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 field
1.29/ 18/ 3 (Fig. 9): Maltese Cross with X / Transposition of Insignia imperial, + in right field
0.62/ 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 field
2.62/ 19/ 1: Maltese Cross with X / W in left field
2.32/ 17/ 6: Maltese cross with X / WV in left field
2.19/ 16/ 12 (Fig. 11): Maltese Cross with X / TU V in left field
2.37/ 17/ 7: Maltese Cross with X / Ul in left field
2.55/ 18/ 7: Maltese Cross with X / TWK in left field
1.09/ 17/ 1; 2.87/ 20/ 9; 1.67/ 17/ -; 1.17/ 18/ -: Maltese Cross with X / + globus cruciger instead of  globus cruciger
1.55/ 18 / - (Fig. 12): Maltese cross with X, inverted letters / + globus cruciger instead of  globus cruciger
1.64/ 19/ 12; 2.22 /18 / 11 (Fig. 13); 2.94/ 19/ 10: Maltese Cross with X / + in left field
1.07/ 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 field
1.62/ 20/ 10: Greek cross with small X / labarum instead of crucifix scepter
0.92/ 18/ 3; 1.89/19/-; 1.07/ 18/- (Fig. 15): Greek Cross with X / ornate labarum instead of cruciger scepter
1.79/ 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.