Knowledge is like
money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value.
Louis L'Amour
.
When you specialize in a
denomination you learn more than the
average collector and in other cases more than the numismatists who looked at the currency as a whole instead of specializing in one solitary
denomination.
Here is what I learned on my journey.
To start Michael
Hendy in Coinage and
Money 12-13th century published in 1969 was the genesis for accurate information regarding the 12th century coinage especially the
tetarteron ,
his work changed previous collectors catalogs that
had categorized the
tetarteron without a name , simple described as small flat coins.
In the reign of Alexius, the coinage of the Eastern
Roman empire (Now known as Byzantine) was in horrible condition, a coinage that was once respected around the world was debased and its value was becoming in question. The empire was cash
poor but in 1092 Alexius did the first major change in the coinage of the empire since Justinian.
In this coin reform of 1092, he created several new
denominations, a
scyphate gold coin called a
Hyperpyron. The coin was originally 20 1/2 carats gold, it returned Byzantine currency to the forefront or respect of its neighboring nations and a basic unit of standards for other cultures to follow for the next few century.
Bellow the
Hyperpyron was the EL.
Aspron trachy also known as
trikephalon, the coin was a mixed metal coin originally containing 6 carats of gold. Trikephlon is the appropriate name based on
contemporary writings, In the collecting world it is known as the El
Aspron trachy.
Then come the billion
stamenon ( Billion
Trachy), a
scyphate coin that is seen in many
collections, it contained as much 8% silver in the time of Alexius reign but oddly the 12th century coinage was not found in
Greece it was found in
Constantinople and the eastern empire of
Asia minor. For some unknown reason the Byzantine government kept the
trachy separate from the
tetarteron except in
Constantinople and the immediate outlying regions. Trachea was used as a primary coin to pay for the
military. So perhaps the separation was due to whatever
area was the front lines at the time.
Now dealing with the focus of this post, the
tetarteron. It originally received its name from a
gold coinage that was minted before the reform but in the same shape. In the original writings of Michael
Hendy he broke them into two groups the
tetarteron and its half, but he came up with this separation by using the
average weights for the coins, the full version and the half. However, in
his original book he left the door open to the coin being multiple
denominations. ( CAM pg 29)
Hendy does add to the family of tetartera by the time he is asked to write Dumbarton Oakes
Catalog IV, but not because of
weight or size, he adds the
Constantinople issues as a sperate
denomination. A study conducted by D.M.
Metcalf proved the issues from
Constantinople contained silver, around 4%, not much, but when you consider the
trachy was only 8% silver content then in comparison it was considerable.
DOC IV retests the results and they were proved to be conclusive. However, no
catalog written after
DOC IV noted the difference in
denominations,
Sear had already written
his catalog based on the 1969
work. Therefore, most of the collecting community is oblivious to this fact.
Here is all
denominations from high to low ( Fig1)
Michael
Hendy believed this
Constantinople minted coin was terrified at a higher rate than the
Thessalonica minted because of the silver content, it was not until correspondence written between a student a teacher was this given additional evidence to be true. In the two letters the purchasing power of the two coins were described, a
standard Thessalonica minted
tetarteron could purchase a small loaf of bread where a
Constantinople issue could buy 10 mackerel.
The
Constantinople issues are
rare, in fact Phillip
Grierson did not think they were regular issues, but coins issued for ceremonial reason s alone. Michael
Hendy disagreed and after my years of collecting I must disagree as well. Although they are
rare, they are found as circulated coins. During the time of their original issue I believe the
Constantinople issues were differentiated by a silver wash, the same silver wash that was put on trachea of the same time period. I have seen numerous examples with slight traces of silver
still intact and several examples of tetartera that the silver was
still intact, my main
collection has one example, basically a coin as struck. Ironically, the coin would be far more attractive without the
silvering. ( Fig2)
Now trachea and tetartera (Both
Constantinople issues and
Thessalonica issues)
had one thing in common they were created never to be recalled. In other words, the coins were to remain in circulation as long as possible. Taxes were to be paid in gold and only gold, change from taxes was paid in the trachea or tetartera. The government never made any attempt to recall tetartera, this accounts for the condition most tetartera is found in, a coin that circulated for decades after its creation. This also creates the need for imitation coins minted after the ruler’s death. I will discuss this further later in the post.
Now the main references for the modern collectors of 12th century tetartera are
Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1261– Michael Hendy – This is the genesis for collecting coinage from this time period, it is the original road map for the organization of the coinage but it is a rarer publication and no longer necessary for the
average collector.
Sear Byzantine Coins and their Values- This publication is the easiest way for Byzantine collectors to communicate. The majority of the tetartera are included in this book, however, it was written before the Dumbarton Oakes
catalog leaving many Byzantine collectors in the dark about the new information of
Metcalf and
Hendy’s findings on
Constantinople issue containing silver. Most dealers use this as the main reference.
Dumbarton Oakes Catalog Volume IV- This is the most scientific of all catalogs for tetartera collectors, Michael
Hendy does cite information in
his 1969 publication but the new information he includes on issues supersedes
his earlier
work. The
catalog was expensive at its release, but it is now available for free online.
https://www.doaks.org/research/publications/books/catalogue-of-the-byzantine-coins-in-the-dumbarton-oaks-collection-and-in-the-whittemore-collection-4Two other coin catalogs appear after the publication of
DOC IV but sadly in both cases they ignore the new information and follow in the footsteps of
Sear.
De Munzen Des Byzantinischen Reiches 491- 1453 by Andreas Urs Sommer -Interesting
catalog but written in
German and not all issues are included, however the prices in
Euro are far more accurate than Sears
catalog written decades before.
Catalog of the Late Byzantine Coins 1081-1453 Volume I- This
catalog in invaluable for its line drawings but most of the authors findings are opinions not backed by fact, and once again they completely ignored the findings of
DOC IV , the
catalog did add a very interesting theory regarding die sizes to determine the full and the half . I explored the theory and found it was not
complete, however my final findings are not conclusive but does leave the door open for further exploration. My other criticism of the
work is they never cited their sources for coins, sizes and
weights, I think they used
coin archives but that was not made clear,
the catalog is the first to publish several new types of tetarteron. One thing several catalogs attempt to do is determine
rarity , this is done by either by monetary value or by a numerical system, I have found this to be very inefficient and nonfactual, many coins in
Sear cited as being common took me years to find. I have found the best system to determine
rarity are the archaeological finds at
Corinth,
Athens and now recently
Thessalonica. Knowing how many of a
type appears in their records seems to give the best
rarity system. This is cumbersome, a more practical method is online ancient
coin archives web sites. Here is a graph on the
rarity based on loss coins finds, this is a
bit misleading because finding an
Alexius III coin on the market is rarer than
John II but the finds say different. ( Fig 3.)
This post continues soon , it is written during the last few weeks, I just need to get the photos in order.
