaloniki / 1 93 3-B24, preserved in Numismatic Museum of
Athens. The study that I carried out on site demonstrated that all of the decorated
cross type tetartera (104 pieces) from this find have the same stylistic characteristics and metrological and belong to the same variants as those of the
Durrës Hoard.
A high concentration of isolated "barbarian" tetartera is also observed in coins from Corinthian excavations: among 337 tetartera from the fourth program by Alexis Comnenus, 55 - or 16% - are “barbarians.” Their study on place demonstrated that they belong to the same group as those of
Durrës. The "barbarians" of Corinth are of very great importance because they come from systematic excavations. The stratigraphy of
Byzantine Corinth and medieval does not make it possible to specify the date of issue or implementation circulation of these currencies, but it confirms that they are never found with their original prototypes.
Thessaloniki's fourth issue is not the only one that has made the object of "barbarian"
style imitations. The same phenomenon affects the half-tetarteron with the
patriarchal cross, cantoned with the letters A A К Φ, attributed by
Hendy to an uncertain mint, probably located in
Greece (DOC IV-1 45), pl. XIII, fig. B. In this also in this case, "barbarian"
style pieces, with reduced
weight on the blanks polygonal (DOC IV-1 45b-d28), pl. XIV, fig. 17, are opposed to well-made pieces, more heavy and neat (DOC IV-1 45a). Their
attribution to the uncertain Greek mint attractive, but their presence in Corinth is very limited - the sample includes neat and "barbaric" pieces as well -, while the only other specimens of known
provenance have been found in
Greece from the
North and Istanbul. In addition, the
cross motif is characteristic of
Thessalonica. We could therefore attribute, at least the
good quality parts, to the Thessalonian mint.
Another
type of
tetarteron comprising "barbaric" pieces is the one with
monogram of Manuel I Komnenus, whose heavy pieces of
good quality are attributed to the
Thessalonica mint (
DOC IV 1, 20) and the lightest and less cared for at the undetermined Greek mint (DOC IV-1 22). However, within the group attributed to the uncertain Greek mint there is a very great divergence in quality and the existence of “barbarian”
style pieces. These latter were found in the Brauron Hoard/1956 (81 tetartera "barbarians" to the
monogram type), Kastri/1952 (6 "barbarian" tetartera in
type of the
monogram) and from Corinth/July 1929 (2 "barbarian" tetartera of a unspecified
type of Manual I). It is important to note that two of these three hoards (Brauron/1956 and Corinthe/July 1929) include imitations and were therefore buried after 1204. Michael
Metcalf reported the presence of these pieces and the fact that they are not from the same period as those of
good quality, but it tends rather to transfer all the emissions attributed to the undetermined Greek mint in the 13th century and to the Duchy of
Athens. Given all the commonalities between the "barbaric" parts to the types of the different emperors, they can all be considered as belonging to the same group of imitations. The question that now arises is to establish the place of production, the date of issue and the issuing authority of these imitations.
The geographical distribution of the finds should allow us to answer the first question. As seen on the map, the "barbarian" tetartera circulate in the same regions as the original tetartera. They therefore constitute imitations intended for a population accustomed to using them. The two hoards (
Durrës, Thessaloniki/1933) come from the regions of
North, fairly close to each other, but the "barbarian" tetartera circulate apparently throughout the southern Balkan Peninsula. The finds isolated are concentrated in central
Greece, but the two great hoards come from the northern regions. Should we associate this phenomenon with the place of production of imitations or with the fact that central
Greece had been entirely way the region par excellence of circulation of the tetartera throughout the whole period of the Komnenos and the Angeli?
It is the definition of their date of issue, which will tell us the authority issuer and perhaps the location of the mint. The first one possibility is to consider them as imperial issues, issued in same time as their prototypes by another workshop. In this case their
weight reduced would indicate that it is half-tetartera of a "barbarian"
style, due to a provincial workshop. But such an
attribution is excluded by the following facts:
- The coins in question have as their prototype issues from the mint of Thessaloniki, which is the case of the issues attributed to the Greek mint undetermined, but their
style and typing quality are too bad, even for a provincial workshop. The transposition of the imperial insignia and legends reversed or schematized are significant of die engravers who do not did not understand the imperial system and perhaps not even the Greek language.
- Excavations in Corinth have shown that the "barbarian" tetartera are not never found with their imperial parallels, but do not specify their date of issue. On the other hand, the testimony of the hoards poses several problems, especially because of the special nature of the preserved hoards. The
Durrës Hoard giving no information on his date of deposition, it is the Thessaloniki Hoard/1933 alone, which could date the imitations of the fourth issue of Alexius I Comnenus. Now this hoard is also of a special character: it is a funerary deposit - or at least a hoard buried in a tomb -, found in 1937 during salvage excavations in Thessaloniki, on the current Via
Egnatia. The treasury includes coins from various periods (since Théophile to "barbarian" tetartera). The only conclusion that can be draw is that the "barbarian" tetartera, the most numerous (104 out of 112 parts), are the most recent. Anyway, the origin of these two hoards and the number of "barbaric" copies they contain constitute strong arguments against an
attribution to the uncertain Greek mint.
- For the "barbaric" issues of the Manuel I
monogram type, the preserved hoards indicate a date of burial after the Fourth Crusade, because they contain Latin imitations. Only that of Kastri/1952 does not include of coins after 1204, but the rate of imitations in its composition is very weak, which indicates a burial date shortly after the issuance of the imitations.
- Apart from the hoards, the material from the excavations also offers clues for a dating around 1204. In two cases, in Thebes and Ohrid, the presence of tetartera in the layers of the 13th century is confirmed. It is almost certain that among the tetartera in question there are also "barbarian" tetartera, at least in Thebes, as Mina Galani-Krikou writes: the most numerous is that of half-tetartera with the
monogram of
Manuel I Comnenus, attributed to the uncertain Greek mint, whereas for the tetartera of Alexis I, the author alludes to the issue with the ornate
cross in the "barbarian"
style.
- In all cases, where "barbarian" tetartera are found with coins dating from after 1204, these coins are Latin imitations of small module, especially of
type A.
All these data indicate that the "barbaric" currencies in question have issued shortly before or
just after 1204, therefore constitute imitations of imperial coins, which continued to circulate. That's why I don't consider not as half-tetartera, but as tetartera of a
weight reduced, due to their imitative character. Their presence with Latin imitations of small module
type A shows an issue date
just before or after the conquest, while their limited number indicates that they were broadcasts of a small volume, but of great diffusion.
Who was the issuer of these imitations? The proposals already made by Penna and
Metcalf to assign them to local aristocrats and the Duchy of
Athens respectively, are based on the knowledge of
part of the data, especially from Corinth and
Athens. However, the dissemination of the finds from
Durrës in Rhodes and the small number of specimens from the
Athens region exclude these attributions: the issuing authority of the imitation tetartera should having had access to the entire territory where they were circulating.
Let us return to the geographical distribution of imitation tetartera. He is interesting to note that these pieces were all found in centers Via
Egnatia and the road that led from Thessaloniki along the east coast from
Greece to Thebes,
Athens and Corinth, i.e. in the trade network between the major centers of the southern Balkans. Also, most cities mentioned have one thing in common: they were seats of the Venetian trade, already in the twelfth century, and some were included in the Partitio Romaniae as Venetian possessions. I think we should not consider this phenomenon as a coincidence. Already
Hendy and
Metcalf have proposed to attribute to the Venetians Constantinople
part of the coinage of the period after 1204. Such
attribution must however be excluded for imitation tetartera due to their strong presence in southern
Greece and their absence in
Thrace and capital city. It is necessary to seek the workshop of production of these currencies in a city of
Greece where the Venetians would have had the right to mint. The candidate most probable is Corinth: indeed, Corinth was a Venetian dependency, officially recognized as such by Geoffrey de Villehardouin in 1209. The Venetians would have struck these coins there, the equivalents of the Latin trachea of imitation for the zone of circulation of tetartera. One can only assume that their issuance began after 1204, otherwise the right to mint coins would have been included in the chrysobullae concerning the privileges granted to the
Serenissima by the
Byzantine Emperor. The fact that they appear in hoards with few copies of
type A Latin imitations (small module), does not constitute an argument for an issue before 1204: tetartera are rarely hoarded with trachea.
The only question that remains is to know why in the treasures one never finds together the specimens of two principal groups of tetartera of imitation - with the decorated
cross and the
monogram. The volume of the production of the imitations with the
monogram is much smaller than that with the decorated
cross and its diffusion much more restricted, limited to
Attica and Corinth. It should however be noted that the imitation tetartera with the ornate
cross offered a similar image before being recognized as a specific group in the article by
Oikonomidou e.a. It will therefore be necessary to re-examine the numismatic material to confirm the hypothesis that I
just expressed.
To conclude this study, we must return to our starting point: the
Durrës Hoard. If the
attribution of these coins to a mint located in Corinth is correct, this hoard containing an exceptional number of coins for the distance from the place of production, must be the deposit of a traveler, most likely a merchant, who hid him in a sacred place, the chapel, in order to protect him from imminent danger. We can think of the attack by the forces of Michael I Comnenus Ducas, Despot of
Epirus (1204-1215), which put an end to the Venetian Duchy of Durazzo in 1214.