Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 [1 & 2] 9004434348, 9789004434349

Citation preview

Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 Volume 1

The Medieval Mediterranean peoples, economies and cultures, 400–1500

Managing Editor Frances Andrews (St. Andrews) Editors Tamar Herzig (Tel Aviv) Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews) Larry J. Simon (Western Michigan University) Daniel Lord Smail (Harvard University) Jo Van Steenbergen (Ghent University) Advisory Board David Abulafia (Cambridge) Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv) Hugh Kennedy (SOAS, London)

volume 124/1

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mmed

Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 Volume 1

By

Julian Baker

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Obverse of denier tournois, principality of Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford HCR47615, #529. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Baker, Julian, 1971- author. Title: Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 / by Julian Baker. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: The Medieval  Mediterranean: peoples, economies and cultures, 400–1500, 0928–5520 ;  volume 124 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Contents:  v. 1. — v. 2. Identifiers: LCCN 2020026824 (print) | LCCN 2020026825 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004434622 (v. 1 ; hardback) | ISBN 9789004434639 (v. 2 ; hardback) |  ISBN 9789004434349 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004434646 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Coins, Greek. | Coins, Medieval—Greece. |  Greece—History—323–1453. | Greece—History—1453–1821. Classification: LCC CJ1289.G8 B34 2020 (print) | LCC CJ1289.G8 (ebook) |  DDC 737.4938—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026824 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026825

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. The ‘Inscription Numismatic’ font was developed by the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge to allow for the accurate rendering of medieval coin legends. ISSN 0928-5520 ISBN 978-90-04-43434-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-43462-2 (hardback, volume 1) ISBN 978-90-04-43463-9 (hardback, volume 2) ISBN 978-90-04-43464-6 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Volume 1 Preface xi 1 Geographical and Chronological Scope xii 2 Subject Matter, Primary Material, Methodology, Structure xx 3 Acknowledgments xxv 4 Languages and Transliterations xxvii 5 Figures, Tables, Maps, Coin Finds and Illustrations xxviii Abbreviations xxix 1 Historical and Monetary Context 1 1 Middle Byzantium and the Transition to the Late Period 1 2 The Medieval West during the Commercial Revolution and the Late Medieval Crises 57 3 The Numismatics of Medieval Greece 72 2 Coin Production and Circulation in Medieval Greece according to the Material Evidence 86 1 Overview 86 2 Site and Single Finds 105 3 Hoarding and Non-retrieval of Hoards 124 4 Abandoned Coins: Graves and Dumps 149 5 Monetary Functions Performed by Uncoined Fine and Base Metals: Ingots and Jewellery, Jettons and Tokens 153 6 Control over and Manipulation of the Monetary Stock: Official Minting and Counterfeiting, Injection and Culling, Cancellation and Other Alterations 161 7 The Quantity and Quality of the Monetary Stock 176 3 Storing Wealth, Paying Taxes, Services and Goods: the Issuers and Users of Coinage in Medieval Greece 185 1 The Geographical and Demographic Context 186 2 The Geographical and Demographic Context: Monetary Implications 200 3 The Money Market in Medieval Greece 217 4 1200–1259/1268: Political and Military History 224

vi

Contents

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1200–1259/1268: Socio-Economic Trends 234 1200–1259/1268: Money 251 1259/1268–1347/1348: Political and Military History 266 1259/1268–1347/1348: Socio-Economic Trends 287 1259/1268–1347/1348: Money 326 1347/1348–1430: Political and Military History 359 1347/1348–1430: Socio-Economic Trends 382 1347/1348–1430: Money 402

4 Coins in the Regions and Towns of Medieval Greece 425 1 Peloponnese, with Special Reference to Corinth, Argos, Sparta, and Clarentza 425 2 Eastern Mainland Greece, with Special Reference to Athens and Thebes 446 3 Thessaly 468 4 Epiros, Aitoloakarnania, and the Ionian Islands, with Special Reference to Arta 471 5 Cycladic Islands 479 Conclusions: Medieval Greek Money in Context 484 Bibliography 499

Volume 2 Appendix I: Coin Finds 647 1 Hoards in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Chronological Order) 647 2 Hoards in Greece, 1430–1500 (in Chronological Order) 891 3 Coins in Graves in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Alphabetical Order) 897 4 Excavation and Single Finds in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Alphabetical Order) 916 5 Deniers Tournois in Hoards in Italy (in Chronological Order) 1058 6 Deniers Tournois in Graves in Italy (in Alphabetical Order) 1083 7 Deniers Tournois and Greek Petty Denomination Issues as Excavation and Single Finds in Italy (in Alphabetical Order) 1085 8 Deniers Tournois, Sterling Pennies, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli in Hoards in the Eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, and Crete (in Chronological Order) (For Crete, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli Have Not Been Listed) 1109

Contents

9

10 11 12 13 14 15

vii

Deniers Tournois, Greek Petty Denomination Issues, Sterling Pennies, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli as Excavation and Single Finds in the Eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, and Crete (in Alphabetical Order) (For Crete, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli Have Not Been Listed) 1118 Deniers Tournois, Medieval Greek Coins, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli in Hoards in the Balkans (in Chronological Order) 1130 Deniers Tournois, Medieval Greek Coins, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli as Excavation and Single Finds in the Balkans (in Alphabetical Order) 1142 Greek Deniers Tournois in Hoards in Western and Northern Europe (in Chronological Order) 1157 Medieval Coins in Stratigraphical Fills at Ancient Corinth 1164 Medieval Coins in Stratigraphical Fills in the Athenian Agora 1183 Alphabetical List of Hoards Contained in Appendix I.1, 2, 5, 8, 10 1189

Appendix ii: Coinages 1197 Byzantine and Byzantine-Style Coinages 1197 1 1.A Tetartera 1197 1.B Billon Trachea 1207 1.C Electrum and Silver Trachea 1246 1.D Hyperpyra 1252 1.E Tornesi 1268 1.F Late Byzantine Silver 1274 2 English and Related Sterling Pennies 1277 3 French Deniers Tournois 1283 3.A Deniers Tournois of the Abbey of Tours 1285 3.B Deniers Tournois of the Kingdom of France 1286 3.C Deniers Tournois of Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1289 3.D Deniers Tournois of Charles of Anjou, Count of Provence (1246–1285) 1291 3.E French Denier Tournois Counterfeits 1293 4 Venetian and Related Coinages 1294 4.A Pennies and their Multiples 1294 4.B Grossi 1296 4.C Serbian Grossi 1302 4.D Ducats and Florins 1306 4.E Soldini 1317 4.F Torneselli 1325

viii 5

6

7 8

9

10 11

Contents

Western European Pennies 1332 5.A France 1335 5.B Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1337 5.C Ancona 1340 5.D Northern and Central Italy 1341 5.E Iberia 1342 5.F Hungary 1343 Miscellaneous Eastern Coins 1343 6.A Crusader States in Palestine and Cyprus 1343 6.B Armenia 1344 6.C Golden Horde 1346 6.D Rhodes 1346 6.E Chios 1347 6.F Lesbos 1349 6.G Islamic States 1350 Billon Trachea of Manfred of Hohenstaufen 1353 Petty Denomination Issues of Athens and Achaïa 1357 8.A Athens 1359 8.B Achaïa 1365 8.C Counterfeits 1374 Deniers Tournois of Greece and Related Issues 1374 9.A Achaïa 1376 9.B Athens 1427 9.C Karytaina 1440 9.D Corfu 1441 9.E Salona 1443 9.F Naupaktos 1445 9.G Neopatra 1453 9.H Tinos 1462 9.I Chios and Damala 1464 9.J Arta 1466 9.K Italian Tournois 1477 9.L Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia 1481 9.M Counterfeits 1484 9.N Late Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Tournois of the Aegean 1490 Tornesi of Naxos 1492 Western Large Silver Coinages 1494 11.A Gros Tournois of France 1500 11.B Saluti and Gigliati of Sicily (Naples) 1502

Contents

12

ix

11.C Gigliati of the Counts of Provence 1504 11.D Gigliati of the Popes at Avignon 1506 11.E Pierreali of Sicily 1507 Fifteenth-Century Latin Copper Coinages 1508

Appendix Iii: Monies of Account 1510 1 Hyperpyron of Constantinople 1511 1.1 Early Evolution after 1204 1512 1.2 Values of Metropolitan Hyperpyra 1514 1.3 Gold Hyperpyra in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Greece 1515 1.4 Gold Hyperpyra and Related Currencies in Late Byzantium 1516 2 Byzantine Electrum Trachy 1522 3 Hyperpyra of South Greece and Associated Units: Grosso, Sterling, Manus, Tournois, Soldo 1522 3.1 Development of Local Greek Hyperpyra in the Early Years of the Thirteenth Century 1523 3.2 Early Link Coins and Relative Values of the Different Hyperpyra 1524 3.3 Hyperpyra and their Divisions to ca. 1300: Sterling, Manus, Tournois, Grosso 1525 3.4 Greek Hyperpyra, Gros and Deniers Tournois, in the Angevin System of Ounces, Tarì, Grains 1527 3.5 Value Relations of the Greek Currencies, Sterlings, Grossi, Tournois, Petty Denomination Issues 1531 3.6 Greek Hyperpyra, Their Link Coins and Weights, in the Early 1300s 1532 3.7 Accounting in Catalan Territories 1536 3.8 Moreote Accounting from the 1330s to the 1350s 1540 3.9 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Spreads 1544 3.10 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: General Features 1545 3.11 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Angevin Land Regime 1547 3.12 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Venetian Colonies 1549 4 Hyperpyra of Sclavonia and “De Cruce” 1554 4.1 Early Local Hyperpyron Changes 1554 4.2 Coming of Venetian Grossi 1555

x

Contents

5

6

7

8

4.3 Tornesi and Piccoli 1556 4.4 Hyperpyron Rates at the Height of Angevin Power 1556 4.5 Fourteenth-Century Hyperpyra: Tornesi and Venetian Grossi 1558 4.6 Fourteenth-Century Hyperpyra “De Cruce” 1559 4.7 Towards the Late Medieval Period: Hyperpyra, Grossi, Tornesi, Ducats, Soldini 1560 Other Regional Hyperpyra: Crete, Chios, and Macedonia 1564 5.1 Crete 1564 5.2 Chios 1568 5.3 Thessalonike 1570 Venetian Systems of Account 1573 6.1 Venetian Coins in the Accounting Systems of Romania 1573 6.2 Pounds and Shillings of Piccoli and Grossi in the Thirteenth Century 1574 6.3 Fourteenth-Century Metallic Separations 1574 6.4 Venetian Systems of Account in the Greek Context 1576 Units of Silver and Gold 1581 7.1 Byzantine Pound and Its Units 1582 7.2 Italian and Greek Weight Units 1582 7.3 Gold Ounce of the Regno 1583 7.4 Marks 1583 7.5 Pounds, Marks, and Ounces in Greece 1584 Summary of Value Relations 1585

Maps 1599 Map 1 General overview 1600 Map 2 Corinth 1602 Map 3 Athens 1603 Map 4 Thebes 1604 Coin Illustrations 1606 Indices 1774 1 Geographical, Political, and Ethnic Index (General, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern) 1774 2 Prosopographical Index (Medieval) 1787 3 Prosopographical Index (Modern) 1792 4 General Index 1795

Preface Money, and especially the love of it, are usually looked upon negatively. This was acute in the later middle ages, when religious fervour against it – spurred on by poignant biblical passages1 – was rife.2 Increasingly complex political and economic systems, built around the exchange of money, came to have negative effects on the lives of many. This situation was compounded by the severe demographic, political, economic, and monetary crises of the period. While being vested with much disfavour, money was fundamental to many human activities, and represents therefore a fruitful subject matter to the historian. The aim of this book lies in the writing of a monetary history for territories which may, in medieval terms, be called Hellas and Epiros, and are further delineated below. These constitute the ‘primary area’ of enquiry and shall henceforth, despite the fact that they encompass only a part of the present-day Hellenic Republic and about a quarter of modern Albania, be called ‘Greece’. This term is designed foremost as a shorthand and is in no way intended to be a reflection on more modern processes and constellations. The period under scrutiny ranges from the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in great parts of the Balkans in the wake of the Fourth Crusade (1204), to ca. 1430, when important political changes took place, and when monetary affairs reached an unprecedented state of obscurity. This period, which lies approximately between the respective middle Byzantine and Ottoman dominations of many of these territories, is called ‘medieval’. This book is primarily an attempt to write a monetary, not a financial or fiscal, history. While being based on the pertinent material and written sources, in the medieval Greek context a good deal of monetary information is contained in the coins themselves. The extant coinage series and the record of coin finds are often the only available primary source on a whole range of topics, from monetary production to monetary usage over time and space, and in the various spheres of human interaction. This study is born out of two fundamental considerations: monetary affairs need to be described with reference to a thoroughly researched and presented body of – largely but not exclusively – numismatic evidence. To do otherwise, 1  Conveniently summarised in Le Goff, Moyen âge et l’argent, pp. 12–13. 2  In addition to much of Le Goff’s account, see Huizinga, Waning of the Middle Ages, pp. 26–27, and, more specifically for the Balkan context, Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 263 (regarding the monastic environment); Frolow, “L’argent de parure” (regarding the heavy emphasis on the payment of Judas in medieval Serbian art). On the fashion in which money permeated all aspects of life in this particular period, see also Kaye, Economy and nature in the fourteenth century.

xii

Preface

by basing oneself on wrong or insecure identifications, attributions, datings, and on incomplete data, would amount to little more than the construction of a house of cards.3 Any insights gained from this evidence must, however, be given relevance within wider political and economic processes, else they would fail to make a historiographical contribution. In general terms, the raw numismatic and monetary data and their immediate evaluations are dealt with in the appendices of Volume 2, whereas the main historical, archaeological, and topographical discussions are treated in Chapters 1 to 4 in Volume 1. 1

Geographical and Chronological Scope

The precise outline of the territory under consideration can be seen in Map 1.4 My selection has been determined by historical and monetary considerations. The following modern Greek regions5 are treated: Epiros; Thessaly including the Sporades; Mainland Greece including Euboia and Skyros;6 Ionian Islands including Kythira; Peloponnese; Cycladic Islands. Within Albania, the counties (qarku) of Vlorë and Gjirokastër have also been included in their entireties, as well as the neighbouring districts (rrethe), to the north and east, of Mallakastër (county of Fier); Berat and Skrapar (county of Berat); Kolonjë (county of Korçë). The northwestern boundary of this study is the Seman river (ancient Apsos), the westerly confluence of the Devoll and Osum rivers, in the plain of Fier, which cuts the district of Fier in half. The town of Apollonia lies in this plain, whereas in the mountainous area to the south and east of this plain we find the important fortresses of Kaninë, Mylon, and Berat, and the medieval towns of Glavinitza (modern Ballsh) and Gradinitzion (ancient Byllis). To the east of, and parallel to, the river Osum, a line is drawn southwards to the present-day Greek border, at the point where the regions of Epiros and 3  See, in this regard, Hahn’s justification for the Moneta Imperii Byzantini project, which is designed to stem the construction of ill-founded “Gebilde auf Sand”: MIB III, p. 9. 4  Chapter 3, pp. 186–200 offers also a more in-depth discussion of the geographical conditions. 5  The Greek regions (γεωγραφικά διαμερίσματα) have not been in official usage since the 1987 introduction of the peripheries (περιφέρειες), although they are more usefully referred to in this study as they are closer to ancient and medieval geographical divisions. Even here, however, usage of the term has not been entirely consistent: for instance the Cycladic Islands have always been a nomos, and not a region or periphery. I have also designated as ‘Peloponnese’ the entire peninsula, including those areas of the Argolis which are officially part of Attica (formerly nomos, now periphery), but excluding the Mainland areas which are part of the nomos of Corinthia. In my catalogue entries of Appendix I, further reference is made to the sub-divisions of the nomos, the demos, and occasionally the eparchy (the latter phased out from 1987 and finally abolished in 2006). 6  I have preferred this translation for Στέρεα Ελλάδα to the usual Central or Continental Greece.

Preface

xiii

Macedonia meet. Greek Macedonia and Thrace have been excluded from the primary area treated in this book, as have the Republic of North Macedonia, and those Albanian counties and districts not listed above. 1.1 Romania The territories which are delineated in this way were not a single unit during the period 1200–1430, although they were united by certain characteristics. They mostly slipped out of the direct control of Byzantium and Constantinople as a direct result of the Fourth Crusade.7 Nevertheless, the entire region treated in this book, much as other areas which at different times belonged to the Byzantine Empire, continued to be defined as ‘Romania’. This term refers not merely to the Roman/Byzantine heritage, but implies an ongoing allegiance of most of the populations, most of the time, – usually notional or at a remove – to empire and emperor.8 The increasing usage of Romania to define a particular realm or place – notably by Serbs, Latins, and Turks9 – was a reflection of a territorial conception of the exercise of power in contrast to the universalist tradition of the Byzantine (Roman) empire. In the medieval period some of these territories were at different times, and to different degrees, integrated into larger units dominated by, other than Byzantium, French, Venetian, south Italian, Aragonese, Serbian, or Ottoman authorities. Many were, however, for all intents and purposes part of independent polities under the authority of resident rulers of a Latin or Byzantine tradition. The precise political and constitutional constellation of each and every one of the analysed territories had a large bearing on monetary matters.10

7   There are naturally exceptions to this assertion. After the battle of Pelagonia (1259) and the restoration of the empire under the Palaiologan dynasty in 1261, some of these northern and northwestern territories were re-conquered for Constantinople. In the course of the fourteenth century, after the effective elimination of Greek separatist tendencies, most of Epiros and Thessaly were sporadically re-united with Byzantium, only to slip out of its hands forever. In the Peloponnese itself Byzantium gained an increasingly strong foothold and outlived much of Latin rule. A historical outline is given in Chapter 3, pp. 268–287 and 359–378. 8   See ODB, s.v. Romania. 9   Oikonomides, “Emperor of the Romans – Emperor of Romania”. Venetian notaries operating in Crete refer to Romania, for instance, as the place of origin of Greek slaves (usually from Thrace and Anatolia) offered for sale by Catalans or Turks: see Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella, s.v. Romania. A Catalan merchant of the fourteenth century uses the term to denote the area of Constantinople and Pera: Duran i Duelt, Berenger Benet, p. 1, n. 1. At the time of the first conquest of the eleventh century, the Turks of Anatolia referred to the area as Rûm: Balivet, Romanie, p. 2. 10  The relationships of politics and money are specifically considered in Chapter 3, pp. 185–424.

xiv

Preface

1.2 Ethnicity and Identity Parts of our primary area – certainly the Peloponnese, the eastern Mainland, the Cyclades, and occasionally the Ionian Islands – belonged to the world of the ‘Latinokratia’/‘Frankokratia’, which also comprised for instance the Genoese and Hospitaller colonies in the Aegean, or Lusignan Cyprus. The terms Latin and Frank have been variously used in the historiography, and debated for their merits.11 The former term is usually the preferred one in this book since it is less charged, although I have occasionally followed the common tendency in the archaeological literature to denote the material culture of the post-1204 period in southern Greece as Frankish. Ethnicity in medieval Greece, especially questions of symbiosis or conflict, is a hotly debated subject.12 The fact that westerners, and later Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, and Turks, were present in or ruled over formerly Byzantine lands in our particular territories, as with the Latinokratia/Frankokratia elsewhere, obviously had an important impact on monetary affairs, for instance on coin imports, on the fashion in which minting was organised, and on the physical characteristics of the coins themselves.13 Likewise, it is clear that certain polities or groupings within our area were more inclined towards one or the other monetary tradition, or were – significantly in the context of the later medieval demographic and monetary crisis – less monetised.14 Nevertheless, religion, culture, and ethnicity impinge on my analysis of money only very marginally, most obviously in the extent to which they were contributing factors to the socio-economic order after 1204.15 More often than not, however, money was not bound by such divisions. The medieval coinages of Greece also offer little in terms of the ongoing discussions of ‘identity’ expressed through material culture (most obviously explored through painting and architecture,16 but even ceramics17) or, if they appear to make a contribution, they paint a decidedly inconclusive picture. In terms of the messages

11  For an overview see Savvides, “‘Λατινοκρατία’ – ‘Φραγκοκρατία’”. 12  To cite merely, from the vast bibliography on this subject, Ilieva, Frankish Morea; Hiestand, “Nova Francia – nova Graecia”; Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”; Sansaridou-Hendrickx, Εθνικισμός; Page, Being Byzantine. Venetian Crete, which is excluded from my study, has been even more intensely debated. On sources and methodology there, see particularly Tsougarakis, “Venetian Crete and the myth of novel ideas”. 13  A section in Chapter 3, pp. 200–217 is dedicated to the relationship of demographics and money. 14  This is developed further in Chapter 3, pp. 417–424. 15  Again, this is an important component of Chapter 3. 16  See for instance Bouras, “Frankish architecture”; Gerstel, “Art and identity in the medieval Morea”; Hirschbichler, Wall painting in the Latin Lordship of Athens; Kalopissi-Verti, “Athens and Thebes after 1204”. 17  Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”.

Preface

xv

which the coins might convey,18 the political structures that emitted them had to make choices regarding type (i.e. design) and denomination. Usually, the reasons for both lay in purely monetary considerations, the adaptation of pre-existing, trusted, and workable models. Only occasionally are there some discrepancies which seem to call for particular interpretations: it is difficult to determine, for instance whether the decision by the Hohenstaufen administration in Epiros/Albania to mint a Byzantine denomination in a southern Italian guise,19 or by the Byzantine Empire in Lakonia,20 and by Cycladic feudatories of the princes of Achaïa21 – even if Venetian citizens themselves – to mint a Venetian colonial denomination (the tornesello) in a mix of traditional and novel iconographies, can be attributed to any overt desires for an expression of identity, or whether particular legal, administrative, or practical considerations led to the final shape of these issues. Equally elusive is the choice of the so-called Genoese gate for some of the petty denomination types emitted in Thebes and Corinth.22 As we will see particularly in our topographical discussions,23 there are differences in the coinages which were available in different parts of the analysed areas. A number of reasons may be given for this, the injection and removal of coins by the political authorities, trading patterns, the movements of troops, and so forth. Nevertheless, we can detect a uniform desire on the part of all the populations of Greece for the same common and reliable coinages. Any latent attachment by these same Greek, Latin or other populations to a coinage or coinage system over another against monetary logic is difficult to detect, and even if it were possible one would find it hard to link this to concerns of identity. 1.3 Hellas, Thessaly, Epiros, Albania The primary region of Greece divides into two units which were recognised as such by contemporaries: ‘Hellas’, usually comprising the Peloponnese, the 18  Coinage is often discussed in such terms for the ancient world, see for instance in Howgego, Coinage and Identity. For the medieval west (consider for instance Travaini’s collaboration with the ‘Lexicon Iconographicum Numismaticae’ project, reflected also in her Monete e storia) and later Byzantium, the relationships between coin designs and identities have been looked into much more sporadically. As far as the coins of the Palaiologan emperors are concerned, their vast iconographical range has led to some commentary, previously by writers such as Laurent and Bertelè, in the latest instances by Georgiades, Νομίσματα των Παλαιολόγων, and Lianta, Late Byzantine coins, although there is again little that is either conclusive or historically particularly poignant. 19  Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. 20  Appendix II.1.E.3, pp. 1272–1273. 21  Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494. 22  See especially Appendix II.8.A.1, p. 1360–1362. 23  Especially in Chapter 4.

xvi

Preface

eastern Mainland, and at times Thessaly; and the territories to the west of the Pindos range, broadly defined as ‘Epiros’. Hellas, which had given its name to a new theme in the late seventh century,24 is encountered in numerous medieval sources. For instance, in Pachymeres’ account of John Palaiologos’ campaign against Michael II of Epiros (1262), the imperial troops are said to cross the Thessalian Peneios River to enter “what is properly called Hellas”.25 Hellas encompasses in this instance also Thessaly, although this was not always the case.26 The historic areas of Aitolia, Akarnania, and Epiros had been united in the Roman province of ‘Epirus vetus’, and again in the theme of Nikopolis and Kephallonia in middle Byzantine times.27 They were usually regarded as one by medieval Greek writers even if the ancient topographical divisions occasionally persisted. In the period which concerns us, these territories are, for instance, termed those ruled by the Epirote rulers, or those conquered by Michael VIII Palaiologos.28 In the western sources they were known as ‘terra despoti’ or, mistakenly, as the ‘despotatus’.29 The division of the areas to the east and west of the Pindos Mountains was considered natural by contemporary writers, for instance on the occasion of the death of Michael II Komnenos Doukas in 1266–1268, when his lands were given to his two sons Nikephoros and John.30 In the wake of Dušan’s conquests of 1348 a similar split took place into territories governed by Symeon Uroš in the west, and Gregory Preljub in the east.31 In the Chronicle of Morea the main areas of Greece north of the Peloponnese are described as “Vlachia and the whole of Hellas, Arta, Ioannina and the whole of the Despotate”.32 The terms ‘Vlachia’ and ‘Megale Vlachia’33 usually cover Thessaly, otherwise the area around Neopatra ruled by a branch of the Angelos Doukas family,34 or even the area in Aitolia over which the Angevins held direct or indirect control from the late thirteenth century.35 The northern edge of Epiros, and of the territory under scrutiny in this book, is the most difficult to define. Intermittently, the so-called ‘despotate’ 24  O DB, p. 911. 25  Pachymeres, III.16. 26  Asonites, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 44, n. 8. 27  T IB 3, p. 37. 28  Asonites, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 43ff. 29  Asonites, Νότιο Ιόνιο, pp. 45–46. 30  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 9. 31  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 131. 32  Chronicle of Morea (G), lines 1031–1032. 33  From the large amount of bibliography, see Soulis, “Thessalian Vlachia”; StavridouZaphraka, “Βλαχία”. 34  On whose coinage see Appendix II.9.G, pp. 1453–1462. 35  Appendix II.9.A.4, p. 1398.

Preface

xvii

of Epiros extended far beyond the northern border of our primary area. At the time of the treaty between Venice and Michael Komnenos Doukas (1210),36 his territory bordered on the river Vrecus (Shkumbin), while at his death in 1214 or 1215 the Epirote state covered perhaps the whole of modern Albanian territory.37 The Ionian and Epirote conquests of Manfred after 1257 managed again to unite a long strip along the same coastline.38 In Byzantine and medieval times a certain Albanian unity slowly gained recognition. The modern Albanian territories which are included in this book are those which had been, within the Byzantine Empire, religiously and culturally Greek, and administratively Epirote. Beyond, from Durazzo and Kruja northwards, lay after the eleventh century the theme of Arbanon,39 whose mixed inhabitants increasingly aligned themselves with the west in religious terms.40 In the thirteenth century, as John III Vatatzes conquered this central Albanian area, the writer Akropolites, who knew it well, stressed its Albanian identity.41 Also later, for instance in the words of a fourteenth-century Irish writer, the area from Durazzo northwards was called progressively Albania and then Sclavonia.42 To the south, meanwhile, the area around Butrint and Valona is still referred to as Romania,43 and this is the geographical definition which this book is limited to in its extent along the Ionian and Adriatic coastline. In contemporary political terms, the limit of the book follows approximately the demarcation of the territories controlled by Michael II of Epiros from those conquered by John III Vatatzes in 1246.44 All of these attempts to delineate historically the territory under discussion can naturally not belie the very mixed usages which the terms Albania and Epiros experienced in the further course of the medieval period.45

36  Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 100, 134, 143; Prinzing, “Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung I”, p. 92ff. 37  Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. xii and 160; Prinzing, “Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung I”, pp. 103–104; Nicol, Epiros II, p. 4. 38  See Appendix II.7, p. 1355. 39  Ducellier, “Albanais dans l’empire byzantin”, p. 35. 40  Xhufi, “Arbanon”, pp. 74–75. 41  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, p. 68, no. 229 (1252); Xhufi, “Arbanon”, p. 68. 42  Elsie, “Two Irish Travellers”, p. 26; Schmitt, Albanien, p. 49, n. 6. 43  Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. xiii. 44  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 147–155. 45  Schmitt, Albanien, pp. 54–55. In 1395 a writer calls Albania the area around Arta, for very obvious reasons: TIB 3, p. 39. See also Chapter 1, p. 31 and Chapter 3, pp. 360–364, on the expansion of Albania.

xviii

Preface

1.4 Monetary Demarcations Coinage provides a very important marker in this respect. The northwestern border area of this book, from the mouth of the river Seman in southeasterly direction to the modern Greek border, has a general dearth of numismatic material which lends itself to drawing a demarcation. During most of the thirteenth century, when Byzantine-style copper coinages were still prevailing, the general numismatic border between Albania, Epiros, Thessaly and Macedonia was still fluid.46 Later, however, the differences became pronounced. Durazzo itself intermittently belonged, in monetary terms, to the Dalmatian region, but was also part of the axis connecting it to the key cities of Ohrid and Thessalonike along which coinage moved in good quantities in medieval times.47 We may term this the ‘Via Egnatia region’, which continued all the way to Constantinople and the Black Sea, touching upon the North Aegean and the Sea of Marmara. This was gelled together by the usage of Byzantine, Bulgarian and Serbian specie at least until the second half of the fourteenth century. It lies beyond the primary area of analysis, but is considered comparatively in the Conclusions, as are the other adjacent territories which lie beyond the sea in an easterly direction: the northern and eastern Aegean was significantly more Byzantine, Ottoman, local Genoese, and Hospitaller, as to have warranted inclusion in this book. By contrast, in our territories the main chapter of Byzantine coinage was over by the 1260s, at the very latest.48 Starting in the same decade, mints within our area began producing the highly successful denier tournois,49 inspired by the importation of the same coinage from France in the preceding decades.50 Deniers tournois of Greek mintage may have been prominent also in central Albania, in Macedonia, Thrace, Constantinople, and western Anatolia – especially in coastal areas –,51 but it was in Greece that they were totally dominant for about five to six decades. This consideration is one of the central reasons for my choice of the area of analysis. The direct successors of the tournois, Venetian soldini and torneselli were, as far as the Balkans and the Aegean area were concerned, also largely confined to the primary ter46  Appendix II.1.B.3–8, pp. 1221–1245. 47  Contra: Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 182: “… la grande route Durazzo-OchridaThessalonique n’avait donc plus, à cette époque, la moindre importance économique”. Oikonomides, “Medieval via Egnatia”, p. 14, also shares Ducellier’s assessment. See, however, Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 206, on the relationship of Thessalonike and the Dalmatian and Epirote regions. See also Chapter 1, pp. 32–34, on the towns of the Palaiologan empire and of the surrounding areas. 48  See especially Appendix II.1.B.8, pp. 1243–1245. 49  Appendix II.9, pp. 1324–1491. 50  Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293. 51  Conclusions, pp. 484–497.

Preface

xix

ritory of analysis, with the exception of the Venetian-dominated territories in Albania, Dalmatia and Crete.52 1.5 Exclusion of Crete An explanation needs to be given for the exclusion of Crete from the present study, even if Crete is geographically part of Greece53 and, as a Venetian colony, shared many traits and links with Coron-Modon and, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Argos-Nauplio, Negroponte (Chalkida), Corfu-Butrint, and many other Venetian possessions within the primary area. Crete has been disregarded here for numismatic and methodological reasons.54 The numismatic data which have been published for medieval Crete are extremely limited, and are referred to where appropriate. Crete shared a small number of developments with the primary area, regarding early sub-Byzantine coinages, English pennies, and Venetian soldini and torneselli, but significantly was only a marginal area of tournois circulation. I have never had the opportunity to work there and to augment the available primary material. More important, however, has been the following consideration. Including Crete in this book would have seemed to have implied that I had fully analysed the vast amount of monetary information contained in the Venetian documentary sources, particularly notarial, which pertain to the island. This, however, would have changed substantially the focus of this book, moving it away from a primarily numismatic methodology. 1.6 Chronology 1430 is a satisfactory lower limit since a number of events converged around this year. It saw the signing of the treaty between Prince Centurione II Zaccaria and the Byzantine Empire sealing the end of the principality of Achaïa, which was finalised with the death of the former in 1432.55 To the north of the peninsula, the Despot Charles I of Tocco, who had been an influential protagonist in the history of Greece, died on 4 July 1429, and in the wake of this event the Ottomans made another surge into the area.56 They had already had an important presence in the northern part of our area in the decades leading up to the fateful battle of Ankara (1402). Following the Ottoman interregnum, 52  See Appendix II.4.E.1 and F.1, pp. 1320–1323 and 1327–1330, and also the relevant listings in Appendix I.8–10. 53  The given reason for its inclusion, for example, in Metcalf, SE Europe (see p. v). 54  On the latter, see also the next discussion. 55  Bon, Morée franque, pp. 292–293. 56  On the Venetians and Ottomans in this area, see Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 167ff, on the period after 1429, p. 208ff.

xx

Preface

they permanently gained or re-gained much of present-day southern Albania (1417–1418: the area between Valona and Argyrokastro);57 Ioannina in 1430, in short succession to the death of Tocco.58 In 1430 a treaty was signed in Adrianople between Venice and Sultan Murad II which stabilised the situation in the southern Balkans and established respective areas of Venetian and Ottoman domination.59 The remnants of the Byzantine and Latin dominion in the region were soon to be swallowed up by the Ottomans, for instance the important town of Thebes60 for the first time as early as 1435.61 The end of the period of Venetian expansion also had a significant monetary dimension: the size of the production of torneselli at the mint of Venice declined significantly during the dogeship of Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423), and dwindled with his successors.62 This development, which coincided with other changes in the Venice mint,63 deprived Greece of freshly minted coinage and provides an obvious endpoint for this study. The few hoards concealed ca. 1430–ca. 1500,64 and the few coins brought into Greece in the same period,65 are treated in this book as an appendix to the main discussions.66 2

Subject Matter, Primary Material, Methodology, Structure

2.1 Aims My initial aims in writing this book were the following: I wanted to provide as full a record as I could of medieval coin finds from the primary area, and of finds of medieval Greek coins made elsewhere. I also wanted to establish the patterns of coin imports and exports, and especially of coin production within the territory of analysis. For the purpose of the latter I engaged in great detail with the coins’ typologies, which have led me to transcribe the key features of the obv. and rev. legends of the main coinage series. The resulting tables of Appendix II67 can also be used as an identification tool by anybody who may be handling such coins. Appendix II discusses otherwise all the coinages 57  Schmitt, Albanien, p. 268. 58  T IB 3, p. 166; Maksimović, “Despotenhof von Epiros”, p. 103. 59  Schmitt, Albanien, p. 285. 60  See Chapter 4, pp. 456–462 for finds from this town. 61  Savvides, Οθωμανική κατάκτηση της Θήβας και της Λεβαδειάς. 62  Appendix II.4.F, p. 1326. 63  Note that Stahl’s seminal study of the Venetian mint (Zecca) also ends at this point. 64  Assembled in Appendix I.2. 65  Discussed Appendix II.12, pp. 1508–1509, and in other sections of Appendix II pointed out there. 66  Conclusions, pp. 496–497. 67  See pp. 1386–1471.

Preface

xxi

present in medieval Greece, not merely those produced there. Appendix I lists all the finds I was able to gather, according to a continuous numbering system which has been devised for easy reference. I also felt that the systems of account which prevailed in medieval Greece could shed further light on the actual specie in usage (Appendix III). These strictly numismatic/monetary aspects of my study are contained in the appendices, offering a self-contained, and technical, treatment. In so doing I have also tried to ensure that the main chapters can provide readable narratives which are not unduly weighed down by details. This main discussion begins with the wider monetary and historical context as set out in the existing bibliography (Chapter 1), which leads on to the presentation of the numismatic information in a descriptive and analytical form (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 and 4 explore historical, archaeological, and topographical themes relating to coinage and money in Greece, after which the picture is broadened again in the Conclusions. In general terms, in this monetary history the numismatic and archaeological record has been my point of departure, and its interpretation has taken place mostly within a context of politics, warfare, administration, demographics, and economic relations. Relatively neglected in this study is the sociological, cultural, religious or cultic aspect of coinage, either in its iconography, physical aspect, or handling. 2.2 Coins and Collections The primary material of this study, in line with my aims, is the coins which were produced in or found on Greek soil pertaining to the medieval period. I have spent a considerable amount of time working in museums and collections gathering this material. More details regarding this activity can be found in the acknowledgments, below, and in the appendices, where the data are presented. I should stress that there are many more medieval Greek coin finds available in the Athens Numismatic Museum and with the local Ephorates of Greece, and in the Numismatic Collection of the Archaeological Institute in Tirana, which are currently completely unknown to science. Likewise, collections in other areas and countries, in fact worldwide, still contain many untapped materials relating to Greek medieval monetary history. The coinages of medieval Greece are also in themselves very complex and will still bear, also after the present study, investigations according to certain techniques, especially archaeometrical and through systematic die studies. 2.3 Historical and Archaeological Literature A vast amount of secondary literature, which has augmented exponentially in the last couple of decades, is now available regarding the political, social and economic life of late Byzantium and of Latin Romania. It was my desire to

xxii

Preface

make the monetary data meaningful in this historiographical context. Writers have now analysed to a satisfactory degree, to the extent that the available sources have permitted, the main historical ingredients in a monetary history: the narrative of political and military events, administrative structures, demographics, the systems of direct and indirect taxation, the money market, the land regime, urban life, and commerce, to name but the most obvious. This body of literature has particularly informed the discussions of Chapter 3. Relatively more neglected has been the archaeology of medieval Greece. The problem can be summed up as follows: medieval structures have very seldom been the expressed target of excavations; and there is a significant lag in the publication of any such enquiries, and of any resulting syntheses.68 The existing landscape surveys have usually not been able to shed much differentiated light on the relatively confined period of 230 years under discussion here, nor have they always been able to discern even between the medieval and the adjacent middle Byzantine and Ottoman periods,69 although there are some significant exceptions referred to in the appropriate discussions. The analyses of archaeological materials, for instance small finds or pottery,70 have so far yielded few results which can be confidently deployed in the writing of a broadly economic history. 2.4 Numismatics Numismatics is to some extent a case apart. Even though the numismatics of Greece has also been a relatively neglected field during large parts of the twentieth century,71 a lot had already been achieved by the end of the nineteenth century, and again from the 1960s onwards types and finds have been the subject of scrutiny. This has been due, in no small measure, to the antiquarian nature of numismatics and the fact that coins have been both a mobile and a desirable object of study. While it is true that the scientific value of coins is at its highest when these can be considered in their proper topographical/ archaeological contexts, unprovenanced coin types and hoards, contained for instance in older public or private collections, or appearing on the international antiquities market, can still make contributions. Coins differentiate themselves from other archaeological materials also in other respects. My work with the Portable Antiquities Scheme of England 68  For two rare collections of archaeological essays, see Sanders and Lock, The archaeology of medieval Greece; and Bintliff and Stöger, Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. 69  See Chapter 1, pp. 5–6, for some further comments regarding this subject. 70   For some rare attempts to create more comprehensive overviews, see François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance”; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 115–121 and 184–188; Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”. 71  See Chapter 1, pp. 72–85.

Preface

xxiii

and Wales72 taught me that after a certain historical period – certainly by the twelfth/thirteenth century – there was a pronounced augmentation in the frequency of contemporary coin losses in Europe. These coins were lost during everyday activities, often in areas otherwise lacking in archaeological structures, and sometimes in particularly impressive concentrations outside urban or inhabited areas (so-called productive sites). Depending on the thoroughness with which these coins are found and recorded in modern times, these kinds of numismatic data can potentially provide a complete geographical and chronological coverage of a territory under analysis, more so than any other, less well dated and less frequently used, archaeological artefact, and certainly more so than any written documentation. This said, the level of recovery of such coins is currently much lower in Greece than in some other areas of Europe.73 Numismatics in its strictest sense occupies itself with the monetary products of a certain polity or mint, through denominations and coin types. There are countless studies of this kind relating to all parts of medieval Europe74 and to Byzantium.75 In the case of smaller mints or rarer denominations this information may be supplemented by die studies. Lists of coin finds made within a territory, or of a coinage under scrutiny can also be appended to such studies, or published separately.76 There are some other particularly noteworthy kinds of publications in the field of numismatics and monetary history. Peter Spufford has presented a history of money in the west which uses numismatic enquiries but is otherwise a readable narrative devoid of critical apparatus or monetary theory.77 The volume of the MEC series covering South Italy – a territory which is particularly relevant to Greece – during the central and later middle ages combines the publication of a single collection and a type catalogue, an inventory of coin finds, with detailed discussions of coin production and circulation, the history of the discipline, and a bibliographical commentary. There are two outstanding cases, relating to Venice and England respectively, in which the wealth of the available documentary sources has led to highly detailed histo72  See www.finds.org.uk. 73  Chapter 2, pp. 109–110. 74  To give merely the examples of series which are also relevant to Greece, different type catalogues have been produced over the decades and centuries for the royal coinages of France and England, some of the more recent manifestations of which are Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales and North, English Hammered Coinage. 75  The DOC series covers the typology of all imperial Byzantine coins. 76  Again, limiting ourselves to a few examples: Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux (France); Haeck, Middeleeuwse Muntschatten Gevonden in België (750–1433) (Belgium); Steen Jensen et al., Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund (Denmark), all contain material relevant to the study of medieval Greek coins. 77  Spufford, Money and its use. See also Bompaire, “Monnaie et économie à la fin du moyen âge”.

xxiv

Preface

ries of the minting processes themselves, presented in their broader political and economic settings.78 Medieval Greece like the remainder of the Balkans, because of the proliferation of mints, coinages and issuing authorities, lends itself to a particular kind of regional monetary history which puts equal emphasis on the numismatic, archaeological, and historical data. Here a remarkable precedent has been set by Michael Metcalf, with his major contribution of 1965,79 which was thoroughly revised in 1979.80 More recent progress within Balkan numismatics necessitates the choice of much more confined chronological and territorial units than Metcalf was able to cover so many decades ago. In this book I have combined the different numismatic traditions for the particular territories and period that I have outlined above. I focus on types and finds, on accounting systems, while seeking at the same time to offer a narrative monetary history. My hope is that the adjoining areas, such as Albania/ Sclavonia, Macedonia, Thrace, the eastern Aegean, and Crete, might be the subject of similar endeavours in the future. Gathering of Materials and of Literature 2.5 Appendix I of coin finds was in place by the time of the publication of Baker and Stahl, “Morea” (2013). The respective catalogues use the same numbering system. I have not added entries to these appendices since that time, though I have been able to add bibliography to an existing entry, without always updating its content. Other relevant coin finds and other numismatic contributions which have reached me during 2013–2018 have been incorporated into the main chapters, and summarised in Chapter 4. By far the most significant addition to the catalogue of coin finds which are for the most part not in Appendix I stems from the conference entitled Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο (Coinage in the Peloponnese), Argos, May 2011, the proceedings of which only appeared in the summer of 2018 (though bearing a 2017 date). Some particularly important contributions to this conference still remain unpublished, such as those by Ch. Stavrakos and A. Bakourou on middle Byzantine and early Frankish graves from the lower town of Sparta, or by K. Sidiropoulos featuring medieval materials from Messene (compare «319. Messene»), which included a relatively early tournois hoard and another of torneselli. On developments in the numismatics of medieval Greece, see also in Chapter 1, pp. 72–85. Regarding the relevant historical and archaeological literature, I have attempted to keep abreast of publications until early 2018. 78  Stahl, Zecca and Allen, Mints and money. 79  Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans. 80  Metcalf, SE Europe.

Preface

xxv

3 Acknowledgments This book first took shape as a Birmingham University doctoral thesis, supervised by John Haldon and examined by the late Mark Blackburn and by Chris Wickham. Also at Birmingham, I am grateful to Archie Dunn, Michael Martin, the late John Kent and the late Nubar Hamparțumian. The Faculty of Arts and the School of Historical Studies gave me very generous financial support during various stages of the writing. The Athens Numismatic Museum, under the successive directorships of Ioannis Touratsoglou and Despoina Eugenidou, provided me with a constant scientific point of reference. To it I owe most of the original numismatic material which is referred to here, in the context of which I need to single out Mina Galani-Krikou in particular: during her long years of service to the museum, under the directorship of the late Manto Oikonomidou, and in collaboration with the late Vasso Penna, Ioannis Touratsoglou, Eos Tsourti, she managed to put in good order the medieval holdings of the cabinet. None of my endeavours would have been possible without this work, and without her consent in my receipt of diverse permits of study. At the Numismatic Museum itself I wish to record the assistance I also received from Yorka Nikolaou, Euterpi Ralli, Yannis Stogias, and Panayiotis Tselekas. I am also indebted to the Greek government scholarship programme (IKY) which enabled me to work in the Athens cabinet. The British School at Athens supported me financially and scientifically over the years, and my thanks go to the directors David Blackman, James Whitley, and Catherine Morgan, the Managing Committee for electing me Macmillan-Rodewald student and for entrusting me with the study of the coins from the early Sparta excavations. Roger Bland communicated with me with regard to more recent Spartan excavation material of the BSA. Matthew Ponting, formerly BSA Fitch Laboratory Assistant, collaborated with me on the metallurgy of the Frankish Greek series. In Greece I have worked extensively with material from the American School of Classical Studies. At Ancient Corinth my heartfelt thanks go to Charles K. Williams II, Orestes Zervos, Guy Sanders, and many others; at the Athenian Agora to Jan Jordan, Sylvie Dumont, Irini Marathaki, and John Camp. Orestes in particular shared with me many of his reflections regarding medieval Greek coins; the late John MacIsaac sent me his comments on material from diverse American sites. The maps for this book were drawn by Anne Hooton of the Agora Excavations. Amongst the friends and colleagues from the Greek Archaeological Service I should like to acknowledge the help and collaboration of the late Anastasia Oikonomou-Laniado, the late Nikos Kaponis, and the late Frankiska Kephalonitou, and of: Demetrios

xxvi

Preface

Athanasoulis; Elena Bonelou; Eugenia Gerousi; Nikos Kontogiannis; Gariphalia Metallinou; Varvara Papadopoulou; Charalambos Pennas; Georgios Tsekes, George Vidos. Colleagues in other institutions in Greece who contributed directly to this book are the late Anastasios Tzamalis of the Alpha Credit Bank/ Hellenic Numismatic Society; Nikos Moschonas of the Hellenic National Research Foundation; Jean-Michel Saulnier of the École Française d’Athènes; and Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert and Klaus Herrmann of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athener Abteilung. I also dealt with medieval Greek material which circulated and was found outside of the confines of the Hellenic Republic. In Italy, I am grateful to Patrizia Calabria and Daniele Castrizio for collaborations in Molise and Calabria/Basilicata, to Guiseppe Libero Mangieri and Teresa Giove for their help in studying material in Puglia and Naples, to Sara Sorda and Lucia Travaini who supervised my work in Rome, and to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the American Academy in Rome, and the Società Numismatica Italiana for supporting my activities in Italy. Andrea Saccocci also communicated finds to me, and Alberto d’Andrea advised me on some rare south Italian coin types. From the Republic of North Macedonia I received information from Danica Razmovska-Bačeva; from Albania from Shpresa Gjongecaj, Skender Muçaj, and Pagona Papadopoulou. I saw material from Turkey thanks to Turan Gökyıldırım, Oğuz Tekin, and the relevant authorities in the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. For information on coin finds from Israel and the territory of the Palestine National Authority I am indebted to Robert Kool. Bulgarian and Romanian finds of medieval Greek coins were communicated to me kindly by Ženja Žekova and Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu. Jørgen Steen Jensen informed me about a Danish find. I have used a few of the larger and more significant European and American collections which contain medieval Greek coins. I wish to acknowledge the help of the following colleagues: the late Michael Metcalf (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford); Martin Allen (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge); the late Nubar Hamparțumian (Barber Institute, Birmingham); Barrie Cook (British Museum, London); François de Callatay and Johan van Heesch (Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Brussels); Michael Alram (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna); Bernd Kluge (Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin); Michel Dhénin and Michel Amandry (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris); Alan Stahl (American Numismatic Society, New York, and Firestone Library, Princeton); Cristina Crisafulli and Camillo Tonini (Museo Correr, Venice). I should like to acknowledge the support of some institutions which contributed particularly to the writing of this book: the Hellenic Institute in Venice and its former director Chrysa Maltezou have always been welcoming.

Preface

xxvii

The Hellenic Program at Princeton University under Dimitri Gondicas elected me a post-doctoral fellow. As fellow of the Onassis Foundation I was warmly received by Marina Koumanoudi and Charalambos Gasparis at the Hellenic National Research Foundation. The Graduate Seminar of the American Numismatic Society taught me much in the early stages of my research and introduced me to Alan Stahl, whose advice has also since been invaluable. The British Academy, the British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara, the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, and the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation have all aided me financially. Amongst numismatic colleagues in the UK and abroad I am also especially grateful to the advice I have received over the years from the late Simon Bendall (London), Nick Mayhew (Oxford), and Cécile Morrisson (Paris and Washington). Kostis Smyrlis (New York) was particularly kind in discussing with me features of the late Byzantine state and society, and Andrea Nanetti (Singapore) helped me with some Venetian documents. My employers over the last decade and more, the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford, and Roger Bland, Nick Mayhew, and Chris Howgego in particular, have been most generous in allowing me time and space to pursue research into medieval Greek numismatics. At Oxford, further financial help was received from the Craven Fund, the Barclay Head Fund, the John Fell Fund, and the History Faculty. As I was completing the manuscript of this book I was very sorry to hear of the passing in October 2018 of the two scholars, numismatist and historian respectively, who have influenced the content of this book in the most profound manner, Michael Metcalf and David Jacoby: see the Bibliography on pp. 550– 555 and 584–587. This book is dedicated to my mother and father, and to Milena, Ada, and Clara, with love and affection. 4

Languages and Transliterations

Greek place names are mostly given in their modern demotic, phoneticallytransliterated, forms, although in some rare cases for which there are wellestablished English names direct transliterations would have looked pedantic (hence I use Salamina and not Salamis, but Corinth and not Korinthos). On rarer occasions I have retained a historical spelling (therefore Thessalonike, not Thessaloniki, nor Salonica). The important towns of Durrës (Dyrrachion) and Vlorë (Avlona) in modern Albania are given their Italian names Durazzo and Valona. Names also change according to the context in which they are

xxviii

Preface

used: Methoni refers to an archaeological site, Methone a medieval Greek location, and Modon a Venetian colony. Greek personal names – medieval and modern – have been transliterated or rendered in different ways, some more demotic some more purist. Often an English equivalent has been sought for medieval Greek or Italian first names, for example Ioannes or Giovanni usually become John. I have standardised some transliterations of names to signal common authorship, for instance one will find works by Oeconomidès and H. Kalligas under Oikonomidou and Ch. Kalliga, and so forth. Cyrillic scripts have been transliterated according to those international guidelines favouring diacritics (ISO 9 and United Nations). Bibliographical items which are genuinely bilingual (usually Greek, Turkish, or a Slav language, combined with a western language) are cited according to their western titles. Where articles or books merely have a summary in a western language, the title is given in the majority language. 5

Figures, Tables, Maps, Coin Finds and Illustrations

Chapter 2, pp. 110 and 184, features two figures: these illustrate respectively the density of medieval single finds in England and Wales (for comparative purposes), and the degree of monetisation of medieval Greece. The same chapter, pp. 112–117 and 129–130, includes tables summarising the main single coin types lost at the main Greek sites; and the 39 most valuable hoards of medieval Greece. In Volume 2, Appendix II.9, further tables reproduce the coin legends and other typological features of the Greek denier tournois issues. There are four distribution maps for coin finds towards the end of Volume 2, pp. 1599–1603. Throughout the texts, the titles of such coin finds feature inside guillemets (French inverted commas): e.g. «196. Delphi 1894B» or simply «196». The relevant information can be found in Appendix I, under the cited number. Photographs of specimens and types have been laid out at the very end of Volume 2. The illustrated coins have been numbered #1–#913, and they are referred to in the remainder of the book in this fashion.

Abbreviations AAA ABSA AD AE AEMTh AFP AHR AIIN AM ANK Annales ESC ANSMN ANSNNM AR ASCSA ASPN B BCH BCEN BdN BF BIA BnF BM BMC BMC Vandals

BMFD BMGS BNJ BSl BSFN

Archaiologika Analekta ex Athinon Annual of the British School at Athens Archaiologikon Deltion Archaiologike Ephemeris Archaiologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum American Historical Review Annali dell’istituto italiano di numismatica Archeologia medievale Αρχείο Νομισματικής Κυκλοφορίας / Archive of Numismatic Circulation (held at NM) Annales économies sociétés civilisations American Numismatic Society Museum Notes American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs Archaeological Reports American School of Classical Studies Athens Archivio storico per le province napoletane Byzantion Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bulletin du centre d’études numismatiques Bollettino di numismatica Byzantinische Forschungen Bulletin de l’institut archéologique (bulgare) Bibliothèque nationale de France British Museum W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine coins in the British Museum, 2, London (1908) W. Wroth, Catalogue of the coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Lombards, and of the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum, London (1911) Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, Washington D.C. (2000) Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies British Numismatic Journal Byzantinoslavica Bulletin de la société française de numismatique

xxx BSNR BZ CH CFHB CNI CP DAI DChAE DO DOC III

DOC IV

DOC V

DOP DOS XII EBA EFA EHB EHR EPKA HBN INJ INR JHS JIAN JNG JÖB

Abbreviations Buletinul Societății Numismatice Române Byzantinische Zeitschrift Coin Hoards Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae Corpus Nummorum Italicorum, 1–20, Rome (1910–1943) Constantinople (in tables and lists) Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etaireias Dumbarton Oaks P. Grierson, Leo III to Nicephorus III 717–1081, Washington, D.C. (1973) [= A.F. Bellinger and P. Grierson (eds), Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 3] M.F. Hendy, Alexios I to Michael VIII 1081–1261, Washington D.C. (1999) [= A.F. Bellinger and P. Grierson (eds), Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 4] P. Grierson, Michael VIII to Constantine XI 1258–1453, Washington, D.C. (1999) [= A.F. Bellinger and P. Grierson (eds), Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 5] Dumbarton Oaks Papers M.F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081–1261, Washington, D.C. (1969) (= Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 12) Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων / Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities École française d’Athènes A.E. Laiou (ed.), The economic history of Byzantium, Washington D.C. (2002) English Historical Review Εφορεία Προϊστορικών και Κλασσικών Αρχαιοτήτων / Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Review Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal international d’archéologie numismatique Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte Journal der Österreichischen Byzantinistik

Abbreviations JS MDAIA

xxxi

Journal des savants Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athener Abteilung MEC P. Grierson and L. Travaini, Medieval European Coinage. 14 Italy (III) (South Italy, Sicily, Sardinia), Cambridge (1998) MEC 6 M. Crusafont, A.M. Balaguer, P. Grierson, Medieval European Coinage. 6 The Iberian Peninsula, Cambridge (2013) MEC 12 W.R. Day, M. Matzke, A. Saccocci, Medieval European Coinage. 12 Italy (I) (Northern Italy), Cambridge (2016) Mélanges de l’École française de Rome MEFR MEFRM Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Moyen Âge Mediterranean Historical Review MHR W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini Band 3. Von Heraclius bis MIB III Leo III./ Alleinregierung (610–720), Vienna (1981) Numismatic Chronicle NC Numismatic Circular NCirc NM Athens Numismatic Museum Nomismatika Chronika NomChron NRS Nuova rivista storica New series n.s. NSc Notizie degli scavi Numismatische Zeitschrift NZ Obv. Obverse Orientalia Christiana Periodica OCP Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium ODB Praktika tes Archaiologikes Etaireias PAE PCPC S. Bendall, A Private Collection of Palaeologan Coins, Wolverhampton (1988) Papers of the British School at Rome PBSR PLP Prosopographisches Lexikon der Paläologenzeit Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichità classiche QT RBN Revue belge de numismatique Revue des études byzantines REB Revue des études sud-est européennes RESEE Rev. Reverse RN Revue numismatique Rivista italiana di numismatica RIN Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici RSBN Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi RSBS

xxxii RSI SM SNR SV TIB 1 TIB 3 TIB 6 TM ZfN ZRVI

Abbreviations Rivista storica italiana Schweizer Münzblätter Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau Studi veneziani J. Koder and F. Hild, Hellas und Thessalia, Vienna (1976) (= Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 1) P. Soustal and J. Koder, Nikopolis und Kephallenia, Vienna (1981) (= Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 3) P. Soustal, Thrakien, Vienna (1991) (= Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 6) Travaux et mémoires Zeitschrift für Numismatik Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta

Chapter 1

Historical and Monetary Context In this introductory, largely historiographical, chapter I isolate the important and defining ways in which coinage and broader historical developments interacted in middle Byzantium, of which the area under scrutiny in this book was an integral part.1 Attention is then paid to the changes that were brought on by the Fourth Crusade (1204), and to some of the main features of later Byzantium (to 1453). Next, I consider the contemporary west. Both the Latin and the Byzantine traditions had important influences on the medieval Greek situation. Finally, the state of research on the study of coinage in medieval Greece in its own right is summarised. 1

Middle Byzantium and the Transition to the Late Period

1.1 Middle Byzantium Byzantium was an autocratic state, centred on the person of the emperor, the supreme lawgiver and political decision maker.2 As a system it was absolute in all its aspects, although this was being eroded in the course of the twelfth century (see below). Around the person of the emperor were grouped the members of the influential families, who for much of the middle Byzantine period 1  With the exception of some of the Ionian islands which passed into Latin control before 1204: Kephalonia and Zakynthos remained Sicilian after the 1185 attack on Byzantium (TIB 3, s.v. Kephallenia, Zakynthos); the date of the occupation of Corfu by the Genoese Leone Vetrano is uncertain (1197 or perhaps only after 1204: Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 39–40; TIB 3, s.v. Kerkyra). There were other locations in southern Greece which had also broken unofficially with Constantinople before 1204: see below. 2  My overview of the political and socio-economic trends of Byzantium in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is based, unless additional references are given, on Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), and Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 90–165, who are themselves heavily indebted to the earlier and more detailed EHB. In particular, Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, provides a very detailed account of the economy from the point of view of the state; Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview”, a very succinct summary of the findings of EHB. Still very useful, particularly for some technical details and for a wealth of case studies, is Harvey, Economic Expansion. Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204” and Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204: the economy revisited” are historiographically interesting. The more recent of the two also provides a very detailed and forceful appreciation of the Byzantine economy in the twelfth century.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_002

2

Chapter 1

still counted on state service, that is to say an official salary and related privileges, as much as donations and rewards. 1.2 Middle Byzantium: Land Regime Byzantines of all social strata, and key Byzantine institutions such as the state and the church, relied to a very large degree on the exploitation of the land as a source of enrichment.3 The main owners of this land were precisely the state, followed by individuals and the church. Within the category of individuals, there was a decrease in the middle Byzantine period in land owned directly by the peasants working it, and an increase in land owned by other, socially superior, individuals, as well as by the state and the church. In parallel with this development, there was a general increase in the population of the empire, which in fact is now believed to have risen steadily from the ninth century to some point in the early to mid-fourteenth century (see also below).4 More land was being opened up to exploitation throughout the same period. The main source of revenue for the state shifted from the product of direct taxation to the profits gained from the exploitation of state-owned lands, including the rent (‘pakton’) which many of the peasants now paid. The middle Byzantine period therefore saw a transition from a land-owning and tax-paying peasantry to ‘paroikoi’ working the land of others. The village structure remained to some extent unaltered, and all that this implies for the exploitation of the land according to family or village units, and the collective tax or rent liability. However, the integration of these communities into increasingly large estates entailed a number of technical changes, rationalisations, the sharing of resources, and so forth. Even if the state gained its revenue to a larger degree from exploiting its own lands, it continued to extract taxes from landowners according to established criteria, which measured the potential of the land and its exploitation. State expenditure was mostly designed to sustain state employees, and especially the needs of the army. The revenue of the state was, however, undermined by the increasing number of ‘pronoia’ grants which were being made, whereby sources of revenue (notably the taxation of estates/territories) were alienated for the benefit of an individual, who would offer the state certain services, in this period invariably military, in

3  Amongst the contributions to EHB, consider especially Lefort, “The rural economy, seventh– twelfth centuries” and Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 995–1007. 4  Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 93: a figure of 19 million is tentatively suggested for the twelfth-century empire.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

3

return.5 In this sense the pronoia was a new and cashless equivalent of the traditional state salaries, the ‘rogai’. Overall, with income increasingly alienated, fewer salaries paid, and fewer direct taxes collected, the whole fiscal structure of the state was simplified. An increasing number of peasants were defined as paroikoi, often described as ‘dependent’ in the literature on this subject, although the Greek term is now sometimes left untranslated and the older notion of a general enslavement of the peasantry is also no longer put forward in recent scholarship.6 Nevertheless, it is clear that the burden placed on the peasantry significantly increased during the middle Byzantine period, in terms of the percentage of its income payable in rent or in different forms of direct taxation combined with labour dues (corvées or ‘angaria’). Of course this is an overall aggregate, since individual experiences could vary greatly according to the degree to which the full system of payments was applied, and the fashion in which they were exacted (see also below). Since peasants’ incomes might also have increased in the context of general economic expansion, paroikoi might ultimately have been materially better off. Middle Byzantium: Market Economy 1.3 With the overall rationalisation of and increase in agricultural production, a larger percentage of the Byzantine population – notably aristocrats, soldiers, artisans, town-dwellers, civil servants, churchpeople – was no longer personally engaged in agricultural production. These groups were markets for landowners and paroikoi alike. They provided an incentive to maximise production and to invest in the land. In opposition to some earlier opinions on this subject, it is now believed that the Byzantine market was for all intents and purposes free, albeit upon the payment of the appropriate taxes (see below).7 This was also, and in fact especially, the case for certain Italians who enjoyed trade privileges and tax exemptions in the Komnenian empire. The latter related to specific places, many in the southern Balkans and in the area covered in this book, which according to one interpretation were specifically chosen by the Italians as being commercially of interest.8 While it is now recognised that Byzantine 5  On this device in the twelfth century, see now Bartusis, Pronoia, pp. 32–170. See below, pp. 27– 29, on pronoiai after 1204. 6  On paroikoi, see also ODB, s.v. paroikos. 7  For a more negative assessment see Brand, “Did Byzantium have a free market?”. 8  This is the opinion expressed by Jacoby, “Italian privileges”, who undertook a complete reassessment of the documentation. See also Jacoby, “Latins dans les villes de Romanie jusqu’en 1261”. Previous writers (notably Lilie, Handel und Politik and Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio nel XII secolo) had assumed that certain towns were offered for Italian trade, whereas other areas of the Byzantine empire (e.g. Asia Minor, Crete, Cyprus) remained inaccessible to them.

4

Chapter 1

agricultural producers, and to some degree therefore also the Byzantine economy and fisc, benefitted from the Italian presence, Byzantine traders were left at a disadvantage. This had serious political ramifications. With regard to trade in the twelfth century,9 it is said that some of the major advances made during that century concern both technology and the legal and administrative framework. This contributed to the general intensification of trade, and also to its geographical reach: while it is true that production in the provinces was still very heavily aimed at consumption in Constantinople, and that the produce of certain provincial estates was simply transported wholesale to their metropolitan owners, Byzantine produce was increasingly distributed to a much wider range of locations inside and outside the empire. 1.4 Middle Byzantium: Geopolitical Changes With respect to developments within the Byzantine Empire, it is clear that the loss of most of Anatolia in the late eleventh century, and its only partial recovery in the twelfth, placed a greater emphasis on its Balkan and Greek territories. At the beginning of this century the large islands of Crete and Cyprus were also of lesser strategic and economic importance than they were to become especially in the medieval period. By contrast, the Adriatic and Greek coastlines of the empire, especially the towns of Durazzo, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, and Almyros, were the focus of attention, and are prominent in the documentation relating to the commercial activities of Italians.10 Greek regional agricultural produce, but also manufactured goods (e.g. pottery) and even luxury items (e.g. silks), were therefore increasingly distributed not merely within the Aegean area and taken to Constantinople, but were also transported to central and northern Italy, which was reliant especially on imported foodstuffs – wheat, oil, and wine – in the context of its own demographic expansion. Further, the same Italian agents who brought Greek products westwards were also active in the Levantine crusader states, and in Egypt, as Byzantine traders had traditionally

9   A very detailed account of Byzantine trade in the middle Byzantine period is provided by Gerolymatou, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο. See further Laiou, “Exchange and trade, seventh–twelfth centuries”. On the general conditions of commerce in place before the Fourth Crusade, consider also Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, pp. 215–218. The important Laiou, “Regional networks in the Balkans”, which, despite its title, does not go beyond the twelfth century, reached me too late to be fully considered. 10  For these developments see Lilie, Handel und Politik and Jacoby, “Italian privileges”. On the Albanian coast, see Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 71–75.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

5

been and continued to be.11 As a result, twelfth-century Byzantine products can be readily found in all these areas. The crusading movement created further connections between Byzantium, the west, and the east.12 In the late eleventh century, and in the course of the twelfth, major Latin crusading armies crossed Byzantine territories on three occasions (1096/1097, 1147, 1189). The area considered in this book was affected by these campaigns only on a secondary level. However, at a time when the empire’s resources were tied up with attending to the Second Crusade, the Normans of Sicily attacked Greece, and pillaged Thebes and Corinth (1147).13 1.5 Middle Byzantium: Archaeology The archaeology of middle Byzantine Greece, of which the numismatic evidence is an integral part (see below), has yet to be considered extensively within a general economic history of the area.14 Clearly, what will be important is to allow these data to follow their own narrative, rather than to be made to fit histories in which overall trends have already been established, or which are built around supposedly decisive events (for instance the cited Norman pillage, or the Fourth Crusade). Pottery typologies and chronologies provide the key to the evaluation of materials derived from archaeological surveys15 and from excavations alike. Nevertheless, knowledge of types and their dates relies on proper stratigraphy, abundant contexts allowing for internal statistical analyses, and also developed information on the coins found in the same contexts, which takes account not merely of the dates of coin issues, but also their period of circulation, and their counterfeiting. Such conditions are presently available 11  Jacoby, “Byzantine trade with Egypt”; Laiou, “Byzantine Trade with Christians and Muslims”. 12  From the vast literature on this subject it will suffice to cite Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (in many editions and translations) and Setton, History of the Crusades. On the (economic) relationship between Byzantium, the crusaders, and the crusader states, see Laiou’s article cited in the last note. 13  Magdalino, Manuel I, p. 51. 14  Much the same is true for medieval Greek archaeology: see the Preface, pp. xxi–xxii. For some rare attempts to extract demographic and commercial information from archaeology, see for instance Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, passim, who use information derived from surveys and excavations for their sections on the middle and on the late periods. See also Harvey, Economic Expansion, pp. 214–220 and Curta, Southeastern Europe, pp. 325–327, where the archaeology of some Greek towns is related to contemporary travellers’ accounts and other narrative sources. Gerolymatou, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο, pp. 152–170, also uses Italian notarial sources and the results of more recent archaeological investigations. 15  See Sanders, “Chronology of Byzantine Corinth”, p. 394, n. 33, on the degree of confidence which we can have in the survey data currently available for Greece.

6

Chapter 1

only to a very limited degree.16 Beyond stating that the archaeological – and architectural17 – data pertaining to Greece suggest a general demographic and/ or economic upturn in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and perhaps a diversification away from Constantinople, only little nuancing in chronological, geographical and qualitative18 terms can be provided: in fact, perhaps most disturbingly, it is uncertain how many supposed twelfth-century developments have to be ascribed to the thirteenth.19 Only a well-studied place such as Corinth allows some further details with regard to its development within the middle Byzantine period:20 there, the eleventh century is regarded as key in establishing the town as a centre of commerce and manufacture. Nevertheless, the maximum extent of the settlement and business activity in the ‘Central Area’ and in other parts of the town only occurred in the thirteenth.21 Middle Byzantium: Periodisation 1.6 The most significant political and military caesuras in the life of the empire during the middle Byzantine period occurred in 1071/1081, with the massive territorial losses in Anatolia and Italy followed by the accession to the throne of Alexios I Komnenos. In general terms, the first three emperors of the Komnenian dynasty (1081–1180) brought some stability and continuity to the empire, and also oversaw economic and territorial expansion. By contrast, the late twelfth-century reigns of Alexios II Komnenos (1180–1183), Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185), and Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) are considered unmitigated disasters, caused to a large degree by the policies of the emperors themselves: key events are the Latin massacre of 1182; the Norman invasions from 1185 and the permanent losses of some western territories; defeats against the Bulgarians; and the dynastic infighting from 1195, 16  Sanders, “New relative and absolute chronologies”. In Chapter 2, pp. 111–118, I give some indications on the longevity of the typical twelfth-century Greek excavation coin, the tetarteron, and on the instances of its counterfeiting. 17  The eleventh and twelfth centuries saw a boom in church building. The Greek town with the most impressive concentration of relevant churches which are still perceivable today is perhaps Athens: see Sanders, “Chronology of Byzantine Corinth”, p. 396, n. 43; Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα; and also Chapter 4, pp. 448–456 for Athenian coin finds. 18  Regarding for instance the diffusion of glazed pottery, it is uncertain whether this testifies to an increase in population/settlement, or in more disposable income, or both: Sanders, “Chronology of Byzantine Corinth”, p. 395, n. 34. On the use of pottery as a measure of the economy, see now also Laiou, “Regional networks in the Balkans”. 19  See for instance Dunn, “Middle Byzantine Boiotia”, pp. 771–772. 20  Sanders, “Corinth”; Sanders, “Chronology of Byzantine Corinth”. 21  And this is precisely the development which the older literature on the site had assigned to the twelfth century. See also Chapter 4, pp. 429–437 for coin distributions at Corinth.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

7

which continued to 1204 and beyond. Also significant was the dismantling of the old thematic order, each of the former themes headed by a duke (or in the case of the theme of Hellas and the Peloponnese a praitor, who was under the authority of the megas doux), on the eve of the Fourth Crusade, as reflected in the ‘Partitio Romaniae’.22 Middle Byzantium: Provincial Greece on the Eve of the Fourth Crusade On a local level, the lives of Byzantines were also significantly disturbed by the malpractices of administrators,23 as well as by the perception that taxation, despite of its heavy burden, could not ensure the basic needs for infrastructure and protection. The resulting disenchantment contributed to the many regional challenges which the imperial Byzantine government faced throughout the empire in the last couple of decades before the Fourth Crusade.24 Concerning our area, the first important protagonist in this regard was Manuel Kamytzes, who gained control of parts of Thessaly in 120125 and might thereby have inspired26 the much more famous Leon Sgouros.27 The latter intermittently commanded during the period ca. 1198/1201–ca. 1208/1209 territories spanning a large part of the northeastern Peloponnese, the Argolis, Attica (though not Athens), and the Mainland, even parts of Thessaly. After the Fourth Crusade he hampered the Latin conquest of this area.28 In 1204 many more imperial territories were taken over by Greek dynasts, foremost amongst whom was Michael Komnenos Doukas in Epiros. It is also likely that Michael’s apparent ally Leon Chamaretos in Lakonia (and then maybe his son, until the 1220s),29 and a so-called archon in Methone (maybe John Kantakouzenos),30 broke with the imperial government after that date, although the chronologies of their respective activities cannot be entirely reconstructed. While it is undeniable that recent internal Byzantine developments contributed greatly to the outcome 1.7

22  Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), p. 148, with reference to Oikonomides, “La décomposition de l’Empire byzantin de 1204”. 23  Herrin, “Byzantine provincial government”. 24  On these developments see Lilie, “Zerfall der Zentralgewalt” and Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations. 25  Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, pp. 137–138, no. 196. 26  Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 120; Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, pp. 455–456. 27  Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, pp. 138–139, no. 198. 28  Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 108–133; Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, pp. 456–457. See in the last instance Vlachopoulou, Λέων Σγουρός. 29  Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 94; 135–138; Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations, pp. 152–153, no. 217. 30  Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 94, 118, and 127, n. 53.

8

Chapter 1

of the Fourth Crusade,31 scholarship32 now regards the entire Komnenian system as fundamentally flawed, in the sense that once the essential balances of the empire had been abandoned, unbearable pressures were put on the system by Byzantines and foreigners alike which would make its eventual breakage likely.33 1.8 Middle Byzantine Money Byzantine money in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was characterised by a wide range of issues in the main metals (gold, silver, copper), and by a total re-organisation of the monetary system under Alexios I in 1092/1093. There are a number of sometimes diverging scholarly interpretations regarding, for instance, the identification of issues and mints, or the intentions which might have lain behind the minting of specific issues, their distribution and usage. Although a lot has been written about Byzantine money in this period, from numismatic or historical angles, no attempt has so far been made to assemble in one piece of writing all the pertinent numismatic data – types, issues, and finds – and to provide a holistic but circumspect and suitably cautious interpretation in political, administrative, and economic terms. This is all the more regrettable because the complexity of some of the numismatic questions it is not always clear, especially to writers who may not have first-hand knowledge of coinage. In this way we find that relatively speculative numismatic constructions, for instance of the minting structure within the Komnenian empire, are simply accepted without questioning.34 At the same time, even writers dealing with the provincial Byzantine economy in this period often shy away from using numismatic works which are perhaps deemed too technical. Middle Byzantine Money: Before the Alexian Reform 1.9 In this brief overview I isolate some of the main numismatic arguments, and in particular I seek to correlate money with the overall historical developments which have just been discussed. My main focus is on Greece, rather than the other Balkan and Anatolian territories of the empire. Before the Alexian reform the empire’s coinage consisted of two fundamental kinds of copper coins, anonymous and signed folles, the latter bearing the names of the 31  See the overviews provided by Angold, Fourth Crusade and Phillips, Fourth Crusade. 32  Summarised in Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 164–165. 33  For a powerful summary of the Komnenian system and its unravelling see also Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204: the economy revisited”, pp. 42–48. 34  See for instance Harvey, Economic Expansion, pp. 80–119, and especially p. 85; Gerolymatou, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο, p. 39.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

9

emperors. There were two gold coins, histamena and the lighter tetartera, the last of which being in their inception an attempt to short change recipients of public monies.35 In between, there was the miliaresion silver coinage and its fractions. According to the most recent scholarship, Constantinople was the only place of minting in the empire during this period. It has, nevertheless, been suggested that a public mint, minting bullion for privates, or maybe even administered by these, may have been operational in the city in addition to the palace mint.36 If this was the case, then the slightly later and less plentiful signed folles may be regarded as the possible products of the public mint, although this remains a hypothesis.37 The debasement of the Byzantine gold coinage from the middle of the tenth century to the Alexian reform has been the centre of some heated scholarly debates. There was a contemporaneous debasement of the silver coinage, and a decrease in the weight of the copper coinage.38 The crux of the argument rests, particularly in the view of Morrisson, on these more or less parallel monetary phenomena, and on the fact that the debasements were gradual and did not commence only under Emperor Constantine IX (1042–1055), as is sometimes assumed.39 In opposition to writers such as Hendy40 and Kaplanis,41 she maintains that all these metrological changes, apart from the most rampant debasements which took place from the reign of Michael VII (1071–1078) onwards, are to be interpreted on the whole favourably since they constituted controlled measures to augment the monetary stock of the empire. The reason why this was deemed necessary was the rising number of transactions (T of the Fisher equation42), which were themselves the result of the rise in the Byzantine population

35  On Byzantine coinage before the Alexian reform, see in addition to the standard references (DOC III and Grierson, Byzantine Coins) the overview provided by Morrisson, “Byzantine Money” and the introduction to DOC IV, p. 9ff. The relationship between the state and money is summarised well in Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 978–980. Appendix II.1 treats middle Byzantine coinage insofar as it was relevant to medieval Greece. 36  See also this chapter, pp. 12 and 39–40, and Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1229. 37  See Hendy, Studies, p. 428 (who regards these as Thessalonican); DOC IV, p. 25 (now considered Constantinopolitan); Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 914, n. 19. 38  All these metrological data are laid out in Morrisson, “Dévaluation de la monnaie byzantine”. 39  The second point is reiterated in Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), p. 307, n. 1; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 148, n. 169. 40  Hendy, Studies, pp. 3–5, 236, and 508–509. 41  Kaplanis, “Debasement”. 42  See further in this Chapter 1, pp. 65–66.

10

Chapter 1

and the expansion of the Byzantine economy. I will consider these propositions below. 1.10 Middle Byzantine Money: the Alexian Reform In 1092/1093 the Byzantine monetary system was completely re-structured. All the resulting denominations were relevant also to the medieval Greek context, and as such are presented and discussed, in their technical details and their appearances after 1204, in the appendices: these are copper tetartera,43 billon trachea,44 electrum trachea,45 and gold hyperpyra.46 The foreign western coins which entered the empire during the eleventh and twelfth centuries are also treated in the appendices.47 These were issues of France, of the Normans of southern Italy, and of certain northern Italian mints. Some issues which were to gain prominence after 1204 may already have penetrated Greece in rather reduced numbers in the 1180s/1190s: sterling pennies;48 abbatial deniers tournois of Tours;49 less likely Venetian grossi.50 There were also issues of the eleventh- and twelfth-century crusader states in the east,51 and from Seljuq Syria.52 Within the Byzantine system, the transition from the pre- to the post-reform monetary system is still being debated, as are precise implications for the systems of account, particularly those used within the fiscal regime (see below). Once established, the new Komnenian system was radically different to anything previously available, in that it was largely built around alloys. The only denomination which was mostly minted in a pure metal, the flat copper coinage which was now called the tetarteron, was also considerably lighter than any of the older generations of Byzantine folles. The metrological, denominational, and minting structures of tetartera are far from clear. For this reason I refer to tetartera in this book in simple terms, assuming until proven otherwise

43  Appendix II.1.A, pp. 1197–1206. 44  Appendix II.1.B, pp. 1207–1246. 45  Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. 46  Appendix II.1.D, pp. 1252–1268. 47  First in an overview, Appendix II.5, pp. 1332–1335, then individually, Appendix II.5.A, B, D, pp. 1335–1342. 48  Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 49  Appendix II.3.A, pp. 1285–1286. 50  Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. 51  Appendix II.6.A, pp. 1343–1344. 52  Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1351.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

11

that there was only one denomination53 and weight standard, and only one mint of relevance to the Greek area, which was not located there, but perhaps in Thessalonike, although most likely in Constantinople. For the next denomination, the billon trachy, it is assumed in this book that the main twelfthcentury issues, and the early thirteenth-century issues which might pre-date the Latin take-over of Constantinople in April 1204 (this includes the so-called Faithful Copies) were all produced in that city. An important feature of the billon trachy coinage is its loss of fineness in the latter course of the twelfth century, and then at an accelerated pace in the thirteenth (see also below). These two new denominations, tetartera and billon trachea, therefore significantly increased the fiduciary or token aspect of the Byzantine coinage system.54 The two gold-based currencies, electrum trachea and hyperpyra, were of utmost importance to the fiscality and commercial life of the empire, and beyond. Unfortunately, despite this, no reliable quantifications for these coinages have so far been achieved.55 The first of these denominations also lost in fineness during the same period. The great majority, if not all,56 of these gold coinages were produced at Constantinople. Up until a certain point in the very late twelfth century, the coinage stock was handled very firmly by the Byzantine authorities. This can be seen, for instance, from the comprehensive culling of the older generation of Komnenian billon trachea, down to the second coinage of Manuel I.57 The other denominations did not experience the same metrological changes – with the partial exception of the electrum trachy, which was also handled in a rather different fashion (see below) – but most gold- and copperbased issues were still consistently weeded out from circulation in favour of freshly minted coinage. Only in some contexts, for instance larger sums stored in gold at monasteries, was the chronological profile of assembled coins more conservative.58 Even during crises, monetary operations could be conducted in a comprehensive and systematic manner by the state, as can be witnessed 53  This leaves aside the question of billon tetartera, which were of no relevance to Greece, even if they were clearly in usage in Constantinople (beside the more usual copper tetartera): see in the last instance Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”. 54  Morrisson, “La monnaie fiduciaire à Byzance”, pp. 615–616. 55  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 109; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 937. 56  See Appendix II.1.D.4, p. 1262, on the doubt which hangs over Thessalonike as a hyperpyron mint in the middle Byzantine period. 57  Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 110–111; DOC IV p. 287 and 308. The transition from the second to the third coinage of Manuel, and with it the reduction in fineness, might have occurred in the course of the 1160s. 58  The hoards are all listed in Appendix II.1.D, pp.  1253–1255. Middle Byzantine cases are considered pp. 23–24 and in the next Chapter 2, pp. 136–137.

12

Chapter 1

by the neat clipping of some billon trachea, which must have been carried out by the Byzantine authorities at some point(s) during the last decade or two before the Fourth Crusade.59 According to the propositions supported in this book, the (probable) massive minting of Faithful Copies while the imperial capital was already besieged by the crusaders provides the most obvious context for this clipping activity.60 1.11 Middle Byzantine Money: Control over Coinage and Counterfeiting In general, the empire was well provided for with coinage, although there are some exceptions to this (see below). Counterfeiting was also kept in check for much of the middle Byzantine period, with the exception of a counterfeit tetarteron issue of Alexios I, which may well have originated in the area of Albania/Epiros/Macedonia, and which spread as far as Rhodes, in addition to the main area of concern in this book.61 A much larger counterfeiting operation resulted in what is termed the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’. This coinage has been attributed to the afore-mentioned Leon Sgouros, a connection which I would prefer to be cautious about. At any rate, the numismatic data suggest in the strongest terms that this coinage was not commenced before 1204. One final consideration regarding the matter of imperial control over minting is that, as previously for the signed folles (see above), certain numismatic constellations for the 1092–1204 period might one day prove a private involvement in the shape of a public mint, of whatever nature, in the minting process.62 This would provide a link with the post-1204 situation, for which the numismatic and documentary evidence is much stronger (see below). Middle Byzantine Money: a Comprehensive Denominational System for All In interpreting further the coinages of the middle Byzantine period we can either look into their intrinsic features (quality, quantity, denominations, etc.) or at the archaeological record in which they appear in Greece. Both routes of enquiry are hampered by the quality of the available data, and have also led to some very diverse and sometimes opposing conclusions. To my mind, it is very important to stress that both before and after the Alexian reform we are

1.12

59  On the controversial matter of the neat clipping of billon trachea, consider the opposing views of Metcalf (reiterated in many of his publications, for example SE Europe, p. 111, and “Faithful Copies”) and Hendy (Studies, pp. 318–319; DOC IV, pp. 62–66). The latter’s case, even if it was made in an unacceptably abusive manner, seems to be the more reasonable. 60  A  ppendix II.1.B.2, pp. 1212–1222. 61  On counterfeit tetartera, see Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206. 62  Hendy, Studies, p. 260. See also above p. 9.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

13

dealing with fully developed monetary systems, in which copper and gold (to a lesser degree silver) coinages were completely integrated and used by all.63 In the words of Paul Lemerle, “(A Byzance) il n’y a d’économie que monétaire”.64 For this reason, I would argue, evidence gained for one metal on the quantity and quality of monetisation can usually be applied to the system as a whole. Many of the perceived skews in the archaeological record, for instance in the appearances of single copper coins as opposed to hoarded gold coins, are the result of haphazard data sets rather than of a prevalence of one metal over another in contemporary times, with all that this has been made to imply by some modern analysts on the lines of ‘high status’ vs. ‘low status’ monetisation, or ‘private and everyday’ vs. ‘state’ transactions. The different spheres of monetary usage were also much more intertwined than is sometimes stated. There are, nonetheless, some exceptions, and in some areas different denominations would genuinely have been over- or under-represented. These instances will be discussed below. Another point of interpretation is that within the middle Byzantine Empire, Byzantine monetary specie was fundamental to all important transactions, even those conducted between foreigners and Byzantines. There were therefore no periods or areas within the empire – up to a point very late in the twelfth century – in which Byzantine and foreign monetary systems might have alternated.65 Interpretations of the monetary developments affecting all the main monetary denominations available in middle Byzantium have to adhere to these basic points. 1.13 Middle Byzantine Money: Monetary Expansion Pre-1092 With regard to the pre-1092 situation, although our evidence on the size of actual coin production is limited to gold,66 the apparent augmentation in the production and usage of all Byzantine denominations from the second half of the tenth century, and the changes in their metrologies, must be connected, as Morrisson has maintained (see above). To my mind, contemporaries, 63  The narrative sources provide some rare glimpses of the middle Byzantine monetary system in action, as in the case of John Poutzes, who, in the account of Choniates, picks up a few pickled vegetables for what appears to be a billon trachy, and receives tetartera in change: Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”, p. 206. 64  Quoted in Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”, p. 55. 65  Contra, in both of these regards, for instance the analyses given in Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese” and Penna, “Corinth”, according to which there might have been in the middle Byzantine Peloponnese/Corinth different spheres and phases of coin usage, lower and higher, Byzantine and foreign. On foreign coins in middle Byzantium, see also below, pp. 18–20. 66  Consider the splendid recent corpus of dies and its interpretation: Füeg, Basil II to Eudocia, esp. p. 126.

14

Chapter 1

and particularly the Byzantine state as a collective of officials operating in Constantinople and in the provinces, did not need to have any knowledge of the Fisher equation in order to perceive problems with transactions or prices owing to the paucity of available cash.67 Whether or not such payments were made in the public or private spheres is also entirely beside the point: most people operated within both, and both were anyhow completely intertwined, as I have suggested in the previous discussion, and a great many kinds of payments did involve the Byzantine fisc in one way or another. No other coherent explanations have otherwise been given for the debasements which commenced in the 950s, or for the falling weights of the folles. For these reasons, I would concur with a structural and monetarist explanation for these eleventhcentury developments, rather than to explain the latter primarily through the whims of the individual emperors issuing the coins, or through some individual pieces of expenditure. The rapid debasements during 1071–1092 must, by contrast, be ascribed to the combination of a precedence which had already been set with the extraordinary territorial losses which the empire incurred. No scholar has so far suggested otherwise. Middle Byzantine Money: a New and Flexible Currency for the Twelfth Century Also the monetary system after 1092, in its structures and qualities, can reveal something about intent and usage. Its novelty, diversity, and flexibility have been praised by modern writers,68 who see it as a step towards the user. After the rather unwieldy follis of the previous system,69 the tetarteron and its low weight70 made many more menial and everyday exchanges possible.71 The lesser weight would surely also have implied that many more tetartera than folles were being minted. However, as I have indicated above, many of the intrinsic features of the Komnenian denominations are still not fully understood. The archaeological data have also yet to be fully developed and exploited: writers on the subject have generally recognised and accepted that there are – at the existing state of knowledge – geographical patterns and divisions 1.14

67  See Morrisson, “L’économie monétaire byzantine”, p. 253; Howgego, Ancient history from coins, p. 123. 68  Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, esp. p. 219. 69  See the cases of folles clipped down to look like tetartera: Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 280. 70  The treatment of the tetarteron in DOC IV is regarded as particularly weak: see in this regard especially Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 394ff, and Appendix II.1.A, pp. 1197–1206. 71  Of the kind we have seen on p. 13n65.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

15

according to which the various denominations of the twelfth century appear in the archaeological record.72 I believe that the latter is still deficient in many respects and proper statistics are far from forthcoming, but that the differences are anyhow less stark than is sometimes stated. Further, even if hoards of a certain denomination prevail in one area, we cannot know whether this reflects circulation or simply choices of thesaurisation. One may, however, reasonably assume that there were some discernible differences in the circulation of some denominations in some areas. As an explanation, I do not concur with the complex structure of mints put forward for the Komnenian Empire.73 I would also be reluctant to ascribe a singular and decisive role to the Byzantine authorities in the distribution of coins,74 which were for the most part minted in Constantinople according to the interpretations supported in this book. I believe that any observably distinctive distribution patterns were to an equal degree the result of private choices. Middle Byzantine Money: Twelfth-Century Coins in Thirteenth-Century Usage One additional reflection has the potential for clouding the picture further: it is quite clear that all the denominations of the Komnenos and Angelos emperors were used also in the beginning of the following century, and often alienated from their original contexts and uses.75 The extent, however, to which the supposed archaeological picture for the twelfth century actually relates to the thirteenth century is presently impossible to quantify.76 This concerns especially the vast numbers of tetartera lost at Greek sites and the peculiar distribution of electrum trachea.77 These are precisely the denominations which provide the greatest methodological problems for the twelfth century. While we may agree, therefore, that the tetarteron was used in pre-conquest Greece because of the more developed monetary exchanges there,78 and that the electrum trachy was preferentially deployed throughout the empire for tertiary (military 1.15

72  See again the various discussions in Appendix II.1, esp. pp. 1199–1201 and 1209–1210. 73  Conveniently set out in Hendy, Studies, pp. 434–439, with accompanying map. 74  Most forcefully expressed in Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”. 75  This subject matter is extensively treated in Chapter 2, esp. pp. 111–118 and 137–139. 76  See also above, p. 6 on the problem of distinguishing archaeologically the twelfth and the thirteenth century. 77  A very extreme case of prolonged usage of Byzantine coinage in an area which had dropped outside of the borders of the empire is the Mardin hoard, which consisted largely of issues of the tenth and eleventh centuries, hoarded in the thirteenth: Morrisson, “La diffusion de la monnaie de Constantinople”, p. 83. 78  A  ppendix II.1.A, p. 1201.

16

Chapter 1

or commercial) purposes,79 the true extent and significance of these tendencies escape us. I would suggest, as a knock-on from these findings, that the supposed structural and monetary difficulties which have been described for contemporary Asia Minor80 need also to be treated with some circumspection. 1.16 Middle Byzantine Money: Archaeological Contexts and Periodisation Archaeological data can also be used to describe developments in chronological rather than geographical terms, but yet again this approach is problematic: we have already stated that there is a general lack of quantifications for middle Byzantine denominations, so that we cannot be sure to what extent find rates reflect coin production or usage. One of the key coinages of the period, the tetartera of Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180), are also not properly dated:81 while it appears that his DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ was early and his DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ was late, their absolute datings, and those of the intermittent DOC IV, types 18 and 23, and types 21 and 24 (‘St. George’ and ‘Emperor Standing’), are uncertain.82 Correlating hoards and stray losses of these issues at Corinth and Sparta with Norman attacks and earthquakes has so far been to no avail.83 Penna proposes that the four main issues may in fact have been produced concurrently, which is certainly worth taking into consideration in any future analyses. All of this is not to deny that extraordinary events may have had an impact on loss rates, but as the situation currently stands we are neither able to account for these in the record, nor to date the coin issues, and once it may seem that we are able to do either or both, there would still be the fear of creating circular arguments. With the limited possibilities at our disposal we may currently say little more than that in some key towns and areas of Greece stray losses of copper coins greatly increased for the tenth to twelfth centuries, thereby underlining the picture of general increased which the metrological data for the pre-1092 coinages, and for the post-1092 tetartera, had drawn. Only for some places which have been discussed in the literature, for instance Corinth, Athens, and

79  Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. 80  Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 960; Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change” esp. p. 208. 81  Also observed in Sanders, “Chronology of Byzantine Corinth”, p. 397. 82  See for what follows: Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, pp. 281–283. 83  The Sparta 1926 hoard used by Penna is in fact our own «194. Sparta 1926A & B» dating to the early fifteenth century.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

17

Sparta,84 can some further differentiations be attempted. Even though, confusingly, not always the same criteria have been applied, and some authors argue internally within sites, others across sites, it appears certain that Corinth suffered from relatively declining monetary activity from a certain point in the later eleventh or earlier twelfth century. This observation ties in with the overall archaeological appreciation. As is the case with the other archaeological materials from this site (e.g. pottery), also some of this numismatic material, particularly tetarteron losses,85 need to transferred to the thirteenth century, which further accentuates the picture of a twelfth-century downturn. Similar cases have been made for a number of hoards which have been listed at the beginning of Appendix I («1»; «3»; «4»;86 etc.). The other two sites began relatively later than Corinth, but progressed more steadily through the twelfth century. Numismatic data have emerged from Thebes more recently,87 but they provide some interesting comparisons. On the whole, the town seems to flatten out similarly to Corinth. There seems to be some consistency in these developments, whereby the two most important towns of the theme of Hellas and the Peloponnese began to develop rather earlier, whereas the twelfth century witnessed a greater diversification across other regional centres. At Thebes we can also see the relative loss of importance of the central Kadmeia, and the growth of other areas in which people lived, worked, and traded.88 The middle Byzantine numismatic data have, by contrast, never been broken down according to the different excavation areas of Corinth as I have attempted to do in Appendix I.89 In this case, as in the case of Greece as a whole,90 much profitable work remains to be done in establishing a reliable numismatic record within a comprehensive archaeological framework, which also gives space to the negative evidence. There are whole stretches of territories in which there is a general paucity of numismatic material of all kinds, 84  Metcalf, SE Europe pp. 71–73 and 112–114; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, pp. 276–283; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, tables 6.5 and 6.9; p. 959; Penna, “Corinth”. 85  Note the relatively many losses for Emperor Andronikos I: Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 284. Do we really need to suppose that all of these coins were lost and not retrieved within fifteen years of his death in September 1185? 86   All considered middle Byzantine concealments in Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, pp. 284–285. 87   Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Πολιτισκό Κέντρο” (a site within the town corresponding to «355»); Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Αγία Τριάδα” («354»); Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματικοί θησαυροί”. 88  See also Chapter 4, pp. 456–462, on this topic. 89  See entries «263»–«279». 90  See the next Chapter 2, pp. 105–109, on the archaeology of medieval Greece.

18

Chapter 1

Epiros,91 Thessaly,92 and even the western Peloponnesian area of Elis.93 In anticipation of further clarifications on the reliability of this impression, we may cautiously conclude that the level of monetisation of middle Byzantine Greece may have been lower outside the major urban centres and in areas turned away from the Aegean. Middle Byzantine Money: Foreign/Byzantine Coins and the Balance of Payments The foreign coins available in middle Byzantium, which have already been mentioned, do not paint a different picture. Even if we may suppose that some of them arrived in the context of the rather extraordinary events that were the crusades, or during travel/pilgrimage more generally,94 these coins converge along the established trade routes on the coasts of Albania, Greece, Asia Minor, and the Levant, and, with respect to our area, in the main urban centres.95 What are we to make of this evidence? As I have already indicated, we must assume on the one hand that transactions within the middle Byzantine empire were largely, if not entirely, reliant on Byzantine specie. On the other hand, the commercial relations between Byzantium and Italy were augmenting in this period.96 Writers on the subject often treat the middle (and even later) Byzantine monetary system as a world unto its own. This belief has led to a number of approaches, from giving very little attention to any incoming bullion at all97 – as opposed to outward flows in the context of imperial warfare or international diplomacy –, to regarding all foreign specie, and their archaeological manifestations at sites and in hoards, as necessarily extraneous phenomena linked to one event or to a single person.98 These approaches seem to fly in the face of the considerable foreign investment which the middle Byzantine economy was witnessing,99 specifically in the context of produce which was bought by Italians. We are of course very well informed, by the nu1.17

91  Veikou, Byzantine Epirus, pp. 251–255. 92  Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”. 93  Penna, “Ηλεία”; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 241. 94  A conceptual framework for these arrivals is given in Appendix II.5, pp. 1332–1335. 95  See, in addition to the expositions in Appendix II, Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 358, and Papadopoulou, “Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο”. 96  Laiou has estimated that a very large percentage of non-food monetised exchanges involved Italians: Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), p. 135. 97  It is telling that the appropriate section in Hendy, Studies, p. 280–283, is kept to a minimum. 98  This view pervades the work of Metcalf: see Metcalf, “Money of a medieval French traveller” and Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 98–101. See further Appendix II.5, p. 1334. 99  This investment is meticulously reconstructed in Hendy, Studies, pp. 590–602.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

19

mismatic and documentary sources, that most north Italian specie were inadequate for the purposes of international trade,100 that Italian traders were fully versed in Byzantine and Islamic coinages, and that both feature prominently on the Venetian money market.101 The appearances of Byzantine copper coinages all along the Adriatic – folles and tetartera – are very strong indicators for the usage by Italians of the full canon of Byzantine denominations.102 We can balance the cycle of payments between Italy and Byzantium in a number of ways, though none of these can be proven with many hard data. Italians might have already arrived in Byzantium with Byzantine specie which had previously been alienated from the usual Byzantine cycle of payments;103 or with non-Byzantine specie (northern Italian silver pennies/Sicilian or Arabic gold) which was converted to Byzantine specie within Byzantium (pre-reform gold coins/hyperpyra and electrum trachea);104 or with produce which they sold in Byzantium in receipt for Byzantine specie.105 Very likely, a combination of these scenarios applied. Foreigners were important in distributing Byzantine specie within the empire. The bullion which they brought might have increased the volume of Byzantine money itself, although no serious attempts at quantification of the latter have yet been undertaken by scholars. Any foreign specie, insofar as it was brought to Byzantium at all and escaped re-mintage, can be used for some strands of interpretations, for instance regarding levels of frequentation by foreigners, or the geographical scope of commercial contacts of a given locality. Some foreign specie might have supplemented the petty coinage on a local level,106 but none of it would 100  For what follows: Stahl, “Coinage of Venice in the age of Enrico Dandolo”; Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”; Stahl, Zecca, pp. 8–15. 101  Buenger Robbert, “Venetian Money Market”. See specifically pp. 76–82 for the position of the gold hyperpyron. See also Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach”, p. 324, n. 37. 102  Callegher, “Folles anonimi”, esp. p. 298; Callegher, “Monete medioevali dei secoli XI– XIII in Friuli”, pp. 340–341. See further Morrisson, “La diffusion de la monnaie de Constantinople”: p. 89; Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”; and Appendix II.1.A.1, p. 1202. 103  Byzantine gold coinage was widely used for the storage of wealth in the Latin world: see Appendix II.1.D.2, p. 1256. 104  There is a theory, going back to Cessi, whereby the Venetian penny of the tenth and eleventh century was debased in line with the Byzantine gold coinage: Saccocci, “La moneta nel Veneto medioevale”, p. 247, n. 21; Saccocci, “Struttura dei rinvenimenti”. If this were the case, it might have been done with operations such as the ones described in mind. However, I am generally sceptical about any such direct relationships between Venetian and Byzantine currencies: see Appendix II.4.A, p. 1295, and Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”. 105  This was, according to some interpretations, the pattern for the later Byzantine period, although I believe that the situation was not quite as straightforward even then: see below, pp. 36–37. 106  On the concept of petty coinage, see the discussion in Chapter 2, pp. 135–136.

20

Chapter 1

have played any direct part in the commercial and fiscal life of the empire. This situation probably changed in some areas of Byzantium already before the Fourth Crusade, during the crisis years of the 1180s and 1190s. In this period, and increasingly after 1200,107 there is some evidence of miscellaneous western (and eastern) coins being used and manipulated. This is an important consideration for rejecting the rather rigid picture of foreign coins in middle Byzantine territories drawn by Metcalf.108 The role of foreigners and of foreign money within the Byzantine monetary system during the period of the Komnenos and Angelos emperors is therefore multi-faceted, nuanced, and in some aspects controversial. 1.18 Middle Byzantine Money: Fiscality and Accounting Systems One thing that foreigners did not influence, and here I concur with Michael Hendy, was the Alexian reform itself, nor the outward shape of Komnenian coinage, which would have been determined by internal Byzantine possibilities and considerations.109 The implications of the introduction of this new monetary system were also in the first instance fiscal, as we can gauge from matching the pre- and post-1092 numismatic data with the treatise known as the ‘Palaia kai Nea Logarike’.110 There has been some scholarly debate regarding the details of the phasing in of the new coins (and even on the date of the reform itself), and the identification of particular coins behind the cited monies of account. The findings also have some implications for the level of the tax burden (see below). The details apart, the problems perceived by contemporaries and their solutions, and their implications for the fisc, for the tax payers and the tax collectors, can be well understood through these sources. We are informed that the main standard of value was before the Alexian reform, despite of the debasements which the gold coinage had undergone, the full value nomisma of 24 keratia weight. After the reform, its role was transferred to a coin of the same weight but of the slightly inferior hyperpyron standard. Even so, the reformed hyperpyra and electrum trachea created metrological 107  See Chapter 2, pp. 88–89. 108  See above, p. 18n98. 109  Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204: the economy revisited”, p. 39. Against: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 104. 110  See the following citations which deal directly with the monetary interpretations of this treatise, all of which are heavily indebted to Svoronos, who commented on the text before the discovery of the Alexian coinage reform: DOS XII, pp. 50–64; Morrisson, “La logarikè”; Hendy, Studies, pp. 286, 320, 513, 517; Harvey, Economic Expansion pp. 68, 80, 90–98; DOC IV, pp. 40–41; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, pp. 930, 932, 952. See further Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 1030–1031.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

21

links with previously existing coinages, possibly for practical reasons, or for more profound reasons if we espouse Morrisson’s ideas of a more widespread persistence of the pre-reform system. The change in the absolute standard is in many respects a much greater point of departure from the Byzantine tradition than the earlier debasements of the coins themselves. Before the reform the various generations of gold tetartera and histamena could be more or less easily matched to the absolute standard, but it was clear that the system was becoming unwieldy, especially with the rapid debasements from 1071, and subject to abuse and manipulation. This combination of quickly evolving monetary conditions, in combination with the actions of those involved in the levying, collecting, and paying of taxes, created uncertainty on the very rates at which the basic tax (‘demosios kanon’ or ‘demosion’) and its subsidiaries were meant to be levied. The clarification of these payments was a major aspect of the Logarike. In the treatise we see the system of ‘charagma’ in action, whereby the monetised part of the demosion was paid in gold up to a certain point, the remainder in copper. The return (‘antistrophe’) was paid out in copper. This was substantially the same principle before and after the reform. Some of the many additional taxes were levied in different coins, for instance before the reform the ‘synetheia’ was paid at one silver miliaresion for each nomisma of the demosion. The Nea Logarike gives a few examples of how these old taxes were collected in the new coins. Even more so than in the pre-reform phase, during the initial phase after the reform the situation was chaotic and easily exploitable, especially by powerful taxpayers, including the monasteries. The new taxation system which was eventually put in place by the emperor was unified, applicable to all, but generally higher than the previous one. This is, according to one given interpretation, best reflected in the direct substitution of the silver miliaresion for the electrum trachy, a coin of much greater intrinsic value, and especially the designation of the latter as the main charagma according to Alexios’ reply of February 1109.111 In addition to the cited basic land tax or demosion, paid at a rate of 1/24 of the value of the land,112 there were personal (notably the ‘kapnikon’ and ‘synone’) and incidental (for instance the ‘alamanikon’ of Alexios III113) taxes, whose burden was increasing. Peasants paying rent rather than direct taxation were usually charged at twice the rate of the demosion.114 The basic sales 111  The identities of the various (palaia) trachea of the Logarike are the main point of contention between Hendy and Morrisson. 112  On what follows see Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), pp. 128– 131 and 245; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 107. 113  Hendy, Studies, p. 227. 114  Harvey, Economic Expansion, pp. 46 and 102.

22

Chapter 1

tax or ‘kommerkion’, paid by all who were not in receipt of special privileges, amounted to 10% of the value of the merchandise.115 We must assume that some parts of the rent and indirect taxation were paid in cash, and since renting and commerce were on the rise during the twelfth century (see above) we can imagine, though not quantify, the general increase in monetisation. With regard to direct taxes, it is on the one hand certain that a residue of these were not entirely monetised.116 On the other hand, we have no way of measuring the extent of this.117 Bulgaria was quite an exception in being permitted to render all direct taxation in kind.118 Many of the traditional services performed by the peasantry, corvée labour (‘angareia’) and military (‘strateia’), were increasingly commuted to cash payments. In the course of the twelfth century state lands increased and the state also gathered an increasing percentage of its revenue in cash. At the same time the state paid out less money in the traditional sphere of state salaries,119 and shifted its expenditure to other areas: there were outright payments to individuals and institutions (e.g. monasteries) of grants or gifts (‘solemnia’) which contributed further to the alienation of state revenue already caused by pronoia grants.120 There were payments of what Hendy has called ‘occasional largesse’ (upon the accession of Manuel I, or in response to a large fire under Isaac II).121 And finally the costs related to warfare and other matters (ransoms and bribes) contributed greatly to the problems faced by the Byzantine state in the later part of the twelfth century: in those years the empire had to confront the Normans, Bulgarians, and various crusading armies, as we have seen.122

115  Jacoby, “Italian privileges”, p. 350; Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 1007–1008; Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), p. 130; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 144. 116  See particularly Harvey, Economic Expansion pp. 102–109; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 947; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 156–157. 117   Consider Morrisson’s comments on the methodology employed in the studies of Oikonomides, “Σε ποιο βαθμό ήταν εκχρηματισμένη η μεσοβυζαντινή οικονομία;” and Saradi, “Barter” (the latter regarding the period after 1204). For overall estimates of the monetised and non-monetised elements of middle Byzantine production – agricultural and otherwise – see Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview”, pp. 1154–1155. 118  Harvey, Economic Expansion, p. 113. 119  Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 947. See also p. 943 on the payment of rogai in silk. 120  Harvey, Economic Expansion, p. 82. 121  Hendy, Studies, p. 196 n. 216 and pp. 198–199. 122  See Hendy, Studies, p. 222 (on the costs of the campaigns against the Normans in 1155–1156 and 1185); p. 259 (on the ransom of Kamytzes from the Bulgarians); p. 265 (on the payment of allies in 1083 and 1170; on the bribery of Frederick I during the Third Crusade; and on other bribes in relation to the Fourth Crusade); p. 267 (on different ransoms paid

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MIDDLE BYZANTIUM

23

1.19 Middle Byzantine Money: Monetisation and Storage Moving beyond fiscal matters, the two contributions by Oikonomides and Saradi, which deal primarily with the commercial and private sectors, have gathered a fair number of examples of payments in kind, but again it is difficult to attempt any quantifications in their regards.123 It is clear that public and private wealth would generally have been tied up in coins and in other artefacts, and it is natural that these would all feature in documents such as inventories or dowries.124 The availability of money for all sectors was also quite seasonal and related to the harvest and the fiscal year, which began in September.125 Once monies were amassed, their storage and safekeeping became the main priority. We have a fair amount of information, from writers such as Psellos and Choniates, on the storage of imperial wealth in eleventh and twelfth century Byzantium.126 Also monastic wealth was very tightly controlled and administered,127 so much so that monasteries were readily used by wealthy Byzantines for the safekeeping of their monies.128 Building up a reserve and maintaining a level of liquidity was clearly important to the state, to other institutions, and to individuals, in order to meet regular and extraordinary costs. A rudimentary banking system was in place in middle Byzantium, which allowed some money exchanges, borrowing and lending.129 The natural desire of Byzantines to preserve and transmit wealth130 could be broken only with great difficulty,131 although recent analyses have gathered more evidence in middle Byzantine times). On the payments to crusaders see also Appendix II.1.B.2, pp. 1220–1221. 123  Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), p. 135. The two articles in question are cited in n. 117 above. 124  Hendy, Studies, pp. 209–218; Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), pp. 190–191; Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, pp. 99–105. Consider also the famous earlier case of the widow Danielis, who kept her great wealth in miscellaneous objects such as silks and silver objects: Hendy, Studies, p. 207; Harvey, Economic Expansion p. 81, n. 5. 125  Hendy, Studies, pp. 159–160. 126  Hendy, Studies, p. 224ff; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, pp. 915 and 940. On the matter of storing and lending, see Harvey, Economic Expansion pp. 115–118. 127  Lefort and Smyrlis, “Gestion du numéraire”. 128  Hendy, Studies, pp. 219 and 518–519. 129  Hendy, Studies 424ff; Brand, “Did Byzantium have a free market?”; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money” p. 909; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 140–141, with references to Laiou, “God and Mammon” and Laiou, “Byzantium and the commercial revolution”. See also Morrisson, “Manier l’argent”, on different kinds of ‘money men’. 130  On the importance of dowries, for instance, see Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), p. 189. 131  Harvey, Economic Expansion p. 80.

24

Chapter 1

for an inclination of middle Byzantine aristocrats to invest at least some of it in trading ventures, with all the risks that these involved.132 With respect to the use of money in middle Byzantium in both rural and urban contexts, it is worth noting finally that wage labour existed,133 and that slavery was only of little economic significance beyond the eleventh century.134 1.20 Late Byzantium The political implications of the fall of Constantinople to the knights of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 were obviously far reaching. It is not the aim here to narrate the course of events which resulted in the establishments of the Latin empire and rival Greek empires at Thessalonike and Nicaea, nor the Byzantine re-conquest of the imperial city in 1261, and the subsequent history of Byzantium.135 The survival, until 1453, of this state and of the idea of a Roman empire/emperor is perhaps one of the most noteworthy and surprising aspects of later Byzantium, in view of the political, military and economic realities. The monetary history of these territories came to be increasingly divorced from the area of concern to this book, and insofar as any Byzantine or sub-Byzantine coinages played a role there, these are treated in the appendices and in the main chapters. Nevertheless, the fundamental structural changes affecting Byzantium and its immediate successors, which may well or may not have been directly the result of the political changes brought on by the Fourth Crusade, as perceived in the recent literature,136 bear describing in order to 132  See Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 140–141, again with reference to older studies by Laiou. 133  Cheynet and Morrisson, “Prices and wages”, p. 864ff; Lefort, “The rural economy, seventh– twelfth centuries”, p. 242. 134  Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 102; Rotman, Byzantine slavery. 135  More or less detailed accounts of the political histories for the main units which succeeded the middle Byzantine empire in the area between Macedonia and Bithynia can be found in Longnon, L’empire; Angold, Byzantine government in exile; Bredenkamp, Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike; Nicol, Last centuries of Byzantium. Byzantine and formerly Byzantine territories from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries are also treated in a single volume in Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III. On the processes which saw the disintegration and re-establishment of Byzantine rule in the course of the thirteenth century see Prinzing, “Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Umbruch” and Oikonomides, “Rinascita”. 136  See Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, and Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 166–167, on the differences between political events and larger structural shifts. General overviews of the society and economy of Byzantium after 1204 are to be found additionally in the EHB and in the volume cited in the last note, as well as in Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”; Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West”; Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”; Smyrlis, “Byzantium”,

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

25

set the scene for the more specific scenarios which I consider for the medieval Greek context: There are a few basic facts about the post-1204 situation which may appear obvious but are worth stating here. The middle Byzantine Empire, with its large-scale fiscal, economic, dynastic, and military/strategic impact, was replaced by entities which operated in a much more limited fashion.137 Additionally, “A household system of government replaced a bureaucratic system”.138 The new political constellation resulted in conflict and warfare for much of the medieval period, which also affected formerly secure and peaceful parts of the Balkans and Greece itself. The Aegean Sea became unsafe through piracy, which was often officially sanctioned.139 Even the rise of the Serbians and of the Ottomans, who administered Byzantium its final blows, can ultimately be linked to the Fourth Crusade, since the latter was responsible for a political vacuum in the area of Epiros/Thessaly/Macedonia, which both the early Palaiologan emperors – to the detriment of the Anatolian defences – and the Serbs sought to fill. The ascendancy particularly of Latins and Turks caused great moral, religious, ideological, but also practical, challenges to Byzantine society, and many of Byzantium’s most influential components aligned themselves to the different models.140 1.21 Late Byzantium: Social Stratification The frequent unrest and civil wars within Byzantium, which contributed substantially to the general instability,141 can sometimes be interpreted in the which (pp. 145–150) summarises the profound late medieval crisis as it affected Byzantium. Three monographs which have appeared in the last decade or so have dealt specifically with the social profile of the late empire: Matschke and Tinnefeld, Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz; Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager. Further bibliography is cited in the further course of the discussion. 137  Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 167–169. 138  Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 773. 139  As it greatly affected Latin Greece and the Venetian empire, this phenomenon is discussed in Chapter 3, pp. 281–282. 140  The positionings undertaken by the emperors and the Byzantine aristocracy in this respect are implied in much of the literature concerning later Byzantium, but are discussed more explicitly in some of the recent literature cited in n.  136 above. See also Oikonomides, “Byzantine diplomacy”, p. 75. Developments in the perception of Italians are analysed in Laiou, “Italy and the Italians”. 141   Charanis, “Internal strife in Byzantium”. The urban revolts in the area between Thessalonike and Constantinople in the 1340s and 1350s, which do not command as high a place in the relevant bibliography as they did a couple of generations ago, are re-considered in Kyritses, “Revolts in late Byzantine cities”. See also Laiou, “Palaiologoi”, pp. 822–824.

26

Chapter 1

same context of conflicting models, foreign influences, and aristocratic aspirations, although they often had their roots in more entrenched economic or social issues. Late Byzantine and related societies diversified, at the level of the ruling families, and the ruling classes more generally (‘dynatoi’), as well as the upper echelons of the administration (‘archontes’), or of the middling order (‘mesoi’).142 Economic behaviour became more varied, but at the same time the need for a traditional, aristocratic style of representation and conspicuous consumption intensified. Other, distinctly urban, classes emerged, which also played their part in the Byzantine civil wars. The multiplication of polities in Greece and the remainder of the southern Balkans naturally contributed further to the proliferation of rulers and ruling elites, of bureaucracies, of courts and courtly towns,143 as well as other towns performing different socioeconomic functions. Even within what remained of Byzantium, the overall strategic and dynastic situation led to a degree of decentralisation, with the creation of what some historians have termed appanages and a much greater emphasis on co-emperors and on cities and towns.144 Late Byzantium: Fiscality and the Land Regime 1.22 It has been argued that for a while after 1204 the collapse of central Byzantine power and the creation of new states led to a much lighter fiscality and to a liberalisation of opportunities, which were to the general benefit of Byzantine and post-Byzantine societies,145 but that this state of affairs did not persist as more serious pressures came to bear. A heavier fiscality is said to have underpinned the successes of the early Palaiologan empire, but in due course benefitted mostly the private interests which were coming to the fore.146 Despite the great political, strategic, social, and economic changes that were underway, much public and private wealth, as had been the case in the middle Byzantine period which has just been discussed, was still derived from land, whether in the shape of direct taxation, rent, or the exploitation and sale of its resources. 142  The class structure of the Palaiologan empire is also extensively discussed in the literature cited in n. 136 above. See further Laiou, “Byzantine aristocracy in the Palaeologan period”, on the particular characteristics of the late Byzantine aristocracy. 143  On this topic, see Schreiner, “Neue höfische Zentren” and the general remarks in Maksimović, “Despotenhof von Epiros”. 144  On these see Barker, “Appanages in Byzantium” and Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 151–152. 145  Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”. A somewhat more pessimistic picture of the thirteenth century is drawn in Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview”, p. 1156ff. 146  Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview”, p. 1160; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 224ff.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

27

In late Byzantium the conditions according to which land was held and exploited were essentially the same as those in place for the middle Byzantine period.147 The changes which had been under way in this respect were accelerated from the thirteenth century onwards by the new political situation, namely the constant need for emperors to reward and satisfy members of the elites in return for their allegiance.148 One of the main tendencies of this period was therefore an increasing alienation from the state of landed resources, and their concentration in the hands of others. The great monasteries of Byzantium were particular beneficiaries,149 and some of their properties were 147  There is a huge amount of literature concerned with the late Byzantine land regime (the systems of ownership and exploitation of land; the systems of census and the drawing up of praktika; the status and economic and social organisation of the paroikoi; the shape and function of the village; rent and direct taxation; the size of imperial, ecclesiastical and private estates; technology, investments, and the improvement of yields; the commercialisation of agricultural produce; the administration of estates, etc.). What follows has been informed by some select reading beginning with the seminal literature of the 1950s: Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”; Ostrogorsky, Féodalité byzantine; Charanis, “Town and country in the Byzantine possessions”; Jacoby, “Phénomènes de démographie rurale”; Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society; Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West”, p. 322ff; Jacoby, “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople”; Kazhdan, “State, feudal and private economy in Byzantium”, esp. p. 90ff; Lefort, “Rural economy”; Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”; Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”; Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 1033–1039; 1042–1050; Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, pp. 137– 182 and 183–244 (respectively on the acquisition of landed properties by monasteries, and on their administration and exploitation. See also the earlier Smyrlis, “Management of monastic estates” on these matters); Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 173– 182; Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, pp. 9–34; Smyrlis, “Our Lord and father”; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 79–93; 155–156; 165 and 170–171; Smyrlis, “Byzantium”. Specifically on the budgets of estates and the administration of money: Lefort and Smyrlis, “Gestion du numéraire” and Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, pp. 235–244. Specifically on the institution of the pronoia, see most recently Kazhdan, “Pronoia” (summarizing a century of scholarship); Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 165 and 170–171; Bartusis, Pronoia. All these writers offer opinions regarding the supposed feudalisation of Byzantium. For a sample, see Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society, p. 4, n. 2; Haldon, “Feudalism debate once more”, esp. pp. 14 and 25ff; Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania”, pp. 2–6; Kazhdan, “State, feudal and private economy in Byzantium”; Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”, pp. 46–47. Clearly, the various outcomes of this debate are heavily conditioned by the definition of feudalism itself – not least in the context of the Latin west and in the contemporary Frankish Peloponnese – and the emphasis on particular legal or socio-economic features. The topic re-emerges in Chapter 3, pp. 241–244. 148  As argued in Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”. 149  The phenomenon has been charted in great detail in Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères.

28

Chapter 1

also located within the primary area under discussion in this book.150 The state itself continued to be one of the main landowners and acquired large areas in Europe after 1246.151 The concepts of both state and private property remained fundamental.152 As we have seen, slavery played no role in this system of land exploitation,153 although an underclass of peasants which were free from any attachment (‘eleutheroi’),154 and usually without property rights, was developing, and slavery in general was gaining ground in the medieval Aegean, though this affected mostly females in urban and non-Byzantine contexts, and is considered therefore at greater length in Chapter 3.155 An ever more complex inter-relationship of peasants, landlords, and the state was developing, nearly every aspect of which being the subject of intense scholarly debate. An important development saw the increasing payment not merely of rent but also of direct taxes to landlords rather than to the state. This was the result of the increase in large estates and the developments in the conditions according to which they were granted. By virtue of paying at least some tax to landlords or pronoiars, even if they were otherwise landowners themselves, most peasants were ultimately referred to as paroikoi in one form or another. The control over the peasantry by landlords was not merely fiscal but also judicial, and might be backed up with a significant degree of coercive force. Holders of estates often benefitted not merely from tax paid by their paroikoi, but also from exemptions (‘exkoussiai’) from other payments which usually went to the fisc.156 The extent of the alienation of state revenue for holders of pronoia has been estimated: in the case of a simple horseman this has been established at ca. 70–80 hyperpyra, and in the case of lay archontes anything up to ten times this amount. Holders of pronoia could be called upon also for services to the state other than military, for instance in the field of diplomacy.157 A further important development is that many of the pronoia grants became hereditary. The watershed for this development was the 1340s. As territories of Macedonia and Thrace changed hands, for instance through the Serbian invasions, pronoia 150  See Chapter 3, p. 296. 151  Kyritses, “Common chrysobulls”. 152  Kazhdan, “State, feudal and private economy in Byzantium”. 153  This is underlined by the fact that the prisoners of the frequent wars in the Balkans between Byzantium, Serbia, Bulgaria, were not enslaved: Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, p. 150. 154  Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”, p. 121ff; Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West”, p. 323. 155  Pp. 282–283. 156  O DB, s.v. Exkoussia. 157  Oikonomides, “Byzantine diplomacy”, p. 84.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

29

might be transferred wholesale from one recipient to another.158 Large landowners increased their possessions not merely by grants but also by purchase. Regarding the position of the peasantry in all of this, it has been argued that the concentration of landed wealth and the impoverishment of parts of the peasantry went hand in hand.159 On the other hand, the persistence of a free, landowning peasantry has been emphasised, and the peasant holding is still regarded as the basis of much cultivation – if not necessarily of ownership. There is, as in earlier periods, some limited evidence for rural wage labour.160 As more agricultural produce ended up in the hands of fewer people, either through direct exploitation or via the system of rent and direct taxation, the commercialisation of the former also became increasingly concentrated. Large estates contributed greatly to the further distribution of produce, and most of our evidence is in this respect again monastic (see further below on this matter). The main products of the Byzantine heartlands – Macedonia and Thrace – are fairly well attested:161 cereals, legumes, fruit, the produce of animal husbandry and of woodland and scrubland. In parallel with the system of direct taxation which benefitted, as we have seen, either the state directly or the holders of estates and pronoiars, there was a direct tax called the ‘kanonikon’ levied annually on all laity, and also on the monasteries, for the benefit of the dioceses. This was an additional burden on the population and another context in which money changed hands, either directly, or indirectly through the commercialisation of duties paid in kind. Once these monies became ecclesiastical property, they variously remained with the bishops, or were transferred upwards to the metropolitans, archbishops and patriarchs, particularly during the crisis periods of the Palaiologan Empire.162

158  Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, pp. 152–153. 159  This was central to Ostrogorsky’s model and has been often repeated since, for instance: Charanis, “Town and country in the Byzantine possessions” p. 123; Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society, esp. chp. 5, pp. 142–222; Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 315–316 and 337; Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, p. 155; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 81; Smyrlis, “Byzantium”, p. 134. 160  Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 336–337. 161  Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 326–328. 162  As was the case in 1324, after the first civil war between Andronikoi II and III. The calculated contributions to the patriarchate of Constantinople for that year have allowed Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Demographic and economic potential within the towns and regions of the late Byzantine empire”, to draw a comprehensive picture of the wealth of the empire.

30

Chapter 1

1.23 Late Byzantium: Population One of the main components of the land regime was of course the population working this land. The study of the population of Byzantine and formerly Byzantine areas during the period after 1204 has to some degree been facilitated by the existence of diachronic inventories of rural estates, in Greek163or Latin164-held territories. These areas were also affected by a number of phenomena, increasingly well documented, which had undoubted demographic consequences: the aforementioned warfare and political and social conflict, which led to immigration, destitution and economic downturn. The great plagues of the late medieval period,165 and earthquakes,166 would have left very serious marks indeed. This said, it remains difficult to move from the level of suppositions and likely scenarios to concrete trends, and especially some of the inquiries remain controversial and ideologically loaded. The first concerns the initial period of the late twelfth-century crisis and the large-scale Latin takeovers following the Fourth Crusade. These events, according to some writers, had a demographic dimension in the sense that a supposed earlier downturn in population was averted by the new political and social constellations after 1204. However, such a development has been vehemently denied by other writers on the subject.167 Yet others have suggested that the upheavals caused by the Fourth Crusade had the most drastic effect on population, especially rurally.168 A general growth in population in the thirteenth century is nevertheless certain, but trends from the late century onwards have again sparked some controversy: the most prolific writers on the subject, Laiou and Lefort, suppose that the population stagnated and declined, perhaps hitting a Malthusian impasse, 163  Of the studies which have all already been cited, those which offer particular discussions of demography are: Jacoby, “Phénomènes de démographie rurale”, pp. 176–186; Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society, esp. chps. 6 and 7, pp. 223–298; Lefort, “Rural economy”, pp. 104–106; Laiou, “Human resources”; Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth– fifteenth centuries”, pp. 312–317; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 169–170; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 71–77 (contribution by Lefort); Smyrlis, “Byzantium”, pp. 131–132. 164  Panagiotopoulos, Πλυθυσμός, with reference to earlier studies. 165  There is no single study devoted to the Black Death in Byzantium, Congourdeau, “Peste noire à Byzance” and Congourdeau, “Peste noire à Constantinople” being merely collections of the literary sources pertaining respectively to the empire and the city. See also Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 75–76. 166   Evangelatou-Notara, Σεισμοί στο Βυζάντιο. 167  For instance by Panagiotopoulos, Πλυθυσμός, p. 44, in response to the hypothesis put forward by Antoine Bon in Peloponnèse byzantin. 168  Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 313.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

31

or being adversely affected by rural impoverishment, already well before the Black Death in 1347/1348. It should be noted that all information in this respect derives from one specific area, Macedonia, and that even the corresponding sources for the Peloponnese cannot be used.169 There is a very real possibility that population trends in the early fourteenth century were different in other parts of the wider Aegean region. For one, Macedonia and Thrace were hit by a number of particularly adverse developments in the first half of the century, Catalan invasions170 and two Byzantine civil wars.171 In other areas there were political developments with maybe more positive socio-economic repercussions, to name but the involvement of the Angevins in the Peloponnese and western Greece, the establishments of the Catalans in Attikoboiotia and of the Knights of St. John in Rhodes, and even the creation of the emirates in western Anatolia, although this led to the displacement of some Greek populations. The impact of the Black Death itself has been described and measured, most extensively for the Latin west,172 but also for the Levant,173 and for areas of Byzantium itself, for instance Macedonia or Constantinople as has been mentioned. It is clearly important to stress the extremely high mortality caused by the outbreak in the later 1340s, but also the cycles of recurrence throughout the remainder of the century, and into the fifteenth, described by Biraben but also confirmed by Congourdeau for the case of Byzantium. For the Peloponnese, which has itself yielded some useful data in this regard, a mortality rate of 25–30% around the year 1347 has been calculated, but the subsequent outbreaks are less tangible in the sources.174 As far as the area from Macedonia southwards is concerned, the picture is further complicated by the large-scale movements of populations in the same period, mostly of Albanians (to a lesser degree Vlachs) who were often settled in specific areas by the authorities.175 In Macedonia and Thrace, later in Thessaly and Epiros, the Ottoman conquests were eventually also followed by the establishment of new populations, especially of Turks in the towns.176 While therefore some of the demographic 169  See Chapter 3, pp. 194–195. 170  Which has been used for demographic information, see Karlin-Hayter, “Les Catalans et les villages de la Chalcidique”; Lefort in Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 75. See also Bakirtzis, “Catalans en Thrace”. 171  Charanis, “Internal strife in Byzantium”. 172  There are countless studies. See for instance Biraben, Hommes et la peste. 173  Dols, Black Death in the Middle East. 174  See the discussions in Chapter 3, p. 194. 175  Again, see Chapter 3, pp. 192–193. 176  Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 61 and 73.

32

Chapter 1

downturn could be held in check, population growth only occurred again well into the fifteenth century, by which time the social and ethnic make-up of our and adjoining areas had been fundamentally altered. 1.24 Late Byzantium: Urbanisation The crisis of the fourteenth century in Macedonia and Thrace, and their immediate surroundings, which was defined, as we have seen, by strategic, socioeconomic and demographic insecurities, certainly had a dramatic impact on the countryside and led to the abandonment of some rural locations,177 although even this phenomenon is now considered in a more nuanced way. The same period, however, also saw a greater degree of urbanisation, and this is an important aspect of demographics.178 Towns (the term ‘city’ is reserved in this book for Thessalonike and Constantinople, and certain places in the west such as Rome, Venice, or Naples) were major places of residence and consumption, of production and exchange, although – as with rural areas – it is often difficult or even impossible to quantify any of these. It is certain that Constantinople lost in population and importance during the medieval period, as a result of the double blow it received, first with the destruction and relative neglect during the Latin period, and then during the very difficult fourteenth century, which it saw out under a prolonged Ottoman siege (1394–1402).179 It has been 177   Antoniadis-Bibicou, “Villages désertés en Grèce”. 178  General thoughts on the towns of late Byzantium and their administrative, demographic, social, and economic profiles can be found in: Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”; Charanis, “Town and country in the Byzantine possessions”, p. 133ff; Maksimović, “Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt”; Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West”; Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”, p. 55; Kazhdan, “The Italian and the Late Byzantine City”; Matschke and Tinnefeld, Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz, esp. pp. 62–82; Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy pp. 196 and 297; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, p. 28ff; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 95–115 and 154–155; Smyrlis, “Byzantium”, pp. 141–142. Regarding the archaeology, standing remains, and physical aspects of Byzantine towns, see Bouras, “City and village”; Bouras, “Aspects of the Byzantine city”; Bouras, “Byzantine cities in Greece”. A novel approach to the assessment of the fortunes of the towns of the empire is taken in Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine empire”, esp. pp. 257–265. 179   Specifically on Palaiologan Constantinople, see for instance Angold, “Decline of Byzantium”; Balard, “Costantinopoli nella prima metà del Quattrocento”; Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, pp. 117–232; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, esp. pp. 13–52; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 97–99; 121–122; 131–143; Harris, “Constantinople as a city-state, c. 1360–1453”. The constitutional and economic conditions of the city during the Latin period (1204–1261) have been particularly considered by Jacoby: see his “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

33

said that the increasing loss to the empire of the remaining Macedonian and Thracian territories, turned the bulk of the ruling classes resident in the city to commerce as a source of income.180 During the same century Genoese Pera on the opposite side of the Golden Horn gained formidably in size and importance. The fate of the second city of the empire, Thessalonike, during the same period is more difficult to gauge.181 On the one hand, it was the focus of unprecedented political attention by the empire, an artistic and manufacturing centre, and also an important location in which notably Ragusans and Venetians purchased Macedonian produce or penetrated the southern Balkans towards Skopje and Prizren. On the other, it saw significant civil strife, strategic challenges which may have made communications difficult, especially on land, as well as foreign occupations (Ottoman: 1387–1403 and 1430–; Venetian: 1423–1430). These circumstances pushed the city away from the empire and westwards, towards western Macedonia, Albania, Greece, and the Adriatic. Some towns which remained within the empire for the majority of the fourteenth century, for instance Serres in the Strymon valley, Chrystoupolis (Kavala), Berroia or Kastoria in western Macedonia, some of the Thracian towns on the sea of Marmara (Raidestos) and inland (Bizye, Didymoteicho), or some of the Black Sea ports which were in Byzantine hands for only a part of that century (Mesembria, Anchialos, Sozopolis, and Agathopolis), were apparently gaining in size in the same period.182 Likewise, there are a string Constantinople”; “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople”; “Economy of the Latin Empire of Constantinople”; and “Venetian government and administration in Latin Constantinople”. Even though some of the supposed decadence has now been relativised, it is still undeniable that the general state of the city during these years compared unfavourably to the middle Byzantine period, or even to early Palaiologan times. On Pera, see Sauvaget, “Péra” (for the physical environment); Balard, Romanie génoise, esp. pp. 179–198, and “Bilan des publications sur Péra-Galata” (for the documentation – largely notarial). 180  See for instance Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires, p. 121ff; Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West”, p. 329. Laiou-Thomadakis, “Greek merchant of the Palaeologan period”, pp. 104–105, is more cautious. 181  The city in late medieval times has been re-visited on a number of occasions in the last couple of decades, and there are now significant studies which complement the classic work of Tafrali: Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, esp. pp. 144–146; Laiou, “Η Θεσσαλονίκη”; Harvey, “Economic conditions in Thessaloniki between the two Ottoman occupations”; Jacoby, “Thessalonique de la domination de Byzance à celle de Venise”; Bakirtzis, “Late Byzantine Thessalonike”; Matschke, “Stadtgeschichte Thessalonikes”; Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, pp. 39–115. 182  See however: Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 115: “Les villes de l’époque des Paléologues étaient moins grandes que celles du XIIe siècles …”. While this is a correct assessment for Constantinople, and perhaps for Thessalonike, the statement seems to be contradicted by the developments of other towns which remained in the empire, and in its immediate surroundings, although of course there are few hard data either way.

34

Chapter 1

of formerly Byzantine towns in the southern Balkans and western Anatolia which evidently thrived, in terms of population and commerce, under Latin, Serbian, beylik and Ottoman rule, to name but the most obvious (Durazzo, Ohrid, Ainos, Edirne, Bursa, Lesbos, Chios, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Miletos).183 Some of these towns, as I have indicated, had courts and were the seats of bureaucracies, others were endowed with new religious and social institutions under the Ottomans.184 More so than in previous periods of Byzantine history, the towns of the Palaiologan empire enjoyed a degree of political autonomy, often the result of certain dynastic or geo-political constellations,185 and also fiscal freedoms akin to those enjoyed by other Byzantine institutions such as monasteries or pronoiars.186 Late Byzantium: Production, Commerce, and the Balance of Payments The scholarship differs on the extent and character of artisanal production and manufacture taking place in late Byzantine towns, and also on the nature of the administration, social stratification, and the degree to which they represented novel elements within the empire. Laiou, and also Maksimović, have on the whole taken a much more conservative approach than other writers such as Kazhdan, Oikonomides and Matschke, who have compared developments in Byzantium and Latin Christendom, and especially Italy, and emphasised the dichotomy between the progressive towns and the traditional countryside. There is much greater unanimity on the fact that the commerce taking place in Byzantine towns was first and foremost concerned with agricultural produce. During the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries commerce was rapidly evolving from the earlier position which has already been described, in 1.25

183  There is a vast amount of literature that touches on these towns in one way or another, including the bibliography that has already been cited. See merely indicatively, on some of these towns, Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, pp. 139–140, and Gjuzelev, “Mesembria” (for the Black Sea); Ferjančić, Ser (Serres); Drakopoulou, Πόλη της Καστοριάς (Kastoria); Balard, “Chio” and Balard, Romanie génoise, esp. pp. 215–227 (Chios); Çağaptay, “Prousa/Bursa” (Bursa); Miller, “Gattilusj of Lesbos”; Pistarino, “Gattilusio di Lesbo e d’Enos” (Lesbos and Ainos); Foss, Ephesus (Ephesos). 184  See the examples discussed in Lowry, Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, chapter 2, on imarets and zaviyes; Çağaptay, “Gazi Evrenos’ imaret in Komotini”. 185  See, in addition to the bibliography which has already been cited, Oikonomides, “Villes ‘séparées’ sous les Paléologues”. 186  Patlagean, “L’immunité des Thessaloniciens”; Kyritses, “Common chrysobulls”. See also Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, pp. 223–224, and Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 154–155.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

35

terms of regulations and political contexts, as well as volume and routes.187 In general, trading activities followed the same developments as the other socioeconomic indicators which have already been discussed, particularly demographics, with expansion for much of the thirteenth century and beyond, a severe downturn in the second half of the fourteenth century, followed by a very gradual recovery in the fifteenth. It also appears to have been the case that a lot of this Byzantine agricultural produce was now destined for the Latin west,188 although Constantinople itself was increasingly provisioned by a new circle of exchanges which was developing around the Black Sea.189 Whether there, or in the Aegean, and even within Byzantine locations, a lot of produce was carried by westerners. After a certain degree of protectionism during the Nicaean period (1204–1261),190 the economic position of westerners was strengthened by trading privileges, primarily tax exemptions, given by the Palaiologan emperors.191 In this chapter I have so far emphasised the ever diminishing size of the territories held by the empire. The effects of this on what may be termed Byzantine trade was further exacerbated by the alienation of key strategic and 187  On Byzantine commerce and the role of Greek merchants, see principally: Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires; Laiou, “Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system”; Maksimović, “Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt”, esp. pp. 168–169; Laiou-Thomadakis, “Greek merchant of the Palaeologan period”; Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”; Laiou, “Venetians and Byzantines”; Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”, esp. p. 59; Matschke, “Griechische Kaufleute”; Balard, “Les hommes d’affaires occidentaux ont-ils asphyxié l’économie Byzantine?”; Matschke and Tinnefeld, Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz, esp. chapters 3 and 4; Laiou, “Byzantine trade with Christians and Muslims”; Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, esp. p. 368; Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”; Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”; Loungis, “Απόψεις περί χρήματος και αγοράς”; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 233– 254 and 337–365; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy; Matschke, “Warenversorgung”; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, esp. p. 27ff; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, esp. pp. 21–25; 102–127. There is still a lot of very useful information in the classic study by Heyd, Histoire du commerce, esp. vol. I, pp. 264–310; 427–527; vol. II, pp. 257–313. 188  On the export of Byzantine wheat to the west, but also to the Islamic world, see Laiou, “Byzantine trade with Christians and Muslims”, p. 189ff. 189  Which is much discussed in the literature that has already been cited. See additionally Karpov, “Black Sea”. 190  Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”, p. 150. In the early thirteenth century there is also little evidence of western trade in the Seljuq areas of western Anatolia: Cahen, “Commerce anatolien au début du XIII siècle”. 191   See specifically Chrysostomides, “Venetian commercial privileges”; Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires, pp. 41–46; Balard, Latins en Orient, p. 235. See also the discussion below on the kommerkion and exemptions from it.

36

Chapter 1

trading positions within the empire,192 notably to the Genoese, who in due course came to occupy Pera, Chios, Lesbos, Ainos, Thasos and other northern Aegean islands, but also to the Venetians in the case of Thessalonike and Tenedos. The role of the Byzantine merchant, and Byzantine institutions such as monasteries,193 in this commercial activity has been re-assessed more recently. It is certain that the upper strata of Byzantine society were increasingly required to engage in it to ensure a livelihood (see above). The financial sector was also much more adept in allowing investments to take place. At the same time, the traditional reluctance towards such activities persisted,194 and was sometimes fostered further by the uncertainties of the period.195 The state of the Byzantine manufacturing industry has also been controversial. The prevailing view, put forward most consistently and forcefully by Laiou,196 is that this industry collapsed in the course of the medieval period as a direct result of the pressure from Italian luxury and mass produced wares. It has been supposed further that this imbalance caused Byzantium to have a negative trade balance with the west. This particular relationship of payments has never been as thoroughly discussed and considered as the balance of the Levant and the west (see below). The domination of western products in Byzantium is said to have had its roots in the earlier privileges for certain Italian cities (see above), the Fourth Crusade itself and the period of western hegemony, and the subsequent policies of successive imperial administrations. With regard to manufacture and the trade balance, it should be stated that the material evidence, for instance of pottery, or of more luxurious artisanal or artistic products, has not yet been fully developed nor integrated into the general discourse, but may offer its own methodological problems.197 192  A point made in Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 711. 193  Large landowners would have put in place the infrastructure for disseminating agricultural produce. There is substantial monastic evidence, and Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, puts great emphasis on this, see esp. pp. 106–116 and 245–247. 194  See Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 775–776, on the social norms governing the activities of landowners, archons, and soldiers. See also Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”, pp. 465–466. 195  See for instance the popularity of ‘adelphata’, which were a way of setting aside monetary and non-monetary wealth with the help of monasteries in order to ensure care in old age: Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères pp. 138–145. 196  Laiou, “Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system”, p. 182; Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview”, pp. 1157–1159; Laiou, “Είχαν οικονομία οι βυζαντινές πόλεις;”; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, passim (see p. 192 for a particularly poignant quote by Plethon regarding the import of wares from Italy). See also Smyrlis, “Byzantium”, pp. 140–141. 197  See also the general observations in the Preface, pp. xxi–xxii.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

37

As concerns pottery, even setting aside problems of coarse and fine wares and their perceived signs for the general standard of living,198 it would seem to me that a territory with predominantly foreign pottery – as was the case with many parts of the Aegean in the medieval period – had a positive balance of exchange with the areas in which this pottery originated, since pottery distribution would have been a secondary manifestation of trade in other products travelling in the opposite direction. This possibility has, to my knowledge, never been adequately investigated for our general area and period, and the large-scale appearance of Italian wares is usually judged negatively.199 The numismatic sources show somewhat less ambiguously what the overall balance of payments may have been (see below). Whatever the particular emphasis of a writer on matters of manufacture and trade, it is clear to all that non-agricultural production in Byzantium was, though in some sectors well attested,200 generally comparatively backward, failing to make the transition to proto-industrial processes, and to play any role in international trade. To western traders, Byzantium provided therefore the same agricultural products that were equally available in vast tracts of lands all along the Black Sea coast, and the Anatolian and southern Balkan peninsulas, including the primary area of investigation, as well as in the Levant. These traders were well informed about the prevailing conditions (availability, prices, security, etc.) which may have made one of these places more attractive than another, and could conduct their business accordingly.201 Some non-Byzantine areas were in fact able to offer more varied and sophisticated items of trade in addition to the agricultural staples. This was of course one of the hallmarks of the Levant, whose trade became increasingly important in the fourteenth century and will be discussed in the further course of this chapter,202 but also of some of the areas much closer to Constantinople, especially the Anatolian

198  See, in this chapter, pp. 4–6. 199  Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 186: “Italian ceramics  … flooded the markets  …”. The underlying assumptions of François (“Céramiques importées à Byzance”; “Réalités des échanges”) and Vroom (After antiquity; “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”) are respectively that pottery was a primary object of trade, and that pottery was distributed according to criteria of ethnicity, culture, and taste. A comparison of coin and pottery behaviour in medieval times has seldom been attempted: see Papadopoulou, “Coins and pots”. 200  Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires, pp. 92–107. 201  Laiou, “Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system”, pp. 180–181. 202  Pp. 62–63.

38

Chapter 1

territories ruled by the beys and later the Ottomans, which became the source of furs, hides, and textiles, metals and metalware, horses, and especially slaves.203 1.26 Late Byzantium: Indirect Taxation and Seigniorage on Coin Minting It is clear that all governments sought to profit from these lively commercial and seafaring activities, and complex systems of indirect taxation were universally in place.204 Such taxes and other duties can be divided into the traditional sales tax of 10% (kommerkion: see above) which was applicable in ports and at fairs, and various additional charges relating to transport and access, and to the practicalities of selling and measuring. It is difficult to estimate the importance of indirect taxation for the overall imperial budget. There are various contemporary indications, dating to the period of Andronikos II, as to tax yields at Constantinople, Pera, and Chios.205 Although the accuracy of some of the total figures needs to be treated with some caution, the sense of the problem is nevertheless clear, namely that foreign-held ports were taking commerce and revenue from the empire. Exemptions within the empire, usually of the kommerkion, were additionally enjoyed by certain groupings, particularly foreigners,206 but also by Byzantines (e.g. the Monemvasiots in 1266, 1284, and subsequently, the inhabitants of Ioannina in 1319, or the monks of Patmos207). In 1349, in an act which was both pragmatic and ideological, Emperor Kantakouzenos reduced the kommerkion for all to 2%.208 It appears 203  On the trade with Turkish Anatolia, see amongst others Heyd, Histoire du commerce, vol. I, pp. 534–554; vol. II, pp. 351–360, and 555–711 (on the products); Fleet, Early Ottoman State; Balard, Latins en Orient, pagination as n.  191 above; Fleet, “Turkish economy”. See also Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 784, on the importance of Ottoman Prousa and Scutari. On the slave trade, see Chapter 3, pp. 282–283. 204  On indirect taxation and other duties in late Byzantium and surrounding areas, the classic studies are Rouillard, “Taxes maritimes”; Danstrup, “Indirect taxation at Byzantium”; Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes. Significant discussions of this subject matter, from very different angles, are contained in Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, pp. 34–43, and Matschke, “Warenversorgung”. See further Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires, pp. 43–45; Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 1050–1052; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 157. On indirect taxes in Turkish territories, see Fleet, “Turkish economy”, pp. 253–254. 205  Hendy, Studies, pp. 157 and 164. 206  See above and the full list given in Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes, pp. 124–133. 207   Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes, pp. 111–112 and 205; Laiou, Andronicus II, pp. 256–257; Kalliga, Monemvasia II, pp. 256–257. See also the specific treatment Schreiner, “I diritti della città di Malvasia”. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes, p. 102; Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires, pp. 46–48; 208   Maksimović, “Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt”,

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

39

that the heavy fiscality imposed earlier by Andronikos II also in this domain was not sustainable, nor tolerable.209 The system of indirect taxation was further undermined by the transportation of merchandise by Italians on behalf of individual Byzantines,210 and by the very common acquisition of Venetian or Genoese citizenship by Byzantine aristocrats.211 Finally, the revenue from indirect taxes, like all other state revenues that we have seen, could be conferred on other individuals or parties, as compensation for a state salary or a simple privilege, and this was common practice towards the end of Byzantium.212 Another indirect form of state revenue, which could also be passed on to privates, was the process of coin minting. We have seen that a combination of numismatic and other sources may suggest the existence of two mints in Constantinople before 1092, and possibly thereafter.213 Also for the period after 1204, the evidence of the Latin Imitative billon trachea is quite strong in this respect.214 For Palaiologan times the numismatic data are more convoluted and far from clear cut. Perhaps some silver basilika or stavrata and their fractions, but even the various gold hyperpyron issues with their complex and poorly understood systems of sigla,215 have the greatest potential for allowing scholars to identify products of different metropolitan mints. In general, the shift towards silver, which began as early as the late thirteenth century, may suggest that there were new forces which determined the shape of minting in the empire.216 Once one has identified an additional mint to the traditional palace mint – the latter having reasonably been operational at least until some point in the thirteenth century, given what is known about the history of the palace and imperial administration more generally217 – then the likelihood increases that an indirect profit was derived from minting, and that there was some form of private involvement, perhaps on the level of bullion supply, mint administration, and the collection of minting revenue, similar to

p. 167; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 40; Matschke, “Warenversorgung”, p. 209. 209  Matschke, “Warenversorgung”, pp. 206–208. 210  Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, p. 67. 211  Jacoby, “Naturalizations”. 212  Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, pp. 106–107; Matschke, “Warenversorgung”, pp. 210–213. 213  See in this chapter, pp. 9 and 12. 214  Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1229. 215  See in this chapter, p. 49. 216  These silver denominations are only discussed very briefly in Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1274– 1277, since they barely appear in the area of concern. See also below in this chapter, pp. 52–54 and 58–60 on silver minting in Byzantium and the west. 217  Morrisson, “Moneta, Kharagè, Zecca”, pp. 53–54.

40

Chapter 1

the situation in the contemporary west and even in Frankish Greece.218 For Palaiologan Constantinople there is textual evidence – in addition to these rather unsatisfactory numismatic data – for some of these components:219 according to Akropolites, in 1260 something akin to seigniorage might have been derived from the gold mintage (‘chrysepseteion’).220 In a Genoese act of 1281 we are informed of a particular relationship of two men with the imperial mint, and according to Badoer in 1430 a Byzantine named Kritopoulos was associated with the mint. According to the analysis by Matschke of these passages (and seconded by Morrisson), it seems therefore likely that minting at Constantinople in later Byzantine times took place to some degree with privately derived bullion, and that as a consequence this minting might have produced a profit, which in turn may have been conferred upon individuals. Still, these precise processes cannot be adequately reconstructed, and a lot remains uncertain about other aspects of minting there: for instance, if indeed there were two mints at the beginning of the Palaiologan period in 1261, did the likely closure of the palace mint (see above) reduce Byzantine minting in the city to one mint? We are also completely ignorant about the extent to which silver ingots (‘sommi’), a key commodity for the international commercial community, might have been produced there as they possibly were at contemporary Thessalonike and Trebizond.221 1.27 Late Byzantium: Budgetary Impasse To summarise at this point, the main budgetary balancing act which late Byzantium and its successors needed to perform, was initially not dissimilar to what we have discussed for middle Byzantium.222 However, with the further developments in the land regime that have been described, the alienation of revenue, the demographic crisis, and the generally high levels of insecurity, there was a relative shift away from the basic land taxes.223 Difficulties in their 218  See respectively in this chapter, pp. 68–69 below, and Chapter 3, pp. 317–320. 219  The most comprehensive treatment is Matschke, “Münzstätten, Münzer und Münzprägung im späten Byzanz”. See additionally: Morrisson, “Moneta, Kharagè, Zecca”, pp. 52–53; Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”, pp. 492–493; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, pp. 916–917; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, p. 106; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 189–191. 220  See also Appendix II.1.D.6, p. 1265. 221  Chapter 2, pp. 153–157. 222  An overview of the fiscality of the late empire is provided by Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, pp. 43–50. 223  Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, p. 137.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

41

collection224 eventually led to the total abandonment of this stream of income for the empire in the fifteenth century.225 Oikonomides has stated that this was at the heart of the empire’s budgetary problems.226 In parallel, different forms of indirect taxation, including the seigniorage on coin mintage, should have risen in importance.227 Even at the best of times, they might not have compensated for the losses in direct taxation, and, as we have seen, this form of revenue was subject to the fluctuating fate of the empire, and decreased additionally in the course of the Palaiologan period due to exemptions, the reduction of the rate of the kommerkion, and its farming out to others. Nevertheless, despite limited resources,228 multiple courts and bureaucracies, as well as representation and patronage,229 had to be maintained. The raisons d’être of the empire and of other states formed in its wake lay precisely in the general enrichment of certain classes of subjects,230 while the remainder of the population was often placated by the kind of imperial largesse which we have already seen for the Komnenian period.231 Yet, the budgetary impasse was further compounded by at least three additional factors, namely warfare and related costs, lack of sufficiently high and consistent credit, and lack of mining resources.

224  Hendy, Studies, p. 227. 225  Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 181. 226  Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West”, p. 320. See also Smyrlis, “Byzantium”, pp. 144–145, on the agricultural basis of much wealth. 227  Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, p. 20, n. 4; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, p. 96ff. 228  The fiscal predicament of late Byzantium is summarised in Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, pp. 1055–1058. 229  Splendour, it can be argued, was frequently gratuitous, but Emperor John III Vatatzes displayed some more enlightened insights into its ulterior purpose: Hendy, Studies, pp. 271–272. 230  Hendy, Studies, pp. 204–205: on private wealth being amassed by Byzantines in the fourteenth century. There are some wonderfully detailed accounts in the Byzantine narrative sources of the significant sums that junior figures in the imperial household could command. Hendy, Studies, p. 163: in 1322 co-emperor Andronikos III was granted 36,000 gold hyperpyra per year for expenses of household and wife; compare also the rather higher sums which members of the imperial family received in the previous century, the son of Michael VIII 60,000, the widow of John III 30,000: Hendy, Studies, pp. 205–206. 231  Hendy, Studies, p. 196: regarding the payment on Palm Sunday of one silver and one copper trachy, tied together.

42

Chapter 1

Warfare232 weighed very heavily on the empire’s finances.233 The frequency of warfare in the Balkans and in western Anatolia, and of civil wars within Byzantium, has already been highlighted. Many of these wars were fought on Byzantine soil, contributing therefore in a more general sense to the late medieval economic, social, and demographic crises which have been discussed.234 The construction of fortifications was a high priority, usually met by the ‘kastroktisia’, a cash payment which was frequently levied and for which some of the usual exemptions did not apply.235 Despite developments in the pronoia system which alimented the military in a less direct way, the empire was still in constant need of making further expenditures for the employment of soldiers, by engaging what might be broadly termed mercenaries, on a permanent, semi-permanent, or less regular basis, to supplement the pronoiars and the much rarer smallholding soldiers. These came at a high individual cost.236 The knights and footmen of the Catalan Company, which fought for the empire in the first decade of the fourteenth century, are merely the most famous, indeed infamous, of these mercenaries thanks to the detailed accounts of Muntaner and Pachymeres, the extent and longevity of their employment, and the large impact they had on the fate of Byzantium and the wider Aegean region.237 Their presence also had a direct influence on coin production at Constantinople, 232  There are two monographic studies for the period 1204–1453 with different approaches and emphases, although containing significant amounts of the same information regarding the basic features of warfare, soldiers, and their finance: Bartusis, Late Byzantine army and Kyriakidis, Warfare. 233  See principally Bartusis, “Cost of late Byzantine warfare” and the same author’s Late Byzantine army, esp. p. 137ff. Consider also Hendy, Studies, pp. 162–163; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 163–179. 234  The acquisition of booty was a major factor in this: Kyriakidis, “Booty” and Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, pp. 149 and 155. 235  Kyriakidis, Warfare, p. 157ff. 236  For a very detailed analysis of these different categories, see – in addition to the books by Bartusis and Kyriakidis – Oikonomides, “Armées des premiers Paléologues”; on the reaction of Byzantines to the increasing reliance on costly foreign mercenaries: Kyriakidis, “Mercenaries”. 237  On the formation of the Company and its internal history, see Jacoby, “Compagnie catalane”; on its very complex relations with Byzantium, Laiou, Andronicus II, chapters V– VII; on the financial repercussions of its employment by the empire, see Hendy, Studies, pp. 205 and 222–224. Muntaner and Pachymeres give a lot of information, sometimes complimentary, though often conflicting, on numbers of men and amounts of payments, raids and the distribution of booty. After the murder of Roger of Flor, however, Muntaner switches his tone and becomes entirely unapologetic with regard to the devastation which the Company wreaked from its base at Kallipolis. The Catalans also have a considerable bearing on the political and economic developments of our primary area: see principally Chapter 3, pp. 275–276 and 279–280.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

43

Thebes and Neopatra during the first decade of the fourteenth century, either by causing the debasement of the gold coinage, or the striking of special silver issues for their pay.238 Another financial aspect of warfare, particularly since the empire increasingly found itself on the losing side, was the payment of ransoms for captured individuals, and bribes to convince potential foes not to engage militarily.239 Byzantium intermittently stood in a quasi vassalic relationship with the Ottomans between the 1370s and 1453, and tribute was paid on numerous occasions.240 Also the despots in the Morea eventually became Ottoman tributaries.241 As in many other respects, the fourteenth century saw some fundamental developments in the relationship between the overall budget and warfare. The ambitious military policies of Michael VIII (1259/1261–1282)242 and the cited Catalan episode had already stretched the empire’s finances. Andronikos II (1282–1328) was nevertheless able to amass considerable sums of money by 1320, which helped to finance a rather costly campaign in Thessaly in 1321,243 but which were otherwise entirely squandered on the first civil war between Andronikoi II and III (1321–1328).244 After the death of Andronikos III in 1341, John Kantakouzenos found the treasury empty. The second civil war of 1341–1347 was groundbreaking in the degree of destruction that it wreaked on Byzantium, and also in the fashion in which the parties sought to tap into new streams of financing. Kantakouzenos in particular secured funding from private aristocratic sources which was given in the hope of being recuperated through usual offices and privileges, or indeed booty,245 but which otherwise 238   See below in this chapter and Appendix II.1.F, p.  1275; Appendix II.9.B, p.  1438; Appendix II.9.G, p. 1460. 239  On such payments see Hendy, Studies, pp. 163 and 266; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 41. 240   On this relationship, see Matschke, Ankara, pp. 64–75, “Die Entstehung des Tributsverhältnis”; Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, p. 29ff; Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, p. 48; Kyriakidis, Warfare, p. 37; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, p. 98; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 27 and 46. Specifically on some of the sums involved, see Iliescu, “Montant du tribut”. 241  Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest” p. 9; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 63. See also Chapter 3, pp. 369–371. 242  Bartusis, Late Byzantine army, p. 43ff. 243  The total sum has been calculated at 1,000,000 hyperpyra (Laiou, Andronicus II), and the cost of the campaign at 50,000: Hendy, Studies, p. 163. 244  Hendy, Studies, pp. 526–527; Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, pp. 44–45; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 25. 245  On the importance of booty in Byzantine warfare, see above n. 234.

44

Chapter 1

bore substantial risks.246 This conflict, coinciding with the Serbian invasions and the Black Death (see above), exposed the limited possibilities which the Byzantine state and Byzantine subjects had at their disposal to generate large extraordinary cash supplies for immediate expenditure. 1.28 Late Byzantium: Sources of Cash and the Money Market In later Byzantium, for payments related to warfare, as well as to all other substantial outgoings, the best source of a loan was a wealthy individual or an allied government, rather than a credit institution. The Italian city republics, which enjoyed, as we have seen, great privileges within the empire and which had some interest in its stability, provided the empire with some loans.247 On another level, and no doubt involving normally lesser sums, within the different strata of Byzantine society individuals very frequently lent or borrowed money to and from one another.248 One could additionally fall back on professional money men or moneylenders. Their services were frequently needed, for instance to manage the complex monetary specie in circulation in town and country. In the main commercial centres, in Constantinople and Thessalonike, but also at the Black Sea sources for grain, moneylenders rose to some prominence in the course of the Palaiologan period. In addition to loans, they were also able to instigate transfers of money between localities, and provided a bridge between capital and commercial ventures in which money might be invested with different degrees of profit and risk. The payment of commissions and interest in connection with such banking operations, which were of great concern to contemporary Byzantines and therefore heavily regulated,249 was 246  On warfare and finances during 1341–1347, see: Hendy, Studies, pp. 241–242; Bartusis, Late Byzantine army; p. 148; Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, pp. 46–47; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 31–36. 247  For instance, some of the payments to the Catalan Company were made possible through a loan of 20,000 hyperpyra from the Genoese: Pachymeres XI.13. For some Venetian loans in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, p. 103ff and Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 40. 248  Compare also above, pp.  23–24. What follows on the late Byzantine money market is based on: Matschke, “Geldgeschäfte”; Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires, p. 54ff; Maksimović, “Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt”, p. 168; Hendy, Studies, pp. 248–249; Kazhdan, “The Italian and the Late Byzantine City”, pp. 6–7; Balard, “Les hommes d’affaires occidentaux ont-ils asphyxié l’économie Byzantine?”, pp. 257–262; Matschke and Tinnefeld, Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz pp. 125– 127; Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”, esp. pp. 481–486; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, pp. 909, 942, 948; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 210–215; Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, p. 46; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, pp. 28–29; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 107–108 and 113–114. 249  Laiou, “God and Μammon” and Gofas, “Byzantine law of interest”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

45

standard practice. However, at times bankers tried to exploit their positions by eaking out extra profit from the financial services which they provided. We can deduce this from preoccupations with usury, but also from anomalous exchange rates between currencies which might have concealed additional fees.250 On all accounts, in late Byzantium the financial sector allowed individuals to invest, to borrow, or to transfer cash, upon payment or receipt of the appropriate fees or interest, but none of these operations managed to stretch the money supply beyond what was available in fine metals, uncoined or not. For this period, unlike in earlier phases in Byzantine history, there is also no evidence at all of mining supplementing the latter with fresh supplies.251 This stands in stark contrast to another contemporary power in the region – Serbia – where silver mining underpinned the entire economy.252 What loans were available to the empire, for instance from foreign powers or wealthy individuals, were never quite as regular or as substantial as was required, and more drastic measures had to be resorted to at times: for instance the state might insist on its regalian right to confiscate private property in certain circumstances.253 Offices were also sold and state assets were plundered, such as imperial metalware, the Crown of Thorns which was mortgaged by the Latin emperors, or Anna of Savoy’s imperial regalia.254 The Latin empire (1204–1261) had frequently been propped up by the financially more successful principality of Achaïa,255 and in the last half century of its existence also Byzantium received simple money offers from different international powers, ranging from England to Moscow. Ultimately the Latin empire,256 and also the Palaiologan empire from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards, were characterised by state poverty, which could often be contrasted with substantial private wealth.257 The inability to harness this private wealth is part of the story of the demise of these empires. 250  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 226. 251  Matschke, “Mining”. 252  Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 204–209; Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, p. 137. On the flow of this silver, see also below p. 53. 253  Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 156–157, with reference to Laiou, “Droits du fisc et les droits régaliens”. 254  Hendy, Studies, pp. 229–230; Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, p. 46; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, pp. 101–102. 255  Balard, Latins en Orient, p. 222. On Achaïa see also Chapter 3, p. 229. 256  See on this question: Jacoby, “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople”; Jacoby, “Economy of the Latin Empire of Constantinople”. See also Balard, Latins en Orient, p. 234. Jacoby, “Venetian government and administration in Latin Constantinople”. 257  Balard, “Les hommes d’affaires occidentaux ont-ils asphyxié l’économie Byzantine?”, gives examples of private Byzantine wealth; Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager, p. 99,

46

Chapter 1

1.29 Late Byzantine Money One expects to find that the coinages of Byzantium and of the successor states in the period after 1204, and the monetary situation in Macedonia, Thrace, and surroundings more generally, were a reflection of these historical processes.258 Scholarship in this regard has naturally picked up on the geopolitical, macroeconomic and budgetary dimension – the splintering of the empire, the establishment of successor states, the creation of appanages and quasi-independent towns, and the political, economic and fiscal crises which engulfed Byzantium.259 International monetary movements and the position of Byzantium within trading networks have, by contrast, been much less rigorously explored. Rather curiously, the monetary implications of the large transformations that swept the Byzantine countryside, that is to say the rise of the estates and the changes in the systems of rent and direct taxation, as well as the general instability there, have been mostly neglected. As in all earlier periods of Byzantine history, money changed hands economically and noneconomically.260 Again, with respect to the second of these, the many monetary payments made by the empire in response to the political and military pressures which came to bear on it still require systematic assessment. 1.30 Late Byzantine Money: Numismatics and Monetary History In terms of numismatic knowledge, thanks to the work of a number of generations of scholars of the twentieth century, in the last instances Hendy, Bendall, and Grierson, we have a fairly good idea of the Byzantine and postByzantine coinages and mints of the period 1204–1453. Nevertheless, certain details regarding some of the most significant phenomena, for instance the demise of the Byzantine gold coinage, the various fates of the silver basilika and stavrata, or the role of billon and copper coinages, are still insufficiently well established. This is due to the lack of systematic exploration of coinages compares the fifteenth-century dowries paid by Loukas Notaras for his daughters to the yearly tribute payments or to the cost of defensive works carried out in Constantinople. 258  The main Byzantine denominations of the period after 1204, insofar as they were available in Greece, are discussed in Appendix II.1, pp. 1197–1277. The coinage system is comprehensively elaborated in Grierson, Byzantine Coins, and in DOC IV and DOC V, the latter in many respects based on work by Simon Bendall. There are further presentations in Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 215–223; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 181–202. Of great importance is also Metcalf, SE Europe. 259  The first forceful and compelling discussion of the links between the monetary and the political and economic crises in late Byzantium was Zakythinos, “Crise monétaire”, which however fell short of analyzing in any great detail even the monetary and numismatic evidence available at the time of publication in 1948. 260  On this subject matter, see Laiou, “Economic and noneconomic exchange”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

47

in their entireties, through types and dies,261 and to the almost total absence of numismatic find data for the medieval period for the entire region between the cities of Thessalonike and Constantinople.262 Therefore, few quantifications are possible and very little indeed is known about circulation patterns of indigenous and foreign coins. All in all we have a fairly patchy picture, which needs to be combined with the equally sporadic information we have on the main economic and budgetary currents of Byzantium and the immediate successor states (1204–1453) that have just been discussed. Late Byzantine Money: Innovations in Coinages, Mints, Types, Sizes of Issue Beginning with the political dimension,263 assuming that in twelfth-century Byzantium there may have been two mints in Constantinople, and perhaps another mint at Thessalonike (see above),264 the proliferation of mints in the following century is immediately striking. For instance in the period between 1204 and the 1240s, we find – within Byzantine and formerly Byzantine territories – a number of mints operational at different times: one or two mints in the Nicaean state,265 another each in Byzantine Thessalonike266 and Arta,267 1.31

261  A rather small and disparate number of die studies have dealt with coins of the Palaiologan period, for instance silver basilika of Andronikos II and Michael IX (see Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 273, and Metcalf, “The Palaeologan coinage in the east Mediterranean world”, p. 19, with reference to the data produced by Whitting, “Miliaresia of Andronikos II and Michael IX”), and of Anna of Savoy (by Brunetti: see Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 275, n. 52), or half stavrata of Manuel II (Lianta, “A die-study of the half-stavrata of Manuel II Palaeologus”). On this subject, see also Bertelè and Morrisson, Numismatique byzantine, pp. 102–104. A very recent die study of the issues of John V and Andronikos IV Palaiologoi has allowed for a reassessment of the introduction of the new stavraton, aspron, and tornese denominations in ca. 1372: Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 262  Recently attempts have been made to rectify this: Baker, “Ainos”, Baker, “Edirne”, Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 263  Dealing specifically with the monetary transition from the middle to the late Byzantine period are: Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “Eclatement du monnayage”; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 215– 216; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 191–192. 264  Although even the existence of this mint is doubtful, as is that of twelfth-century Trebizond: Appendix II.6.G, p. 1351. On the other hand, in the final years of that century Byzantine-style coinages were being minted by usurpers in Anatolia and Cyprus: DOC IV, pp. 132–133. 265  Appendix II.1.A.3, p. 1206; Appendix II.1.B.5, pp. 1233–1236; Appendix II.1.C.2, pp. 1250– 1252; Appendix II.1.D.3, pp. 1258–1259. 266  Appendix II.1.A.3, p.  1206; Appendix II.1.B.6, pp.  1236–1240; Appendix II.1.C.2, pp. 1250–1252. 267  Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243; Appendix II.1.C.2, pp. 1250–1252.

48

Chapter 1

one or two in Latin Constantinople,268 one perhaps at Bulgarian Ohrid and another further to the north in Serbian Ras,269 and at Trebizond under an offshoot of the Komnenos dynasty.270 Morrisson called the monetary situation of the fourteenth century “balkanisée”,271 but this term might also aptly describe the early thirteenth century, not just because many of the mints were located there, but also because coin circulation was henceforth open and mixed. The different polities consistently had to contend with foreign issues, mostly of the billon trachy currency. The latter was marked by a rapid loss in intrinsic value (debasement), which had already begun in the last years of the middle Byzantine Empire. This had two facets, loss of fineness and weight reductions, the second of which particularly with the introduction of small module issues. In order to avoid monetary problems, for instance the effects of Gresham’s Law,272 issuing authorities followed each other in minting ever more debased coins. The rapid elimination of older imperial issues, the general debasements which stretched the mass of bullion, the opportunities arising from the political revolutions and turmoil around the year 1204, and the sporadic re-minting of most of the monetary stock, led to a larger number of coins being minted and in general circulation.273 This development can in one sense be compared to the situation of Byzantine copper after the Alexian reform in 1092, because debasement and an increasing fiduciary character amplified the available coinage also then (see above). However, the sheer size of the immediate post1204 issues is totally unprecedented. The spread of these coinages from their various places of minting to the different areas of the Aegean and the Balkans was equally impressive. This is all the more remarkable since these movements could now no longer rely on the machineries and administrative designs of a

268  Appendix II.1.B.2 and 3, pp. 1212–1232; Appendix II.1.D.4, pp. 1260–1264. 269  Appendix II.1.B.9, pp. 1245–1246. 270  The early billon and electrum/silver trachy coinages of this empire were treated at the beginning of the twentieth century (in Retowski, Trapezunt and BMC Vandals), but not in DOC IV (see merely p. 36, n. 17). For some more recent smaller studies on these coinages, see Hendy, Studies, pp. 522–523; Bendall, “Early coinage of the ‘empire’ of Trebizond?”; Bendall, “Further note on a possible early coinage of the empire of Trebizond”; Bendall, “Hoard of coins of Andronicus I Gidon of Trebizond (?)”; Bendall, “Andronicus I Gidon of Trebizond again”; Bendall, “Coins of John I Axuchos (1235–1238) of Trebizond”; Bendall, Coinage of the Empire of Trebizond. 271  Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 220. 272  On which see also below, p. 72. 273  The composition of the currency, especially the steady culling and addition of coinage issues, is described in some detail in Appendix II.1.B.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

49

unified empire,274 and these therefore bear testimony to new kinds of connectivities, which were political and military, and perhaps to some extent personal and commercial. The strength of the Nicaean empire in particular was underlined by its gold and copper (billon) coinages.275 The increase in the number of issuers, and the quick succession of issues within the different mints, also altered the physical aspect of the coins. Types were changed frequently276 and came to incorporate specific design features known as sigla.277 These developments left a mark on the shape of Byzantine coinage until the very end of the Palaiologan period. Different, sometimes rather technical, explanations have been put forward for all the innovations, which are best summarised as a desire for recognisability and clarity, as for administrative accountability amongst this mass of issues and this great diversity of qualities. To this need to be added the possible private interests which may have been added to the various minting operations. If the billon trachy coinages and, from the 1220s/1230s, the gold hyperpyra in the name of John III Vatatzes produced at Byzantine Magnesia and Latin Constantinople, are symbolic of the impetus and opportunities provided by the new political and commercial constellations, then from mid-century onwards new monetary and numismatic realities open up new interpretative avenues. First, in the later 1240s or early 1250s significant mints were established at Corinth and Thebes, and from the 1260s onwards large quantities of silver were minted at Clarentza, Thebes, Naupaktos and other Greek locations.278 Significant silver coinages were also minted in Serbia and Bulgaria from the closing decades of the century.279 The situation in Anatolia was also gaining in complexity.280 While in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Seljuq coins had neither been minted on the Aegean coast,281 nor circulated there very 274  Even if these were not the most important driving force behind coin circulation even in middle Byzantine times: see above, p. 15. 275  See also Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 363. 276  On the rotation of types, see DOC IV, p. 99; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 945. 277  A detailed account of the historiography regarding sigla is presented in Lianta, “Sigla”. See also above, p. 39. 278  These coinages are amongst the main subjects of this book and are treated systematically in Appendix II.8 and 9. 279  The bibliography regarding Serbian and Bulgarian coins in the Balkans is vast. Initially, one may consult for instance, in addition to Metcalf, SE Europe, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje; Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek; Dimnik and Dobrinić, Medieval Slavic Coinage in the Balkans. See also Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305. 280  There is no single survey of money in western Anatolia during the medieval period. 281  See the maps in Broome, Coinage of the Seljuqs, pp. 11–12.

50

Chapter 1

widely,282 from the early fourteenth century important silver coinages were emitted at Manisa, Theologos, Palatia, Rhodes and Chios.283 The overall geographical pattern of coin production in the southern Balkan and Aegean area had therefore significantly changed since the first half of the thirteenth century, when the vast majority of coins were minted, from west to east, at Thessalonike, Constantinople, and in the Nicaean state. This picture of diversification becomes even more marked when one looks at additional new silver coinages from more distant areas which had also been Byzantine for at least part of the twelfth century: Trebizond,284 Cilician Armenia,285 Cyprus,286 and the western and northern Black Sea shores.287 The other major departure was that these new mints emitted in due course mostly pure silver or billon coinages, of ca. 20–30% fineness, that is to say alloys which had been seldom represented in Byzantine minting. In terms of design and metrology these coinages were often either in the Latin or Islamic traditions. Late Byzantine Money: Demise of Palaiologan Coinage, Quality and Reach The relative demise of Byzantine coinage during the early Palaiologan period can be charted by two additional phenomena: one of these is the contraction of the territory in which Byzantine coins circulated. This affected for instance our primary area of investigation,288 but also in due course Anatolia, with only a central Balkan strip between Constantinople and Macedonia/northern Epiros/Albania, and especially Bulgaria, witnessing Byzantine coin circulation for some or even all of the fourteenth century.289 The second phenomenon is that of debasement, particularly of the gold hyperpyron, which has been commented on very extensively and given great political and economic relevance 1.32

282  Appendix II.6.G, p. 1351. 283  A  ppendix II.6.D–E, pp.  1346–1349; Appendix II.9.I, pp.  1464–1466; Appendix II.11, pp. 1495–1496. 284  Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1275 and n. 463. 285  Appendix II.6.B, pp. 1344–1345. 286  Cypriot coinage, insofar as it is available in Greece, is presented in Appendix II.6.A, pp. 1343–1344. For the silver gros coinage, see Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 199ff. 287   On the coinages of the Golden Horde, see Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 292–293 and Appendix II.6.C, p. 1346. 288  See esp. Chapter 3, pp. 332–335. 289  Appendix I.8–11 contains some of the references for the relevant Balkan and Anatolian sites. Some of the data are also usefully presented in graphs in Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

51

in the literature.290 The loss of fineness during the period 1204–ca. 1353/1354,291 and the total demise of the currency thereafter, is considered symptomatic of the economic and fiscal crises affecting the empire.292 The more or less clearly defined stages in this debasement are furthermore brought in relation with events which necessitated increasing quantities of cash, for instance the reconquest of Constantinople in 1261 and the aggressive policies of Michael VIII, the accession to the throne of Andronikos II in 1282 and the recognition of public overspend, the Catalan crisis, and the two civil wars. However, it must be said that such a correlation is achieved by combining chronologies for coin issues which have not always been established with complete confidence, with archaeometric data which are not always entirely compelling, and with the notion that debasements were necessarily linked to specific moments of crisis. Hyperpyra were hoarded in great quantities, often outside the empire, and this is surely another sign of crisis. However, as I indicate in the relevant discussion in Appendix II.1.D, it is perhaps possible to put a somewhat more positive spin on these glum developments. Perhaps this currency was allowed to some extent to take its natural course, in order to enable the empire, its subjects and foreign allies, to utilise it for purposes which would ultimately lead to the alienation of the bullion it contained, that is to say largely for foreign payments for grain and mercenaries. This would account in particular for the high numbers of finds from the Balkans and the Black Sea,293 and perhaps also the birth of some of the Anatolian gold currencies (see below). Very importantly, there is little or no indication that Byzantine gold hyperpyra travelled towards the Latin west in large and systematic waves during the Palaiologan period, neither politically nor commercially: the debasement and disappearance of the hyperpyron did therefore not benefit the rise of the Italian gold coinage, nor does the hyperpyron coinage in itself hint at a negative balance of payments with the west.294 Hyperpyra would have had to be handled quite differently by contemporaries from the other fine coinages of the period, because of the uncertainties 290  The bibliography is presented at different points of the discussion in Appendix II.1.D, pp. 1252–1268. 291  On the possible last hyperpyron issue of the empire see now Bendall, “Hyperpyron of the sole reign of John VI”. 292  The case has been made most recently in Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 184–186. 293  The evidence is gathered in Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 280–284. 294  See above in this chapter on the question of trade balance, below on the Italian gold currencies, and see Appendix II.1.D on the international role of the hyperpyron. On the importance of establishing the trade balance on the basis of numismatic evidence, see Metcalf, “The Palaeologan coinage in the east Mediterranean world”.

52

Chapter 1

surrounding the precise finenesses of specific gold hyperpyra, and because of their fluctuating weights.295 Of course, it is difficult to get behind the precise dynamics of cause and effect, in other words to determine if gold coinage was used for peculiar purposes because of its peculiar physical properties, or vice versa. It will also be impossible to measure to what extent the empire might have taken a conscious decision to abandon the gold currency, or at least to tolerate its abandonment.296 Late Byzantine Money: New Silver for the Empire and the Balance of Payments We must not forget that Byzantium itself – and this is the crucial component in this story – first became a user of silver-based currencies, and then in 1304 a producer,297 and this might provide a partial explanation for the general attitudes to the gold coinage.298 There is now plenty of evidence that as early as the 1280s the Venetian grosso had become an integral part of the coinage system in areas of Byzantium, and very importantly soon became the preferred coin there even of the fisc.299 The spread of the grosso to Thrace, Constantinople, and western Anatolia occurred some time later, but it now looks as if the grosso was even revived during the period of the Byzantine stavraton, in the form of types 2 and 3 minted in the decades before 1400.300 Returning to the perennial question of the balance of payments, unlike gold, silver is able to draw a particularly compelling picture, in view of the fact that Byzantium traditionally had little silver tied up in coinage. From this we may 1.33

295  Metcalf, “The Palaeologan coinage in the east Mediterranean world”, p. 17. 296  Consider in this context also the developments of the gold hyperpyron of account and its relationship with the actual monetary specie: Appendix III.1, pp. 1511–1522. 297  On the basilikon coinage, conceived in that year, see Appendix II.1.F, p. 1275; on its initially impressive size, as suggested by Whitting’s die study, see above p. 47, n. 261. 298  The particular relationship of the Byzantine gold and silver coinages in the late thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth century is considered specifically in Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 268–277. The wider monetary panorama affecting Byzantium in this period, particularly the introduction of foreign coins and of foreign users of Byzantine monies (of account), is treated in Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”; Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 643–658; Balard, “Monete bizantine e monete occidentale a Bisanzio”; Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 299  See Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1301–1302, Appendix III.1, pp. 1516–1519, Appendix III.5, pp. 1570– 1573, and also Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”. 300  Baker, “Edirne”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. The same denomination has also been found in northwestern Anatolia, according to information presented recently by Z. Demirel Gökalp and A. Stahl. The same grossi are also well represented in some other Balkan and Levantine hoards: Stahl, Zecca, pp. 69ff and 453ff.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

53

reasonably assume that most silver present in fourteenth-century Macedonia, Thrace, and western Anatolia, in the form of western or local coinage, was ultimately of central European origin.301 Compared to this, the supplies from Serbia302 and from the Islamic world/ the Golden Horde were much less significant.303 For this reason I would suggest that for parts of the late thirteenth/ early fourteenth century, and even during later times, Byzantium had a positive balance of exchange with the west. Byzantium became a large-scale user and producer of silver coinage, just like many other states in Greece, in the southern Balkans and the Black Sea area, western and southern Anatolia, and further afield. The issuance of a silver coinage was in all cases a sign of political will and fiscal competence, and of course the fact that all these territories had goods to offer to the western markets. The arrival particularly of Frankish Greek deniers tournois in Byzantium, but also in western Anatolia, underlines the common fate of these regions, and their connectivity, which were fostered by commercial interests above all else.304 Yet, despite these positive impressions, one would be inclined to judge rather harshly a political entity, as was the case with Byzantium, in which indigenous coinage did not prevail, in which foreign coins were widely and preferentially used, even by the authorities themselves. The new stavrata and their fractions first minted in ca. 1372 were no substitute for foreign silver, at least in the period to ca. 1400.305 Quite apart from the monetary instability which this caused, it entailed a loss of revenue to the state. This situation may have changed somewhat in the period after the battle of Ankara (1402). The hoards,306 and the one die study for the reign of 301  See Day, “A note on the monetary mechanisms, east and west”, p. 971: “Minting activity and monetary circulation in the eastern Mediterranean in the twelfth to fifteenth centuries depended in large measure on precious metals originating in the West”; see also the discussion below on money in the west. 302  Which were distributed internationally mostly through the usual western channels: see Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305 and Spufford, Money and its use, p. 350. 303  Another imported silver coinage of the same area was the Bulgarian grosso of Ivan Aleksandăr with Michail IV Asen (1331–1355), minted in all probability also posthumously, perhaps to 1371. Such issues are, for instance, contained in «496» and «497»; see further Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 310–318, and specifically p. 311: “[One] would like to know where the silver stocks came from. Were they ultimately derived from the reminting of aspers of the Golden Horde, or from the output of the Serbian mines?” More recently, see Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek, chapter 9. 304  This topic will be discussed at length in the main chapters of this book. 305  Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 306  See the lists produced by Georgiades and Lianta, as referenced in Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1276–1277.

54

Chapter 1

Manuel II (1391–1425),307 show a relatively healthy Byzantine coinage, with older issues being consistently reminted into newer ones, in respectable quantities. However, we lack the data to be more specific about this. For instance, we do not know whether silver kept arriving from the west, nor are we able to determine at what points in the later history of the minting of Byzantine stavrata and their fractions production levels declined – which they most certainly would have done. We also have no parallel figures for Ottoman silver akčes of the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries – closely related to Byzantine eighth stavrata, and rival destinations for the available bullion – nor are we always entirely clear about chronologies and minting structures for these issues.308 The hoards would certainly suggest that there was a good mix of Byzantine and Ottoman aspra in Thrace and Constantinople. The eventual collapse of Byzantine silver coinage has to be considered a key aspect of the empire’s budgetary problems: areas and trading places which offered interesting produce to westerners were slipping out of Byzantine rule, but the Byzantine fisc was even losing control over direct and indirect taxation within the remaining imperial territories. Late Byzantine Money: Gold in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries The history of gold in the area is another strong indictment. In the wake of the demise of the Byzantine gold coinage in the mid-fourteenth century, this metal remained present. While Venetian ducats and Florentine florins make only rare appearances themselves, substantial coinages either imitating or even counterfeiting such issues were produced within the Anatolian beyliks, Chios, Lesbos, Genoese Pera, and possibly the Ottoman state.309 As with all the other coinages discussed here so far, there are still gaping lacunae in our knowledge of these issues: their sizes and chronologies, distributions, the origins of the metals. As I have indicated, it is possible that perhaps one or the other Anatolian issue was based on re-minted Byzantine hyperpyra, but in many other cases we must suspect that fresh gold, which was ultimately derived from Hungarian or sub-Saharan sources, reached the Aegean. 1.34

307  See above p. 47, n. 261. 308  On Ottoman silver coins, see Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1276–1277 and Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1351– 1352. Consider further with regard to the issues: Srećković, Akches (the coins did not initially bear precise dates, nor attributions to the main mints of Bursa and Edirne); with regard to general Ottoman monetary history: Pamuk, Monetary history of the Ottoman Empire. 309  See the exposition in Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1309, and esp. n. 618.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: late BYZANTIUM

55

Late Byzantine Money: Lower Denominations, the Regionalisation of Imperial Coin Production There are, finally, other aspects of the Byzantine coinage system of later Palaiologan times which would seem to call for negative verdicts. I have argued that in ca. 1372 John V Palaiologos first minted a sub-standard and highly fiduciary version of the tornesello, and that this coinage was given a greater relevance by his son Manuel II, who even rolled out to the Morea.310 This Byzantine tornese coinage failed to integrate with its Venetian prototype in everyday and commercial contexts. Whether or not it also fell short of the usage which the Byzantine authorities had intended for it, namely the payment of substantial sums in hyperpyra of account, is difficult to assess. The numismatic evidence is varied: it spread wider than the contemporaneous stavraton or aspron, but may also have been demoted to the level of a petty currency.311 The lack of a satisfactory late Byzantine copper coinage may have contributed to this: although we have few excavation data either way, there is a dearth of hoards of folles dating to the second half of the fourteenth century and later, and such coins are also very badly represented in numismatic collections.312 This would suggest that this coinage was not taken care of by the authorities as had been the case with copper coinages in most earlier periods of Byzantine minting. This, in turn, would have had serious repercussions for the usage of all other denominations. The process of regionalisation of Byzantium in the fourteenth century also affected coinage. Macedonia did not necessarily partake in all of the phenomena which have just been discussed, and in fact saw its own peculiar coin circulation, and of course coin production at Thessalonike.313 Our knowledge of neither of these is particularly satisfactory, but given what appears to be the limited penetration of metropolitan gold and silver into the area after a certain point in the century, the almost total absence of the minting in high-end metals there is all the more disappointing. The mint nevertheless had a few redeeming 1.35

310  Appendix II.1.E.2 and 3, pp. 1269–1273. On the tornesello, see Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 311  On the definition, see the next chapter, pp. 135–136. 312  On this coinage and my preference for the term follis or follaro, rather than assarion or any of the others picked from the disparate written sources, see Appendix II.1.B, p. 1209, and Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1270. 313  See the following passages in the appendices on minting there in Palaiologan times: Appendix II.1.B.8, pp. 1243–1245 (post-1261 trachea); Appendix II.1.D.6, p. 1265, n. 399 (possible gold hyperpyra for the Palaiologan period); Appendix II.1.E.4, pp. 1273–1274 (folles and tornesi of the period 1365–1387); Appendix II.1.F, p. 1277 (possible stavrata). See also Morrisson, “Thessalonike” on the history of local minting, which ends however rather abruptly.

56

Chapter 1

features: for instance, it was very active during the years of Andronikos III,314 it was also able to remint in the same period tournois of Orsini on a seemingly grand scale in the early 1330s;315 then again during the regency of Anna of Savoy (ca. 1352–1365) it emitted a copper coinage which gained some stature in the area; in fact folles from the city were surprisingly common also thereafter;316 and also the tornesi – minted under Manuel II in the city (1382– 1387), perhaps on a better standard than the metropolitan ones – travelled and are attested outside of Macedonia.317 The splintering of Byzantium and of its monetary system is not least underlined by the existence of regional hyperpyra of account within the empire: for instance that of Thessalonike, or according to Andronikos II’s chrysobull of 1319, of Ioannina.318 But even what is known as the plain (gold) hyperpyron (of Constantinople) was constantly fluctuating, according to whether it was based on silver or gold, and to the rates it was given, officially or unofficially.319 This situation, in addition to the complex monetary conditions themselves, would have caused difficulties to public and private users of money. One should not forget, however, that similar problems were also faced outside of the confines of the empire, in areas of the Aegean and the southern Balkans and that these could usually be overcome through calculation and adaptation. Whether or not the general decadence of the monetary conditions of the empire in the course of the fourteenth century, and the complexities of the monies and the monies of account which one encountered there, rendered it a more difficult place for foreigners to trade in than elsewhere is hard to fathom. It is just possible that the opposite was the case, with uncertainties being easily exploited by those with the right know-how, hard and stable western currencies going that little bit further than they would otherwise have done, or even soft and overvalued colonial coinages such as the tornesello sufficing to strike a bargain.320 Many of these operations would also have been increasingly unencumbered by the long arm of the Byzantine authorities. As far as the 314  In addition to Morrisson’s study, with further bibliographical notes, see in the latest instance Shea, “Longuet’s ‘Salonica hoard’” and Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “CNG hoard”. 315  Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1473–1474. 316  See the Belgratkapı hoard of 1986 (Gokyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1986”; «497»), which contained two coppers of the city. 317  See hoard «178. Athenian Agora 1936». 318  Appendix III.4, pp. 1558–1559; Appendix III.5, pp. 1570–1573. The passage in the chrysobull, and the meaning of the term ‘charagma’ used there, has been discussed in Nicol, Epiros II, p. 85, n. 14 and Hendy, Studies, p. 529. See further Chapter 3, p. 286. 319  A  ppendix III.1, pp. 1511–1522. 320  Day, “Colonialisme monétaire”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

57

Byzantines themselves were concerned, one can imagine that similar pros and cons might have applied on an individual level. 2

The Medieval West during the Commercial Revolution and the Late Medieval Crises

There are a number of reasons why the subject of money in the medieval west is of relevance to this book. Quite apart from the fact that Byzantium was supplied with western bullion, as suggested in the last discussion, and that the Latin world expanded both economically and politically into the eastern Mediterranean, and began to produce coinage there according to western parameters, there is a historiographical dimension: 2.1 Historiography There has been a long tradition of studying both the coins and the written sources pertaining to monetary history. Even though the structure of the coinage system in the west was initially outwardly much simpler than in Byzantium, it soon underwent rather complex but well established developments, and an impressive array of archival sources also become available for the period from the thirteenth/fourteenth century onwards. The wealth of data has induced a detailed and sophisticated debate into some of the most fundamental aspects of monetisation in the medieval west, in a fashion which is largely unthinkable for Byzantium. This scholarly tradition is an important backdrop to this book, also through its influence on mainstream economic history. At least since the time of Marc Bloch,321 late medieval economic historians have consistently taken into consideration numismatic data and their bearings on the history of coinage and money, as elucidated in the second half of the century by many writers straddling economic and monetary history, such as Cipolla, Day, Grierson, Lane, Lopez, and Spufford. In the wake of the first three volumes of the Cambridge economic history of Europe of the 1950s and 60s,322 a number of monographic works were published by eminent economic historians of the time, treating the economy in the Latin west in later medieval period, while 321  See particularly his posthumous publication Esquisse d’une histoire monétaire, and also Day, “Monnaie dans les écrits de Marc Bloch”. 322  The volumes in question are 1 on agrarian life, whose second edition was published in 1966, and 3 (economic organisation and policies), which appeared in its first edition in 1963. Volume 2 on trade and industry had already been published in 1952 and saw its second edition later, in 1987.

58

Chapter 1

taking into account also the wider Mediterranean dimension.323 Therein, one can still find distillations of some of the main tenets of later medieval economic history, on matters such as demography, agriculture, urbanisation, trade and industry, travel and technology, public and private finances, money, prices, banking, and business techniques. Unlike the period before the first millennium,324 archaeology and material culture have yet to be integrated into more general economic histories of the later medieval west, and this remains the case also for recent works.325 2.2 Pennies and Groats Compared to Byzantine coinage, with its ever evolving denominational structure and its momentous changes, especially in the course of the tenth to twelfth century, medieval western coinage developed in a rather steady and linear fashion from the end of the Viking period and the creation of larger political entities in England, France, Germany and Italy.326 The only denomination minted in great parts of Europe was the silver penny, in variable weights and finenesses. Coinage in the west was not merely physically, but also conceptually different to that of Byzantium.327 Minting, even at the largest mints,328 was driven by the arrival of bullion through public and private channels. Byzantine 323  Miskimin, Economy of early Renaissance Europe; Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe; Lopez, The commercial revolution; Postan, Medieval economy and society (focusing on Britain); Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe; Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution (which mainly considers the middle ages from the vantage point of the early modern period). 324  Citing here only two fundamental works: Hodges, Dark age economics; and Wickham, Framing the early Middle Ages. 325  For instance they are lacking from Epstein, Economic and social history of later medieval Europe. 326  While the cited works (n. 323) all take coinage into account, there is a vast amount of literature concerning specifically money in the medieval west. The comprehensive classic study of Engel and Serrure, Traité, is still consulted with great profit. See further, for systematic treatments: Fournial, Histoire monétaire; Belaubre, Histoire numismatique; Travaini, Monete e storia, with respective emphases on France and Italy. Kluge, Numismatik des Mittelalters, discusses areas, periods, and themes with reference to a large bibliography; Bompaire and Dumas, Numismatique médiévale and the older Luschin von Ebengreuth, Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte are thematically arranged; Spufford, Money and its use is, by contrast, a continuous chronological narrative. Part I of Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, also gives very useful discussions on European trends in general. A refreshingly different approach to money can be found in Le Goff, Moyen âge et l’argent. 327  Day, “A note on the monetary mechanisms, east and west”. 328  Consider Mueller, “‘Chome l’ucciello di passegio’” and the case of Venice. See also Lopez and Raymond, Medieval trade in the Mediterranean world, pp. 150–152.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

59

coinage was for much of its existence intimately linked to the fiscal cycle of the empire, although, as we have seen, the parameters according to which coinage was produced and used might have shifted during Palaiologan times. The functions and usages of coins in the Latin west since the turn of the millennium are complex subject matters, suffice it to say here that they can be reduced to the basics of storage, measure, and payments. Ultimately, the main payments taking place there were not too far removed from those which have already been discussed for the Byzantine context, of direct and indirect taxation, of church tithes, of everyday expenditures in urban or market contexts, and of much larger transactions in the realm of international or interregional commerce, diplomacy, and warfare. Besides providing specie for these occasions, and the obvious advantages of having a well-regulated monetary system in place, one of the main incentives for any minting on the part of the issuing authorities was the profit which this operation entailed (see below). Nevertheless, for the physical form and the quantity of the money produced, it is the current belief of many numismatists that there was no ulterior initial incentive and intent to the production of coinage than the processing of bullion which was becoming available.329 Such views contrast with the usual Marxist or neo-Malthusian interpretations where money supply is a function of structural or demographic forces.330 It was the created specie, if one follows the currently prevalent thinking, which determined the kinds of usage put to coinage, and not vice-versa. The position of money in the European commercial revolution during the long thirteenth century has been interpreted precisely in this light in a particularly significant chapter of Spufford’s monograph,331 which goes back to a paper published by the same author in French a few years previously.332 His main argument is that new silver and new silver denominations led to a general increase in monetisation, but also had more far reaching consequences by diversifying exchanges and ultimately altering the European mindset.333 Silver became more plentiful in most of Europe and resulted in numerous new large (groat) denominations. In recent 329  See particularly Day, “Conjoncture des prix”; Day, “Monetary contraction”, p. 55ff; Spufford, Money and its use, p. 240, and furthermore Howego, “Why did ancient states strike coins?”, p. 4, for a similar view expressed by a numismatist of the ancient world. 330  For discussions of the different historiographical traditions, see Day, “Monetary contraction” and Day, “Crises and trends”, esp. p. 219ff. 331  Spufford, Money and its use, chapter 11, pp. 240–263. 332  Spufford, “Monnaie dans la revolution commerciale”. 333  On the latter subject, see also Kaye, Economy and nature in the fourteenth century, where it is argued that dealing with money became an everyday preoccupation or even obsession which influenced greatly scientific thought.

60

Chapter 1

literature334 the pivotal position of north and central Italy in these developments has been reiterated and a general consensus has been reached that grossi were conceived not so much as multiples of the pre-existing pennies (denari, piccoli, parvi, minuti), but as new coinages in their own rights which were designed to correspond to newly evolving systems of account and, not least, to overcome some of the inadequacies of the pennies.335 Meanwhile, controversy reigns as to whether the first grosso issue has to be attributed to Venice or to another mint and, related to this, whether the grosso was primarily designed for internal consumption or for export to Byzantium/Romania and the Islamic world.336 While retaining the Venetian primacy for want of a convincing alternative, this book is generally sceptical about the last proposition, yet still fully ascribes to the view that the main or only impetus for the eventual development of the silver coinages for most of the medieval Aegean was given by the discovery and export of western silver (see above).337 2.3 English Evidence Because there were arguably common developments in the silver currencies of the Latin west and the eastern Mediterranean, I will occasionally be using contemporary English data, which are particularly rich and well discussed,338 for comparative purposes in the further course of this book. In medieval times England had a national, royal coinage, and very few other coinages circulated there. Numerous hoards and site finds have been studied and published, and there are additionally many stray data thanks to the work of the Portable Antiquities Scheme.339 There are also mint output figures for great stretches of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, principally for the London and Canterbury mints, and extensive die studies have been conducted. English coinage provides therefore an ideal test case for a number of enquiries: the relationship of 334  See, after Grierson’s classic study “Grosso”: Matzke, “Vom Ottolinus zum Grossus”; Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach”; Matzke, “Grosso-Prägung”; Travaini, Monete e storia, p. 49ff. 335  In this regard, see also Cipolla, Avventure della lira, pp. 44–45. 336   See, with regard to the latter proposals, Appendix II.4.B, p.  1297 and Saccocci, “L’introduzione dei grossi”. 337  Pamuk, Monetary history of the Ottoman Empire, p. 23, calls this view Eurocentric, but this author’s specific interest lies in Anatolia, where the situation is admittedly less clear cut. 338  The main protagonists in the current debates regarding medieval England after 1180 are Martin Allen and Nick Mayhew: see the bibliography and the relevant discussions in the further course of this chapter and the next two. The structure of medieval English coinage, meanwhile, has been most comprehensively laid out by Stewartby, English Coins. See also Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 339  See www.finds.org.uk.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

61

die and minting information with the archaeological record; the survival rates of issues and the degrees of wastage over years and decades; the processes of hoard formation and stray losses in town and country; amongst many more. 2.4 Gold Developments in gold and gold coinages in the medieval west are more difficult to describe and measure. The first, rather under-developed, wave in gold minting in the west, in mid- to late-thirteenth century Florence and Venice in particular,340 plays at best a secondary role in Spufford’s narrative of the commercial revolution. It had been fuelled by the rather fortuitous availability of African341 and south Italian gold, and not by any flight of gold from Byzantium.342 The first half of the fourteenth century brought on new monetary conditions, with the beginning of significant gold mining in Hungary (Kremnica) and the subsequent drying up of the last silver mines in Bohemia (Kutna Hora).343 The second generation of western gold coinages emerged in the second and third decades of the fourteenth century, leading to a large increase of gold minting in Italy as well as to the large-scale usage of gold in other European areas, for instance Provence and the papacy at Avignon, and the kingdoms of France and England in the context of the ensuing Hundred Years’ War. The role of this second generation of gold coinages in the Aegean is problematic, in two basic ways: first, it is very difficult to measure the availability of Florentine florins and Venetian ducats in Byzantium, Anatolia, and Greece. Second, we do not know how much of the bullion used in the imitative issues of the eastern Aegean which we discussed above was derived from the west and how much was the result of the demise of the Byzantine gold hyperpyron.344 If the origin was the west, then was it commercial or military/ political in nature? 2.5 Western Trade with the East and the Balance of Payments Questions relating to the flow of gold and silver – in terms of direction and quantity – are fundamental to the monetary history of the entire later medieval Mediterranean. The traditional view on the overall relationship between west and east, which is still the established orthodoxy as far as Byzantium 340  See also the discussion of the respective florin and ducat denominations in Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1307. 341  See also Fournial, Histoire monétaire, p. 75. 342  Appendix II.1.D.2, p. 1257. The matter of gold minting in Byzantium during the thirteenth and fourteenth century has also been discussed above in this chapter, esp. pp. 50–52. 343  See particularly Spufford, Money and its use, chapter 12, pp. 267–288. 344  See above in this chapter, p. 54.

62

Chapter 1

is concerned,345 is that in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries western manufactured goods, whether sophisticated and expensive or cheap and mass-produced, were swamping markets in the eastern Mediterranean: “The west sent to the east infinitely more than it received in return”.346 It is quite clear that this picture requires some nuancing, if not a total revision, and numismatic – and in the wider sense monetary – evidence can make a substantial contribution.347 With regard to Byzantium, as discussed above, it is now clear enough that substantial quantities of western silver reached it in the period between the 1270s and the 1330s, and most likely at smaller rates and more sporadically thereafter. Trade between the west and the Levant during the later medieval period has been considered extensively since the seminal work of Heyd.348 After a flourish during the early crusading movement, the Levant trade adapted to new political constellations in the course of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, especially the establishment of new kingdoms in Armenian Cilicia and on Cyprus, and the enlargement of the Mamluk sphere of influence. Its classic age was, however, during the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when trading conditions in the area between Syria and Egypt became more favourable again, and the west had laid its last crusading ambitions there to rest. It was in this period that certain important and costly products came to the fore, cotton, silks, dyestuffs, and especially spices. Europe arguably had a negative trade balance with the Levant during the entire stretch from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, but it was particularly during the classic age that vast amounts of silver and gold were sent there.349 This is striking especially when viewed in relative terms: throughout the different bullion crises (see below) an ever larger percentage of available European bullion was sent eastwards,

345  See above, p. 36. 346  Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe, p. 165. See also Bautier, “Relations économiques”, esp. p. 301ff, and similar opinions cited in Day, “Levant trade”, p. 810. 347  Also Spufford, Money and its use places a large emphasis on examining bullion flows. 348  See Heyd, Histoire du commerce, in the current chapter, pp. 36–37. 349  Specifically on this classic age of the Levant trade, on spices and other products, and on the question of the balance of payments, see for instance the following: Ashtor, Balance des payements; Bacharach, “The dinar versus the ducat”; Lopez, “Bilancia dei pagamenti”; Ashtor, “Venetian supremacy”; Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe, p. 394; Ashtor, “Profits from trade with the Levant”; Ashtor, “Volume of Levantine trade”; Ashtor, “Venetian trade in the Levant”; Attman, Bullion flow; Ashtor, “Europäischer Handel im spätmittelalterlichen Palästina”; Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, pp. 270–273; Day, “Levant trade”; Spufford, Power and profit, pp. 309 and 344–348; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 337–365 and 390–401; and Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

63

thereby contributing further to the paucity of specie.350 In the famous resumé of his dogeship, Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) states explicitly that the majority of the silver minted at Venice was sent to the east.351 In the Aegean, the demise of Byzantium, and the beylik and Ottoman expansions in the fourteenth century might have been dealt with by western traders more flexibly than had been previously assumed.352 These pre-conceived views have also influenced interpretations of monetary phenomena, for instance the large-scale arrival of western silver and gold in fourteenth-century Anatolia has been viewed in military rather than commercial contexts respectively by Spufford353 and Yvon.354 Many of these interpretations are now numismatically untenable. Yet, even if we are now more inclined towards commercial explanations for bullion flows, it is quite clear that there may also have been political and military dimensions to the transfer of gold and silver from west to east. Increasing adversity entailed spiralling costs, particularly for the different colonial administrations. This book aims to describe and interpret as best as possible these easterly monetary flows for the specific medieval Greek context. The situation in the Levant in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries may be clear cut, but separating commercial, political, military, colonial or other demographic causes behind the transfer of money is much more difficult for areas and periods in which Latins controlled lands and engaged in their governance and exploitation, as was the case with the Levant in the twelfth century, or the Aegean area after 1204. Stahl has said, for the first of these contexts, that “… the identification of most European coinage found in Crusader contexts with merchants and trade must be viewed as tenuous”.355 2.6 First Bullion Crisis The European coinage systems were not universally characterised by expansion in medieval times, and their developments were often closely related to the vacillations of contemporary politics and socio-economic affairs. The first 350  Day, “Great bullion famine”, pp. 4–7. 351  See principally Stahl, “Doge Mocenigo”. The episode has been referred to on numerous occasions, for instance Miskimin, Economy of early Renaissance Europe, p. 154; Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe, p. 174; Lane, “Exportations vénitiennes d’or et d’argent”; Spufford, Money and its use, p. 352; Day, “Levant trade”, p. 811. 352  For a more traditional view, see for instance Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe, p. 181, according to whom these developments reduced the “European commercial frontier”. 353  Spufford, Money and its use, p. 284. See Appendix II.11, pp. 1495–1498. 354  See Appendix II.4.D.3, p. 1315. 355  Cited in Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 157.

64

Chapter 1

of the later medieval bullion famines can be witnessed in the early to midfourteenth century.356 This was caused by the reduced availability of freshly mined silver, a greater degree of wastage due to rapid circulation and thesaurisation, and possibly a higher demand for silver. England offers us the best context in which to study this phenomenon. Even though the main authors have produced different total figures, it is clear that from the 1310s there was less silver being emitted by the royal mints, and probably also less silver in general circulation.357 This contributed to the general economic downturn, as recognised by generations of scholars, who usually explain it through a combination of political, demographic, and climatic factors. While in fourteenth-century England the finenesses of the coinages remained almost unaltered, political entities elsewhere managed the first silver crisis differently, with large-scale debasements of some of the silver currencies.358 These were aimed at counter-acting the reduced supply and higher demand, and the shift of the gold-silver ratio in favour of the latter. It is also likely that the issuing authorities reaped greater profits from minting through this process.359 The prime example for such a development was France,360 where there was a pronounced pattern of debasements and reforms, which evidently supported the large war effort during the fourteenth century. The particular French context inspired one of the main monetary theorists of the medieval Latin west, Nicolas d’Oresme,361 to write on this subject and to define the interests of the parties involved, rulers and subjects/users of coins. Another important, and related, phenomenon of the later medieval west was the increasing desire for small change with which to conduct everyday business.362 Debasements in fact affected mostly the smallest denominations,363 of which there was never356  Spufford, Money and its use, chapter 15. See also Day, “Monetary contraction”. 357  Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”; Mayhew, “Population, Money Supply, and the Velocity of Circulation”; Allen, “Volume and composition of the English silver currency”; Allen, “Volume of the English currency”; Allen, Mints and money, pp. 328–331, table 10.3. 358  Cipolla, “Currency depreciation”; Spufford, Money and its use, chapter 13, pp. 289–318. See also the interesting observations in Saccocci, “Struttura dei rinvenimenti”, on the correlation of fineness, value, and quantity of issue. 359  On seigniorage in general, see below, pp. 68–69. 360   Fourteenth-century France is treated extensively in the literature, see for instance Miskimin, Money, prices and foreign exchange; Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”, pp. 12–13; Kaye, Economy and nature in the fourteenth century, p. 20ff. 361  See the bibliography given in Kluge, Numismatik des Mittelalters, pp. 199–200. 362  Highlighted in Cipolla, Moneta e civiltà mediterranea. 363  Rolnick et al., “Debasement puzzle”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

65

theless a constant shortage. Based on these two observations,364 Sargent and Velde offered a fundamental contribution to the question of the finenesses of such coins, with a model which went beyond considering merely the desire to produce more coins or to make more profit.365 They identified a fine balancing act between the intrinsic and face values of all the minted silver denominations, and their production costs. Any imbalance would cause the bullion to stream to one of the denominations at the expense of the others, or to be demonetised. In a nutshell, the debasement of small denomination coins was the only way of keeping the intrinsic value below the face value, and also ensured, through the addition of copper, that they retained a manageable physical size. These rather belated developments in the coinages of the west managed to bring the latter closer to the Byzantine tradition of fiduciary petty coinages which were mostly or wholly of copper, even though it was not until the modern period – usually the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries – that fully fledged copper coinages were in place in most of western Europe.366 In this sense, medieval Greece retained, as we shall see,367 its Byzantine heritage even if it used mostly coinages of Latin appearances and characteristics. 2.7 Quantification of Money Supply – Fisher Equation The fourteenth century is the earliest period for which the money supply in areas of the west can be quantified in a satisfactory manner. Also other macroeconomic variables are easier to piece together as the middle ages progressed. In this context it was only logical that scholars subscribing to a monetarist interpretation should wish to apply the so-called Fisher equation,368 which correlates money (M) multiplied by velocity (V) with prices (P) multiplied by transactions (T).369 Over the years, and again in the English context, Mayhew has defended the fundamental validity of the monetary theory of money, although he has also stated that the much more difficult V and T should come 364  Rolnick and Weber, review of Sargent and Velde, Small change. 365  Sargent and Velde, Small change. 366  E.g. Fournial, Histoire monétaire, p. 6. Pure copper coinage first reached Italy in the fifteenth century, arguably via the Balkans: Travaini, “Monete di rame” and Appendix II.12, pp. 1508–1509. However, somewhat earlier the shortage in coinage had already induced people to use tokens and jettons in a coin-like manner: see Day, “Monetary contraction”, p. 56 and Chapter 2, pp. 159–160. 367  Chapter 2, pp. 135–136. 368  Already mentioned in the context of the evaluation of middle Byzantine coinages: pp. 9 and 14. 369  See Day, “Fisher equation” for a basic discussion of the formula and its position in medieval monetary history. The individual components of the formula have been assessed in Mayhew, “Money supply”; Mayhew, “Prices”; Mayhew, “Velocity”; Mayhew, “Transactions”.

66

Chapter 1

more to the fore in the analyses.370 The same author has also considered whether credit impacted more on V or on M, coming to the conclusion that both are possibilities according to the precise nature of this credit, but that its importance for the period of the first silver crisis in fourteenth-century England is nevertheless negligible.371 This period was obviously seminal to the relationship of these variables, and it is strongly suggested that “at the height of the secular price rise the supply of money gave out”.372 Thereafter, the situation is more convoluted:373 the reduction in the population with the Black Death should theoretically have depressed prices again, but it should at the same time have increased wages.374 It certainly rectified some of the growing disparity between gold and silver,375 but, most visibly, it caused a large degree of dislocation of both markets and labour.376 In the immediate aftermath of the pest, the supply of bullion and of produce for sale was also variable, and the more or less contemporaneous collapse of certain financial institutions caused further instability.377 In the longer term, the main tendencies from the midfourteenth century to the end of the middle ages was for a general downturn in the prices of the main staples, in line with the ongoing dearths in coinage (see below),378 but also occasionally fluctuating prices for the same as a result of coinage mutations and the frequent natural and man-made disasters,379 and a collapse in those of certain manufactured goods. Fluctuations and downturns also had a natural affect on trade, the overall volume of which would certainly have been smaller in the period 1350–1450 than previously, although even here there was a lot of variation, notably in Italian trade with the eastern Mediterranean which, as discussed, actually grew.380

370  Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”; Mayhew, “Population, Money Supply, and the Velocity of Circulation”. 371  On the importance of banking in Latin Europe more generally, see below pp. 69–71. 372  Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”, p. 15. 373  On the economic conditions after the Black Death, see specifically Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe, pp. 440–487 and Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, pp. 198– 204. See also Day, “Crises and trends”. 374  Postan, Medieval economy and society, p. 257. 375  Cipolla, Avventure della lira, p. 54. 376  Kaye, Economy and nature in the fourteenth century, p. 27. 377  See Cipolla, Monetary policy of fourteenth-century Florence, pp. 1–29, and below, p. 71. 378  Day, “Conjoncture des prix”. 379  Miskimin, Money, prices and foreign exchange; Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe, p. 216. 380  Lopez, “Trade of medieval Europe: the South”, pp. 379–401.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

67

2.8 Apogee of Gold In the second half of the century, changes in supply, price movements, and conscious monetary policies led, also finally in England, to the creations of higher silver (groats and their halves) and gold denominations, and to reductions in the weight of the basic penny.381 In Europe and the Mediterranean, in parallel with the mutations affecting silver and silver-based currencies, the gold florin/ ducat established itself as a standard system of payment and value,382 replacing earlier unified systems such as the solidus or dinar, or the different weight units of fine metals known in the west and in Byzantium.383 Throughout the fourteenth century, high-end monetary exchanges in the commercial and diplomatic arenas increasingly took place in these gold coins. In all parts of Europe, with the possible exception of Venice, the bullion crises even affected gold.384 2.9 Late Medieval Bullion Famine The classic late medieval bullion famine set in during the last decade of the fourteenth century or early decades of the fifteenth,385 and influenced the remainder of the century. For instance, it has been estimated that in 1470 the overall money supply in England was still no higher than it had been in 1300.386 The causes for this famine were manifold, and were as much physical (the developments in mining, waves of hoarding), as they were structural and political. One of its main consequences was the re-organisation of the monetary stock, and the prioritisation of certain areas of expenditure, for instance international trade, especially with the east (see above), and warfare. In this context money was required for the payment of money fiefs, mercenaries, and key infrastructures and materials.387 Also other key functions of the state, and of aristocratic and bourgeois society and its economy more generally, had come to rely increasingly on wages paid to functionaries, servants, and labourers of many descriptions.388 Some of the limited bullion reserves 381  Stewartby, English Coins. 382  Spufford, Money and its usage, chapter 14, pp. 319–338. 383  Appendix III.7, pp. 1581–1585. 384  Day, “Great bullion famine”, pp. 14–17. 385  The subject of Day, “Great bullion famine”. See also Day, “Monetary contraction” and Spufford, Money and its use, chapter 15, pp. 339–362. 386  Mayhew, “Population, Money Supply, and the Velocity of Circulation”, esp. p. 244. 387  For some examples of fourteenth-century mercenaries, see Fowler, Medieval mercenaries; on money fiefs see Spufford, Money and its use, p. 247. 388  The payment of workers may have had an influence on the monetary system itself: see Saccocci, “Wage payments”. On wage labour in the building, mining and cloth industries, see the various discussions in volume 2 of the Cambridge economic history of Europe (see

68

Chapter 1

had to be set aside for such payments. Most people in late medieval times were still toiling the land in different states of dependency, and the ongoing bullion famines may have hit such users of coins – frequently the much neglected lower denominations – the hardest.389 Only the discovery of more central European silver sources at the very end of the medieval period allowed all strata of European society to return to the kinds of monetary usage they had enjoyed a couple of centuries previously. Whatever one’s view as to the interrelationship of population trends, money supply and the performance of the medieval economy, it is clear that a number of contemporaneous crises were in place, leaving not least a strong mark on the cultural outlook of the continent, which was gripped in an equal measure by pessimism and ostentation.390 2.10 Minting Money was central to the exercise of political power in the feudal west. The determination of the legal tender and organisation of minting were considered sovereign rights.391 The right to mint could be conferred on or taken away from vassals by the sovereign according to certain conditions. Minting could be delegated, pledged, farmed out, and sold. It could also be usurped, or individual stipulations, regarding in particular the standard of minting, could be ignored or undermined. The right to mint entailed a considerable financial benefit. Coinage (‘monetagium’) was composed of the cost of the minting operation (‘brassage’) and the profit paid to the person(s) holding the minting rights (‘seigniorage’). Monetagium had amounted to ca. 10% since Carolingian times. It became larger as farmed out operations were expected to yield profit for more than one interested party, and especially as debasements (see above), sometimes hidden, decreased the amount of bullion effectively paid out to the recipient.392 It was common in later medieval Europe for minting rights to be exploited by private individuals and companies, especially from Lombardy

p. 57, n. 322 above) and Le Goff, Moyen âge et l’argent, p. 45. Wages are also dealt with extensively in Spufford, Money and its use, passim. See specifically pp. 321–325 on the pressures on this system caused by the bullion famine. 389  Spufford, Money and its use, p. 395. 390  Day, “Crises and trends”. See also the opening words of this book, p. xi. 391  On what follows, see Luschin von Ebengreuth, Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte, pp. 235–275, esp. p. 259; Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, pp. 16–17; Bompaire and Dumas, Numismatique médiévale, pp. 383–451; Travaini, Monete e storia, pp. 158–162; Kluge, Numismatik des Mittelalters, pp. 52–54. Specifically on the right to mint in a crusader context, see Kool, “Vadum Jacob”. 392  As is noted in Rolnick et al., “Debasement puzzle”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

69

and Tuscany, who evidently possessed the right know-how and capital.393 The heavy reliance on seigniorage is typical for regal or princely mints – England and Naples being prime examples394 –, much less so for instance for those of the major city states of Italy.395 Villani himself attributed the demise of the Bardi and Peruzzi Companies of Florence to their financial involvements with England and Sicily (Naples).396 To ensure their provisioning with bullion, mints of all types were almost universally established near the main trading areas of the locations in question, although of course the exercise of political power and physical protection were additional considerations.397 2.11 Money Market398 In later medieval times, the money market in the Latin west was an important prop for the political and economic systems. It has been described extensively in all its facets.399 The need to exchange currencies or simply to change old specimens into new ones can be traced back to earlier medieval times. These processes often involved the production of new specie, and money changing 393  This particular point has been made by Spufford, “Mint organisation in late medieval Europe” and re-visited by Travaini, “Sedi di zecca”, p. 73. 394  On the commercial exploitation of minting in England, see in the latest instance Allen, Mints and money, pp. 81–88; for Naples many documents have been published and interpreted: see for instance Strehlke, “Münzgeschichte des Königreiches Neapel II”, p. 195, no. 73; Strehlke, “Münzgeschichte des Königreiches Neapel III”, pp. 309–311, no. 110; pp. 313–314, no. 116; pp. 314–324, no. 118; Sambon, “Roberto d’Angiò”, pp. 188; 191–192; 194– 195; Caggese, Roberto d’Angiò, 1, p. 619, n. 1; MEC, pp. 221, 223, 228; Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, pp. 11–13; Baker, “Casálbore”, pp. 182–184. 395  Consider that in Florence during the fourteenth century there were no significant manifestations of pressures bearing on the monetary system, despite the economic and financial crises, population collapse, and frequent warfare. One of the principal reasons for this was that minting was not exploited in the same fashion as elsewhere: Cipolla, Monetary policy of fourteenth-century Florence. 396  Sambon, “Roberto d’Angiò”, p. 185. See also here below on credit and public debt. 397  On the positioning of mints, see generally Spufford and Mayhew, Later medieval mints; Travaini, Luoghi della moneta and the same author’s Monete e storia, pp. 173–177. 398  The financial services which were available in medieval Greece are considered specifically in Chapter 3, pp. 217–224. 399  For general treatments see for instance: Lopez and Raymond, Medieval trade in the Mediterranean world, pp. 158–235; De Roover, “Organisation of trade”, esp. pp. 49–59 and 66–105; Lopez, The commercial revolution, pp. 70–79 and 103–105; Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe, pp. 146–154; Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe, pp. 404–426; Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution, pp. 182–187; Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, pp. 65–89; Day, “Merchants and financiers”; Spufford, Money and its use, pp. 252–263; Day, “Monnaie et crédit”; Mueller, The Venetian money market; Spufford, Power and profit, pp. 22–59; Spufford, How rarely did medieval merchants use coins?; and Le Goff, Moyen âge et l’argent, pp. 151–162.

70

Chapter 1

frequently occurred near mints, or indeed changing and minting were undertaken by the same institutions.400 Quite naturally, exchanging currency came to be accompanied by the lending of the same.401 In the age of the commercial revolution, and the rise in monetisation, the need to convert and lend also saw a parallel rise. These operations became increasingly well organised and entailed great profit in the form of interest and related charges – either overt or disguised as penalties or particular exchange rates. These loans and exchanges could also occur at larger temporal or geographical removes, to the same person or to a third party, following the drawing up of a contract or bill of exchange.402 Re-payment could also be made conditional upon the safe completion of a particular voyage through a so-called sea loan, later a sea exchange (‘cambium maritimum’). Insurance for the same eventualities was also available. There were other types of contracts which spread risks and profits differently. Through a commenda (‘collegantia’/‘colleganza’ in Venice), shares of money were invested by the parties who either travelled by sea or remained at home. These partnerships were usually limited to one venture. A ‘compagnia’, by contrast, entailed a much firmer commitment by the parties or partners, originally members of the same family. Such companies or firms were engaged in all kinds of businesses and also offered financial services, sometimes on a grand scale also involving governments. Money was, in certain parts of medieval Europe, very frequently deposited in banks of varying sizes, who in turn extended credit to their customers in the form of overdrafts. On a very local level, even within peasant contexts, there is evidence for small-value loans and deferred payments.403 The state was one of the principal users of monetary services. Certain forms of credit provided the backbone of public finances during the troubled and costly later medieval period. The important states of the west were able to secure loans on a scale and consistency which was unheard of for the Byzantine Empire.404 Debt usually grew throughout the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Many of these loans were provided by financial institutions, but the republics of Venice, Florence and Genoa operated a system of forced loans based on assessments of the ability to pay.405 Such shares/state bonds in the consolidated 400  As was the case in England: Allen, Mints and money, pp. 214–237. 401  De Roover, Lettre de change, p. 23. 402  On this subject matter, see the same De Roover, Lettre de change. 403  Dyer, “Peasants and coins”, p. 43. 404  See above, p. 45. 405  Luzzatto, Debito pubblico della repubblica di Venezia; Lane, “Funded debt of the Venetian Republic”; Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe, pp. 273 and 433; Cipolla, Monetary

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL WEST

71

debt (‘monte’) could, after a certain period, be passed on or traded, just like the shares in some of the companies. Yet states relied on firms not merely for loans, but also to arrange the numerous transfers that were required in the age of the crusades, nascent colonial empires, and continuous warfare. They actively courted the companies and their representatives,406 who in turn developed closer relations with the powers, profiting, as we have seen, from privileges such as the right to mint, or holding outright political office. The sophistication of the money market usually reflected that of the general monetisation of a given area. It accentuated rather than counteracted developments which were already underway. This enabled, for instance, potent political forces to accumulate even more resources, or successful commercial enterprises to spread an ever greater web, engage in ever more ventures, into which they injected more money. The money market was also very tightly linked to the monetary developments themselves: overall rates of lending and borrowing were linked to the availability of specie. The different crises of the later medieval period often had monetary components, as we have seen, and at these moments the money market was also put under enormous strains. The great crash of 1343–1346, which has just been alluded to, came at the height of the first bullion famine.407 The money supply may have been increased by overdrafts in the case a bank operated on a fractional reserve and credits were transferable,408 or through shares in companies and states, where available.409 However, this would again have occurred to any significant extent only in certain periods and confined contexts,410 those in which the money supply was already good and regular. Of the various components of the Fisher equation (see above), credit and other financial instruments impacted probably mostly on the way that money was handled (V).

policy of fourteenth-century Florence, pp. 4 and 12; Day, “Monnaie et crédit”, pp. 128–133; Mueller, The Venetian money market, pp. 453–487; Epstein, Economic and social history of later medieval Europe, pp. 235–236. 406  See the cases of England (Prestwich, “Italian merchants in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England”), and of France and adjoining territories (Bautier, “Les Lombards et les problèmes du crédit”). 407  On the specific connection of money shortage and the failed repayments of loans, see Spufford, Money and its use, p. 347ff. 408  Day, “Monetary contraction”, p. 55. 409  Bills of exchange could not be used in lieu of currency. See for instance Day, “Great bullion famine”, pp. 3–4; Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, p. 275. 410  See, for instance, the opinions voiced on fourteenth-century England, above p. 66. For a less sceptical view, see Bolton, Money in the medieval English economy, pp. 268–270.

72

Chapter 1

2.12 Money Wars Banking was, as we have seen, to a significant degree born out of confusions in the prevailing monies. One can appreciate that in the medieval period a constant monetary war of sorts was raging, whether amongst the main metals, between lords and their vassals, and the dependent peasantry, between the intrinsic and face values of coins, between one mint and the next, or a combination of all. In the medieval Greek context we will encounter a number of these problems. One specific scenario which was fostered by monetary diversity and mutations, and which can very much affect the behavioural patterns of coins, relates to the workings of Gresham’s Law.411 According to this, coins whose metrological and intrinsic superiority, as compared to other contemporary coins, are not adequately acknowledged by official rates, will be removed from usage and circulation through export or hoarding. Such possibilities are further explored in Chapter 2.412 3

The Numismatics of Medieval Greece413

Research into the coinages of medieval Greece has a long pedigree, but the writing of numismatics has only seldom infringed on the main historiography of the area, and even less so in a manner which goes beyond the odd casual reference to the basic bibliography of Schlumberger, Metcalf, or Tzamalis.414 Coins have naturally informed the evaluation of other archaeological materials, but often in very subtle ways. This inter-relationship is explored in the next chapter, as well as in Chapter 4. Therefore, I have decided to summarise at this point the numismatic contributions in their own right, without however being exhaustive nor going into the pre-history of the discipline.

411  A number of historical examples are discussed in Asolati and Gorini, Legge di Gresham. See also above, p. 48. 412  See specifically pp. 161–176. 413  Some of this discussion has also appeared in Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece”. 414  The main coinage issues struck in medieval Greece are discussed in Appendix II.8 and 9, pp. 1357–1491.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

73

3.1 Nineteenth Century: Schlumberger, Lambros, and Others The second half of the nineteenth century is defined by the work of Gustave Schlumberger415 and Pavlos Lambros.416 As Metcalf has mentioned,417 Schlumberger presented such a clear overview of all the known issues that his monograph has functioned as a standard work of reference to our day, becoming only partially displaced by Metcalf’s own catalogue of the crusader coins in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.418 In fact, one of the reasons why medieval Greek coins received such early and comprehensive attention was that they were usually treated together with other crusader coins, those of Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, and other areas. De Saulcy, Schlumberger’s teacher, had for instance already presented another monograph on crusader numismatics earlier in the nineteenth century.419 With the main series in good order at a comparatively early stage,420 other writers were able to publish coin finds with confidence: we can mention for instance a very early reference to a Peloponnesian hoard,421 a hoard from Eleusina which came to the attention of Lenormant,422 a number of hoards discovered during a prolific excavation campaign at Delphi,423 or, in the earlier twentieth century, respective hoards from Attica424 and Boiotia.425 Hoards of medieval Greek coins were also found and published during these years from outside of the immediate area of circulation:426 South Italy,427 Thrace,428 and Rhodes.429 Frankish Greek coins were also subjected to metallurgical analyses in this early period.430 415  Schlumberger, Numismatique. 416  His typological discoveries, often presented in articles (see the bibliography), informed the work of Schlumberger as well as being summarised in Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα και μολυβδόβουλλα. 417  Metcalf, “A New Catalogue”. 418  Metcalf, Ashmolean. The more recent edition supersedes that of 1983. 419  De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades. 420  The coinage of Naxos was most comprehensively treated after the appearance of Schlumberger’s book, in Papadopoli, “Zecca di Nasso”. See further Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494. 421  Cumano, “Numismatica”. See «208». Note that finds in their specific geographical contexts, either in terms of towns or regions, are addressed in Chapter 4, pp. 425–483. 422  Lenormant, “Monnaies”. See «109». 423  Caron, “Delphes”. See «121»; «154»; «196»; «198». 424  Grantley, “Crusaders”. See «210». 425  Cox, Caparelli. See «167». 426  Discussed also in Chapter 2, pp. 99–100 and in the Conclusions, pp. 488–496. 427  De Petra, “Tesoretto di tornesi”. See «399». 428  De Vogüé, “Monnaies et sceaux”. See «491». 429  Schwabacher, “Zwei Denarfunde”. See «469». 430  Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων”.

74

Chapter 1

3.2 Developments in Byzantine Numismatics Byzantine numismatics had much less assured beginnings, particularly as regards the period from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries.431 In the first half of the twentieth century scholars still had to rely on Sabatier’s general treatment432 and the relevant British Museum Catalogues.433 Fundamental attributions given in these works were simply wrong. Take, for example, the Anonymous Folles, the supposed issues of the Latin empire, many copper and gold issues of the thirteenth-century successor state–, while whole swathes of issues were misunderstood in terms of their mints, denominations, functions, and chronologies. An important early contribution to the Byzantine numismatics specific to our area was the publication of a mid-thirteenth century hoard from Arta.434 Medieval Currencies Imported into Greece 3.3 Other monetary traditions which were relevant to medieval Greece – Venetian,435 French royal and feudal,436 English,437 Chiot,438 and Serbian439 – were well served with reasoned catalogues by the late nineteenth and earlier twentieth century.440 3.4 Early Developments in Medieval Greek Excavation Coins In these years the potential in publishing excavation coins was also finally realised, and by the time of World War II and its immediate aftermath a few important bodies of excavation coins had become available, notably from Ancient Corinth,441 the Athenian Agora,442 and in much smaller quantities 431   Byzantine-style coinages are specifically discussed in Appendix II.1, pp. 1197–1277. 432  Sabatier, Description générale. 433  B MC; BMC Vandals. 434  Mattingly, “Arta”. See «66». 435  Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia. 436  Ciani, Monnaies royales françaises; Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France. 437  The types and chronologies of the relevant short cross and long cross pennies were established in Lawrence, “Short-Cross” and “Long-Cross”. 438  Promis, La zecca di Scio. 439  Ljubić, Opis jugoslavenskih novaca. 440  Also these are extensively considered in the appendix, esp. Appendix II.2–6, pp. 1277–1352. 441  Bellinger, “The coins”; Bellinger, Corinth; Edwards, Coins 1896–1929; Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”; Harris, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939”. See the relevant entries «36», «43», «53», «56», «57», «70», «76», «212», «217», «223», «263», «264», «266», «271», «272», «277». 442  Shear, “Analytical Table of Coins”; Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period. See «17», «120», «178», «214», «238».

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

75

from places such as Sparta,443 Eutresis,444 Orchomenos in Arcadia,445 and Delphi.446 There are also some short entries in the BCH which can be added to the cited examples. 3.5 Developments from the 1960s: Metcalf and Others Nevertheless, after the surge in activities in the nineteenth century, and the subsequent publication of finds, little analytical work was carried out on the coinages of medieval Greece in the middle years of last century. This was changed during the 1960s and 1970s in a remarkable surge of activities by Michael Metcalf, who benefitted from a close working relationship with the Athens Numismatic Museum and other institutions in Greece. He extrapolated the chronology and circulation of the main denier tournois series on the basis of coin finds,447 he looked at the production and circulation of the petty denomination issues of Athens and Achaïa with reference to material from the Athenian Agora,448 he investigated the typology – especially the so-called mint marks and the style of lettering – of the deniers tournois with great precision,449 and he wrote also on the earlier phase of imported French tournois and English sterling pennies.450 This attention to Latin-style coinages, combined with his parallel work on coins of the Byzantine tradition (see below), laid the foundations for the Greek chapters in his seminal book Coinage in the Balkans, later revised as Metcalf, SE Europe.451 Other names worth mentioning for these years are D.N. Artemis, A.J. Seltman, and D. Kravartogiannos, who published widely on finds and types of medieval Greek coins.452

443  Woodward, “Note on the Coins found in 1924–1925”; Woodward, “The Coins”. See «194», «351», «352». 444  Goldman, Eutresis, p. 8. See «290». 445  Blum and Plassart, “Orchomène d’Arcadie”. See «339». 446  Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων, pp. 61–62. See «284». 447  Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”. 448  Metcalf, “Areopagus”. See «55». 449  Metcalf, “Pylia”. See «92». 450  Metcalf, “Areopagus”; Metcalf, “Berbati”. See «51» and «54». 451  This book was recently reprinted in Athens, together with an introductory essay and a couple of essays on Byzantine trachea: Metcalf, SE Europe Greek edition. 452  See the appended bibliography and «116», «122», «136», «152», «177», «185», «202», «229», «298».

76

Chapter 1

3.6 Byzantine-Style Coins: Metcalf, Hendy, and Others Michael Metcalf also investigated in great detail the Byzantine-style copper/ billon453 and gold coinages454 of the twelfth/thirteenth centuries, particularly from Greek finds. This paved the way for the identification of very significant imitative and counterfeit coinages, that is to say coinages which had in the past been considered to be of the Komnenian emperors, but which are now attributed to various thirteenth-century authorities. The most significant contribution in this respect has been that of Michael Hendy, who postulated the existence of large-scale billon trachy emissions at Latin Constantinople and Thessalonike, and in the second Bulgarian empire.455 Subsequent publications, particularly of Greek material, have doubt some on these attributions.456 For instance, the existence of a Latin mint at Thessalonike has been rejected, and the entire so-called ‘Bulgarian’ series has been re-christened as ‘Faithful Copies’. Nevertheless, the resolution of these outstanding controversies is of much greater importance for the monetary history of Macedonia, Thrace, Bulgaria, Constantinople, and western Anatolia, than it is for Greece proper. No billon trachea of the early-thirteenth century imitative varieties, with the exception of some counterfeits,457 were produced in our primary area, and the widespread circulation of issues of Constantinopolitan mintage was largely confined to the first decade of the thirteenth century.458 The gold coinage of Latin Constantinople in the name of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1221–1254), which has been identified with good confidence only 453  Bellinger and Metcalf, “Arcadia”; Metcalf, “Byzantine scyphate bronze coinage”; Metcalf, “Brauron”; Metcalf, “Tetarteron”. See «1», «16», «25», «29», «31», «32», «33», «217». 454  Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus”; Metcalf, “Agrinion Hoard”. See «40», «41», «45», «46», «62». 455  His findings were first published in DOS XII, and largely recapitulated thirty years later in DOC IV. The billon trachy coinages are examined in Appendix II.1.B, pp. 1207–1246. 456  See, from the large body of scholarship on these issues, for instance the expositions of Michael Metcalf (“Peter and Paul”; “Byzantinobulgarica”; “Amorgos and Thira hoards”; “Faithful Copies”; review of DOC IV; “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki”), Manto Oikonomidou (“La circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle”; Oikonomidou, “Τρείς θησαυροί”), and Ioannis Touratsoglou (“Unpublished Byzantine hoards”; “Edessa”; “Aiani”; “Βραστά”; “Άρτα”; “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”). See further the joint opinion of the Athens Numismatic Museum expressed in Galani-Krikou et al., Συλλογή Ηλία Κάντα, and with regard to Serbia, Gaj-Popović, “Trésors de monnaies concaves byzantines”. In addition to the hoards listed in n. 453 above, see for instance «4», «5», «19», «20», «22», «23», «24», «26», «27», «28», «30», «34», «35», «37», «44». 457   Zervos, “Irregular copper coins of the early thirteenth century”. See «268» and Appendix II.1.B.4, p. 1233. 458  Many of the Greek hoards of Byzantine-style coins are now fully published in Σύνταγμα.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

77

relatively recently,459 was all the more important in Greece. At the lowest denominational level, counterfeit tetartera of southern Greece have been known for a long time, but more clearly defined only in recent years.460 Also Hendy’s treatment of the rare but interesting trachea of the Arta mint is not uncontroversial: his extremely conservative approach to what might and might not be accepted as a genuine issue of that mint will necessitate revisions in the light of counter-suggestions and the archaeological data.461 Whatever the precise identity and number of types, the overall shape of the trachy coinage of Michael II Komnenos Doukas of Epiros at Arta (who ruled ca. 1236 to 1266–1268) is now fairly well understood. The coinage of the Palaiologan empire (post-1259/1261) has also been treated with much more attention in recent decades, and DOC V offers a comprehensive overview.462 With regard to the billon trachea of Emperor Michael VIII, a string of three to four Epirote hoards, which have been the attention of Touratsoglou,463 are particularly noteworthy. The other main discovery in late Byzantine coinage which affects medieval Greece has been the identification of a tornese issue of Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) at a Lakonian mint.464 459   Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”. See Appendix II.1.D.4, pp. 1260–1264. 460  The existence of counterfeit tetartera, although mentioned in writings by Thompson and Metcalf, amongst others, was not considered in Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής” and the Σύνταγμα. More recently different elements have been added to this subject matter by Orestes Zervos in his reports from the Corinth Excavations (see below), by Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation”, Baker, “Argos”, Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, Penna, “Χρήμα και αγορά στην Αχαϊα”, Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, and by various contributors to the Argos conference in May 2011, e.g. Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”, Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. On these tetartera, see further Chapter 1, p. 12 and Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206, which also lists all the relevant finds. 461  The principal protagonists in this debate have been Simon Bendall (“Michael II”), Manto Oikonomidou (“Michel II d’Epire”; et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”; “Ανασκόπηση της νομισματοκοπίας του ‘Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου’”), Petros Protonotarios (“Η νομισματοκοπία του βυζαντινού κράτους της Ηπείρου (1204–1268)”; “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”; “Michael I or II of Epeiros”), and Ioannis Touratsoglou (“Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, pp. 387 and 390). See further on this coinage and the relevant finds: Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243. 462  See also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”. The important developments in the coinages of the Palaiologan empire are also discussed above in this chapter, pp. 46–57. 463  “Άρτα”; “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”: the second of these offers a synthesis which relies on dates of concealment that are too late (1274, instead of about a decade earlier). See Appendix II.1.B.8, pp. 1243–1245, listing the relevant finds. 464  Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”. See Appendix II.1.E.3, pp. 1272–1273, listing the relevant finds.

78

Chapter 1

3.7 Anastasios Tzamalis In the wake particularly of Metcalf’s initial publications, work on the Latin-style coinages of medieval Greece has gone in a number of directions. Most fundamental has been the continued investigation of the typologies of the main series of deniers tournois, and the publication of coin finds. Distinguished contributions were made by the late Anastasios Tzamalis. After a couple of early hoard reports,465 he presented a monograph-length study in 1981 in which he displayed a keen eye for intricate typology, rare and important varieties, and hitherto unavailable archaeological information.466 In his subsequent studies Tzamalis went on to target important hoards of Greek deniers tournois in order to develop further the typology, creating thereby the first comprehensive system of referencing since Schlumberger.467 Inspired by Metcalf,468 he postulated the existence of more than one tournois mint in the principality of Achaïa, although this was later disproven.469 Nevertheless, the groups and subgroups which Tzamalis created for the main series of Achaïa and Athens, which are fully integrated also in Metcalf, Ashmolean, are his lasting achievement and the basis for all future enquiries. Tzamalis’ work on Frankish Greek numismatics has been recently gathered in a single English-language volume.470 3.8 Towards 2000 and Beyond Within the Athens Numismatic Museum, a specific interest in publishing medieval finds began in the 1970s when the former director Eirene Varoucha published a hoard of English coins from Crete,471 and the new director Manto Oikonomidou commissioned Mina Galani-Krikou with medieval coin finds and types.472 Valuable contributions emerged, for instance on the Venetian

465  Tzamalis, “Torneselli”; “Gattilusii”. See «175» and «188». 466  Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας. See «122» and «148». 467  Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”; “Η πρώτη Bʹ”; “Elis”; “Igoumenitsa”. The hoards are «83», «105», «168». 468  Who later wrote “Circulation of tornesia” on this particular topic. 469  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”. In 2016 Metcalf responded to the complex data and arguments rather abruptly: “they [NB: Baker and Ponting] are mistaken”: Metcalf, SE Europe Greek edition, p. XXXIII. The evidence that Achaïa only ever issued tournois at one mint is, however, overwhelming: see Appendix II.9.A, pp. 1376–1427. Also the latest archaeometric information for the period after 1289 suggests the same: Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”. 470  Tzamalis, Coins of the Frankish occupation. 471  Varoucha, “Αγγλικά νομίσματα”. See «466»–«467». 472  See the bibliography.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

79

grosso,473 on Epiros,474 on the numismatic finds from the urban excavations in Thebes,475 and on Akronauplia,476 as much as numerous reports in AD and elsewhere. Coins from the American excavations in Ancient Corinth have also been systematically published again since the late 1960s.477 From the late 1980s onwards, as work on the so-called Frankish Complex began, such material has come to the fore in large quantities and in the resulting publications Orestes Zervos has made full use of the recent typological advances, as well as adding his own insights into many of the series, particularly counterfeit tetartera, Byzantine coinage of the thirteenth century, the petty denomination issues of Achaïa, and counterfeit deniers tournois. Also in the 1980s, inspired by the arrival in New York of a particularly large hoard of Venetian torneselli from the island of Euboia, Alan Stahl began his investigations into this particular currency.478 Since then, he has published widely on the numismatics of the later medieval Aegean,479 as well as on the mint of Venice itself.480 Hoards of medieval Greece keep being published, for instance from Corinth,481 Argos,482 Limnes,483 Messenia,484 Patra and Larisa,485 the Roman Agora in Athens,486 Naxos.487 A recent survey of money in the Peloponnese 473   Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”. 474   Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”. 475   Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Αγία Τριάδα”; “Θήβα – Πολιτιστικό Κέντρο”. See «91», «157», «181», «354», «355». 476   Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”: see «321», although the recent contribution could not be used for Appendix I. 477  See the bibliography for Fisher, Williams, Zervos, and «267» and «268». 478  Stahl, Tornesello; Stahl et al., “The analysis of a hoard of Venetian torneselli”. The hoard in question is «211». 479  See for instance his studies on the Venetian soldino (Stahl, “Cephalonia”: «197») and on the English sterling (Stahl, “The sterling abroad”), and his broader treatments in Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”, “Latin Empire”, Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, and Stahl, “Monetary crosscurrents”. 480  Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”; Stahl, Zecca. 481  Baker, “Corinthe”. The hoard in question is «192». 482  Baker, “Argos”: «38» and «59». 483  Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”: «90». 484  Kontogiannis, “Vasilitsi”: «201». K. Sidiropoulos also added hoards from Messenia at the Argos 2011 conference, which remain unfortunately unpublished: see Preface, p. xxiv. 485  Metcalf, “Three hoards”. See «142», «153», «160». 486  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”: «111» and «149». 487  Stewartby, “The ‘Naxos’ hoard”. See «58». Consider also the more recent hoard of Venetian grossi from the same island: Dellaporta, Panagia Orfani and Chapter 4, p. 479.

80

Chapter 1

was appended with a catalogue of eleven hoards,488 three of which had been previously, but insufficiently, published,489 while the other eight had to that date been completely unknown.490 These eight hoards could not be integrated into Appendix I,491 nor could the very significant Argos 2005a and 2005b hoards which were first made public at the 2011 Argos conference,492 nor the Thebes 2011 and Chalkida 2011 hoards, whose publication is still forthcoming.493 Excavated coins from larger and smaller sites have been treated in recent decades, to name but Clarentza494 and Pylos495 in Elis, Tigani,496 Sparta497 and Agios Stephanos498 in Lakonia, Zaraka,499 Nemea,500 Isthmia,501 and Kenchreai502 in Corinthia, Argos,503 Andros in the Cyclades,504 and on the mainland various sites in Athens,505 and Panakto in Boiotia,506 and at Doliani in Epiros.507 Some significant site finds presented at the Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο conference should also be mentioned in this respect, though these 488  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, pp. 86–90. 489  Pp. 86–87, no. 1: Epidauros 1986 = Epidauros 1904 = «89»; p. 88, no. 3, Vourvoura 1905 = «87»; p. 90, no. 10, Mystras 1934 = «180». 490  Pp. 87–88, no. 2, Epidauros 1891–1892 contained deniers tournois to ca. 1308–1309; p. 89, no. 4, Sikyon 1938, contained 14 soldini to Bartolomeo Gradenigo; no. 5, Phychti 1898, contained tournois and soldini to ca. 1350; no. 6, Isari 1894, was very similar to the previous hoard; no. 7, Mantineia, of 11 soldini, dated perhaps a decade later; pp. 89–90, no. 8, Patra 1939, of 177 soldini and 2 tournois dating to ca. 1400; p. 90, no. 9, Chatzi Vouphrada 1927, a majority tornesello hoard of very similar date; Grivitza 1867, a soldino hoard dating yet a decade later. 491  See further Chapter 4, pp. 427–428. 492  Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομίσματων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”. See again Chapter 4, p. 427. 493  See Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes” and the presentation by S. Skartsis, I. Vaxevanis, and me at the 12th International congress on medieval and modern period Mediterranean ceramics, Athens, October 2018. See further Chapter 4, p. 448. 494  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”; see also Clarence and «216» and «262». 495  Coleman, Pylos: «349». 496  Drandakis, “Έρευναι”; Drandakis et al., “Τηγάνι”: «378». 497  Bland, “Coins”: «351». 498  Janko, “Roman, medieval and modern coins”: «225». 499  Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”: «385». 500  Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III: «60» and «334». 501  Gregory, The Hexamilion, passim: «296». 502  Hohlfelder, Kenchreai: «305». 503  Baker, “Argos”: «38», «59», «236». 504  Kontogiannis, “Τα νομίσματα”: «230». 505  Kleiner, Mediaeval and Modern Coins in the Athenian Agora; Baker, “Thessaly”. See the discussion of Athens in Chapter 4, pp. 448–456, with a list of relevant finds. 506  Gerstel et al., “Panakton”: «340». 507  Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”. This find has not found a place in Appendix I.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

81

are mostly not contained in Appendix I.508 The same contexts which produced the yet to be published Chalkida 2011 hoard (see above) also produced some later stray coins and two jettons. Medieval jettons from Ancient Corinth have also been accurately identified, although some of the proposed monetary functions which such objects might have held in the fourteenth century are to my mind doubtful.509 In neighbouring Albania,510 site finds and hoards are now known from a number of locations of the area covered in this book, Berat,511 Valona (at the castle of Kaninë),512 and Ballsh (medieval Glavinitza),513 as well as from churches in the very south of the country.514 Medieval Greek coins have been extensively published also from other countries/areas, and this has become a significant stream of enquiry.515 We should mention some of the more significant publications on western Europe,516 Italy,517 the Balkans to the north of our primary area,518 and the Levant.519

508  Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”; Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”; Lagos and Karyanos, “Μουχλί”. 509  Saccocci and Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV”. The subject is treated further in Chapter 2, pp. 159–160. 510  Some of the older data are contained in Spahiu, “Monedha bizantine”, although this study is difficult to use owing to the uncertain attributions for the later coins and the frequent lack of specified findspot. On a general note, it is of interest that the entire Albanian territory is apparently devoid of any Byzantine coins later than Andronikos II. This is also confirmed by the numismatic holdings of the Bank of Albania, whose latest Byzantine coin is of Michael VIII: Nikolaou and Papaefthymiou, “Bank of Albania”, p. 139. 511  Spahiu, Qyteti Iliro-Arberor i Beratit: «254». 512  Komata, Kanines: «299». 513  Muçaj and Hobdari, “Manastiri i Shën Mërisë, Ballsh (Glavinicë)”: «253». 514  Muçaj, Lako, Hobdari, Vitaliotis, “Rezultatet e gërmimeve në bazilikën e Shën Janit, Delvinë”; Muçaj, Hobdari, Vitaliotis, “Kisha Mesjetare e Peshkëpisë (Nivicë)”: «147» and «156». 515  The coins are listed in Appendix I.5ff and discussed in Chapter 2, pp. 99–100 and the Conclusions, pp. 485–496. 516  Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”. 517  Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”; Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”; MEC; Degasperi, “Le monete”; Baker, “Apulia”; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”; Baker, “Denari tornesi”; Degasperri, “Salento”; Ranucci, Cittareale. 518  To cite just a selection: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”; Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1987”; Jurukova, “Moneti na latinski feodalni vladeteli v Gărcija”; Saulnier, Thasos, have all been used for Appendix I, not so Maladakis, “Late Byzantine Chalkidiki”, which provides a very interesting regional survey. A number of finds of deniers tournois and related coinages from Thrace are now available in Baker, “Ainos”; Baker, “Edirne”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”, which feature only seldom in Appendix I. 519  Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”.

82

Chapter 1

Within Greece, a number of regional medieval monetary surveys have been attempted, on the Cyclades,520 on Epiros and west central Greece,521 on Thessaly and east central Greece,522 and on Elis in the Peloponnese.523 A survey of money in the thirteenth-century Peloponnese provides a comprehensive account of hoards of Byzantine-style coins, but largely leaves aside single finds and coins of a western tradition.524 Two Peloponnesian conferences also resulted in overviews for the entire peninsula.525 There is, finally, a contribution which contrasts Greek and Anatolian developments at the turn of the thirteenth century.526 There are some specific studies dealing with the coinages produced in medieval Greece, or foreign coins circulating there. One of these was another attempt, in the wake of Galani-Krikou’s article, at explaining the presence of Venetian grossi in Greece.527 Two studies have dissected the main issues and types – in terms of chronologies, minting structures, metrologies – of Clarentza, Thebes, and Naupaktos, in the periods ca. 1267–1289, and 1289–1313, on the basis of new archaeometric data.528 Some particular petty denomination issues of Athens at Thebes have been unconvincingly re-attributed to the fourteenth century.529 The smaller mints have also received special consideration, for instance Neopatra, based on a corpus of extant specimens and a die study;530 or Salona, in the light of a specimen appearing at auction.531 Finally, as part of a large-scale project on Italian mints, the mints of medieval Greece

520  Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, which had also been able to incorporate the information provided by Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. 521   Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”. 522  Baker, “Thessaly”; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”. 523  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”. 524  Penna, “Χρήμα και αγορά στην Αχαϊα”. Its late dating of many of the billon trachy hoards of the conquest period also raises doubts (1219). 525  Baker and Stahl, “Morea” and Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”. 526  Turnator, “Coin circulation”. 527  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”. 528  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”; Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”. The second of these items appeared too recently to be fully integrated into the relevant sections of Appendix II.9. 529   Mazarakis, “Coins of the de Brienne and Enghien”. See also Appendix II.8.A.3, pp. 1363–1364. 530  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”. On this particular issue, see Appendix II.9.G, pp. 1453–1462. 531  Mazarakis, “Salona”. See Appendix II.9.E, pp. 1444.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

83

were considered in the colonial section with the justification that they were ultimately under the authority of the Angevin crown of Sicily (Naples).532 Some of the foreign coinages which circulated in Greece have received new standard references, for instance all South Italian coins in the form of MEC,533 and the significant coinage of the Campobasso and related mints with individual studies.534 The coins of medieval Serbia535 and Chios,536 of royal and feudal France,537 or of early thirteenth-century England,538 are all better known and dated than they were a century ago, and this knowledge naturally adds accuracy to our own Greek state of affairs. 3.9 Monographs, Reference Works, and the Internet By the early years of the new millennium the coinages of medieval Greece were therefore known through this plethora of individual studies on types, hoards and excavation finds. The most recent comprehensive and analytical narrative of all the available types and finds in their historical context, Metcalf, SE Europe, nevertheless dated back to 1979. A number of reference works could now be used in addition to Schlumberger’s Numismatique, which by this stage looked rather old fashioned with its juxtaposition of political history and coin types, though none could totally displace it. There was for instance Tzamalis’ book, or Metcalf’s publication of the Ashmolean collection, or indeed Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, which is another good, if not always reliable, attempt at summarizing the available data. The latter two books also contain lists of coin finds which, nevertheless, have largely ignored single finds and are now more than two decades out of date. In 1997 an important collection of medieval Greek coins went on sale and the accompanying catalogue is a useful

532   Baker, “Arta”, “Caritena”, “Chiarenza”, “Chio”, “Corfù”, “Corinto”, “Damala”, “Lepanto”, “Leuca”, “Nasso”, “Negroponte”, “Neopatra”, “Salona”, “Tebe”, “Teno”. 533  M  EC 6 and 12, dealing respectively with Iberia and northern Italy, cover coinages that are more marginal to medieval Greece (with the obvious exception of Venice, which in itself had already been studied to an exceptionally high degree before the appearance of volume 12). Due to its relatively recent publication, MEC 12 has also not be fully referred to in this book. 534  Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero. Important additions since the later 1990s are incorporated in D’Andrea et al., Monete del Molise. 535  Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje. 536  Mazarakis, “Chio”; Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου. Another useful brief overview of the Chiot coinage of the Zaccaria is Valakou, “Coins of the Zaccaria family (1304–1329)”. 537  Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales; Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales. 538  Mass, English short cross coins.

84

Chapter 1

tool.539 Reprints of Metcalf’s and Tzamalis’ main monographs may increase their readerships.540 Of course the internet is potentially the most convenient place to publicise new data regarding coin finds and types. The Italian site https://www.lamo neta.it/ hosts individual studies on the denier tournois of Greece and on the denier tournois in Italy, though the entries have not been updated since 2011.541 Also from Italy, one should mention a searchable database of hoards edited by Luca Gianazza, which is regularly updated and contains many of the hoards discussed in this book.542 These electronic resources have not been systematically integrated into this book. 3.10 Greek Medieval Numismatics and General History In the introduction to this discussion I indicated that the interaction of monetary history with the general historiography has been fairly limited for the medieval Greek context. For late medieval Romania more widely, a number of writers, discussed in the earlier part of this chapter, have straddled both subjects, coming either from the historical (Michel Balard543 and Angeliki Laiou544) or numismatic traditions (Tomaso Bertelè and Cécile Morrisson545), yet their focus has been predominantly on the area around Macedonia and Thrace, Constantinople, and the Black Sea. With regard to Frankish/Latin Greece, there was a conference specifically on money and markets (Chalkida, 1997), although in the resulting publication the two historiographical traditions remain largely separate.546 The same can unfortunately also be said with respect to more recent attempts: around 2004, the anniversary of the Fourth Crusade spurred writers to assess the significance of this historical event also in monetary terms.547 A conference at Dumbarton Oaks on the Latin Morea also incorporated a contribution on money,548 as did some 539  Slocum Collection. 540  Metcalf, SE Europe Greek edition and Tzamalis, Coins of the Frankish occupation. 541  Cecchinato, “Il denaro tornese della Grecia franca”; Fabrizi, “Il denaro tornese nell’Italia meriodionale”. 542  Repertorio. 543  See for instance p. 52, n. 298. 544  Who, for example, reconstructs coin circulation in Epiros on the basis of documentary sources: Laiou, “Epiros”. 545  Consider for instance pp. 47 and 52 above. 546  Published as N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003). 547   Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”; Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “Eclatement du monnayage”; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”. 548  Baker and Stahl, “Morea”.

HISTORICAL AND MONETARY CONTEXT: MEDIEVAL GREEK NUMISMATICS

85

collective works on later medieval Mediterranean history.549 Two modern Greek historians have in relatively recent decades attempted to reconstruct monetary affairs, the second and more recent contribution being, despite its promising title, of very little use indeed.550 Angevin Achaïa and its main town of Clarentza are those subject areas in which monetary and political/economic history are the most frequently intertwined. The reason for this is that those modern historians using the Registri and the older bibliography based on the Angevin archives in Naples will frequently encounter references to the mint and to royal monetary policy for Greece.551

549  Stahl, “Monetary crosscurrents”; Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece”. 550  Moschonas, “Νομίσματα”, which deals with the Ionian islands; Ploumidis, “Νομισματική αγορά κατά τη λατινοκρατία”. 551   Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, pp. 156–160 and passim; Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 201–203 and passim.

Chapter 2

Coin Production and Circulation in Medieval Greece according to the Material Evidence This chapter is designed to explore the numismatic documentation regarding coinage and money in the primary area.1 These data are then drawn together and presented in wider political and socio-economic contexts in Chapter 3. In the present chapter the information developed in Appendix I and II is first summarised in a diachronic ‘overview’ of general monetary trends. In the further course of this chapter I focus on precise aspects of the numismatic material, archaeological and technical, thereby preparing and processing it for further usage. A number of provisos apply to the entire chapter, and would be too cumbersome to repeat in the discussions: coin finds and types can only touch upon certain aspects of money and ignore whole spheres of monetary usage and circulation. There is still a relative dearth of coin finds for medieval Greece and a host of chronologies, patterns and phenomena rely on little evidence and will require modification once new data emerge. 1 Overview Transition from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Century: Byzantine-Style Coins In 1200 the area under consideration was dominated by the Byzantine copper tetarteron coinage of the Komnenoi and Angeloi emperors, which was probably minted exclusively at Constantinople.2 This tetarteron coinage was hoarded and not retrieved as a direct consequence of the conquest itself. It also remained in circulation predominantly over the first few decades of the thirteenth century, in ever decreasing quantities, but may have been confined to certain, mostly urban, contexts.3 This coinage was supplemented by counterfeits known as the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ – produced very likely in the Argolis in the first decade of the thirteenth century – which were also available in 1.1

1  Parts of the present chapter, much abbreviated, are contained in Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece”. 2  Appendix II.1.A, pp. 1197–1201. The coinages of the twelfth century are also discussed in the context of the unified middle Byzantine Empire in Chapter 1, pp. 8–24. 3  Appendix II.1.A.1, pp. 1201–1203. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_003

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

87

Corinthia, Attica and to a lesser degree Boiotia and Euboia. The tetarteron coinage of the thirteenth-century Byzantine successor states in Macedonia and Anatolia was confined – as far as our area is concerned – to Epiros.4 The Byzantine billon trachy coinage was, within the same area, in the twelfth century largely limited to Epiros and the western Mainland, but was probably also available in Thessaly and perhaps in a thin band to the south thereof.5 The twelfth-century billon trachy coinage first arrived in the other parts of the area under consideration, notably most of the Peloponnese and the Cyclades, as a direct consequence of the conquests, together with issues produced around 1204 and thereafter.6 In this book, I reject the ‘Bulgarian’ identification of the Faithful Copies, which are to be considered Constantinopolitan, minted in all likelihood in the years just before and/or after the conquest of the city by the army of the Fourth Crusade in April 1204.7 We must assume that Faithful Copies first came to Greece in the direct wake of this event, carried there by the crusaders who had previously been in receipt of this coinage from the last Byzantine and/or the first Latin authorities in the city. It is nevertheless true that the large-scale hoarding of billon trachea only occurred as the so-called Latin Imitative issues came to be added to the mix, in the period after ca. 1205.8 This Latin Imitative coinage, and to a lesser extent the coinage of Theodore I Laskaris, embody a dramatic increase in coin production and connectivity in and across the Balkans and Anatolia. It also augmented the availability of monetary specie in our area. Nevertheless, this was a transient development since after about 1210 the importance of Constantinople and of Anatolia9 as a source of coinage decreased, and even the products of the new Byzantine mint at Thessalonike (from 1224), which were available in somewhat larger quantities than those of Nicaea, soon began to display rather mixed patterns of importation and usage in Greece.10 Within our area there were two outright instances of trachy production. The first was a very discreet wave of counterfeits in the Peloponnese just after 1204, perhaps in part related to the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ of tetartera.11 At Arta in

4  Appendix II.1.A.3, p. 1206. 5   Appendix II.1.B, p. 1210. 6  Byzantine-style coinages after the Fourth Crusade, in the different states 1204–1261, and in the Palaiologan empire after 1261, are considered in Chapter 1, pp. 46–57. 7  Appendix II.1.B.2, pp. 1212–1221. 8  Appendix II.1.B.3, pp. 1221–1233. 9  Appendix II.1.B.5, pp. 1233–1236. 10  Appendix II.1.B.6, pp. 1236–1240. 11  Appendix II.1.B.4, p. 1233.

88

Chapter 2

Epiros, Michael II Komnenos Doukas minted two successive issues in the 1230s and/or 1240s, and from 1249.12 The next denomination in the Komnenian spectrum, the electrum trachy, was very prominent in the documentary sources relating to parts of our area in the early years of the thirteenth century, and in Epiros in particular,13 even though actual finds of such coins, and of their silver trachy successors of the thirteenth century, are much less abundant and largely confined to the conquest period itself. By contrast, there is a large number of finds of twelfthcentury hyperpyra,14 which might suggest that Greece was saturated with gold coinage by the time that the crusading armies arrived. This is backed up by twelfth-century finds, by one conquest-period hoard («3. Mapsos 1991»), and also by the twelfth-century component in «41. Agrinio 1978/1979». Hyperpyron production increased once more at Nicaea during the 1220s, with an immediate effect on the availability of that currency in our area, as witnessed in the most valuable hoard of medieval Greece («41. Agrinio 1978/1979»).15 With the advent in the 1240s of gold issues in the name of Emperor John III Vatatzes produced at Latin Constantinople, hyperpyra became very common in Greece, and there was an increased instance of hoarding, if in smaller quantities at any one time.16 The hyperpyron was very seldom counterfeited in our area.17 Transition from the Twelfth to the Thirteenth Century: Imported Coins During the eleventh and twelfth centuries certain coins of western mintage had already been available in Greece.18 These were on the one hand the typical thin and light billon penny issues. The coins present in Greece came from a select group of mints, either from feudal France or from northern and central Italy (specifically Verona and Lucca). Most of these coins came to Greece during the first three crusades and were part of a larger phenomenon which manifested itself also in the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Levant, or they were the by-products of western trading interests in Greece. It is possible that a small number of coins of this category, such as the issues of Champagne, were of twelfth-century production but came to Greece as a secondary movement via

1.2

12  13  14  15  16  17  18 

Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243. Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. Appendix II.1.D, pp. 1253–1254. Appendix II.1.D.3, pp. 1258–1259. Appendix II.1.D.4, pp. 1260–1264. Appendix II.1.D.5, p. 1264. Appendix II.5, pp. 1332–1343. On the position of western coins in middle Byzantium, see also Chapter 1, pp. 18–20.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

89

South Italy in the first half of the thirteenth century, or even later. Another group of coins of France is of uncertain late twelfth- or early thirteenthcentury dating and might possibly have reached Greece with the Fourth Crusade and subsequently. The second kind of western coinage dating to before 1200 in evidence in Greece are the copper issues of Norman Sicily.19 There is an analogous body of eastern coins dating to before 1200 which came to Greece as part of the same east-west movements.20 The coins in question were either of copper or billon, and were of Islamic21 or Christian22 mintage in Syria and Palestine. Whether of relatively early or late dating within the eleventh/ twelfth centuries, it is likely that in 1200 and later some of these western and eastern coins were still being handled and lost. Overall, our evidence for such coins is from urban sites in the Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland. In the first half of the thirteenth century other miscellaneous coins from the west and east were added to this mix: pennies of Hohenstaufen Italy because of the geographical proximity to Italy,23 and maybe Venetian piccoli destined for the newly-acquired Venetian colonies.24 The early Mongol conquests in Europe (1230s/1240s) might have facilitated the movement of specie in the Balkans and the Black Sea: note the issues of Hungary25 and of the Golden Horde.26 Also coins of Cilician Armenia27 might have had a secondary outlet through the Black Sea, although they usually follow the general movement between Italy and the Levant, via Greece and southern Anatolia. The coinage of the Seljuqs of Rum had a more limited penetration into the Aegean area.28 1.3 Sterling Pennies – Deniers Tournois – Venetian Grossi Nevertheless, the greatest impact on the monetary affairs of Greece between ca. 1200 and 1250 was made by a threesome of western European silver-based coins:29 English pennies of the sterling standard,30 French deniers tournois,31

19  Appendix II.5.B, p. 1338. 20  Appendix II.6, pp. 1343–1353. 21  Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1353. 22  Appendix II.6.A, pp. 1343–1344. 23  Appendix II.5.B, p. 1338. 24  Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. 25  Appendix II.5.F, p. 1343. 26  Appendix II.6.C, p. 1346. 27  Appendix II.6.B, pp. 1344–1345. 28  Appendix II.6.G, p. 1351. 29  Specifically on the expansion of silver minting in the west, see also Chapter 1, pp. 58–61. 30  Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 31  Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293.

90

Chapter 2

and Venetian grossi.32 The first two of these, taken largely out of northwestern European circulation and enjoying a natural exchange-rate of 1:4, were certifiably brought to Greece during the Latin conquest itself, and also subsequently. The sterlings were initially the more important of the two, even if they had a more confined circulation pattern in the area of the primary territory under consideration which is turned towards the Aegean. The early role of Venetian grossi in Greece is more difficult to fathom, since there are few numismatic data and contradictory pieces of documentary evidence. The relationship which the grosso might have had to the other two currencies is also not entirely clear. The deniers tournois experienced an impressive rise in stature in Greece during the first decades of the thirteenth century, thanks to a succession of abbatial, royal and finally feudal issues in France. In parallel with this development, there was also an increase in the appearance of grossi, and a relative decrease in the availability of sterlings. With the advent of new generations of French tournois a natural relationship between the grosso and the tournois may have stabilised. By mid-century, to judge by hoards and stray finds alike, western coins established themselves firmly alongside coins of the Byzantine tradition in Greece, although they were handled and used differently and to a large extent separately, and neither grossi nor deniers tournois managed to cover the entire analysed territory in an even manner. Mid-Century Issues of Athens and Achaïa, and of Manfred of Hohenstaufen In the 1240s and 1250s two of the main political entities of our area, the lordship of Athens and the principality of Achaïa, took the bold step of issuing coins at the respective mints of Thebes and Corinth, with a probable secondary Achaïan minting operation on Euboia.33 These coins, which resemble low quality pennies, may have been issued according to diverse standards and as different denominations (possibly two). They are nevertheless all termed ‘petty denomination issues’ in this book since much work remains to be carried out specifically in this regard. It is likely that Achaïa took precedence in minting this coinage, certainly before 1249. There might have been a fraudulent element in its creation. Even if the initial thrust in conceiving this coinage still needs to be established, it appears that it was mostly deployed and moved around in military contexts, the Achaïan venture in the Levant and the war between Achaïa and Athens during most of the 1250s. This phase of minting at Athens and Achaïa probably ended in 1258/1259. For about a decade vast numbers of 1.4

32  Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. 33  A  ppendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

91

coins were therefore emitted by the Achaïan and Athenian mints. These issues were present in good quantities especially in the eastern Peloponnese, in Attikoboitia, and on Euboia, although they were seldom hoarded, and even more rarely together with any of the other coinages in contemporary circulation. A residue remained available in later years, especially in urban contexts. Another anomalous coinage was minted in or conceived for the territories under discussion in exactly these years: these were billon trachea produced in a western style in the name of King Manfred of Hohenstaufen, either in Corfu or Valona, or indeed in Brindisi in Puglia and transferred from there specifically to the Balkans.34 Their date of minting seems to have been in the first months of 1259, and these coins moved along the major operational routes before and after the battle of Pelagonia in July of that year, in Epiros, Albania, and Macedonia. 1.5 Byzantine-Style Coins in the Later Thirteenth Century For the second half of the thirteenth century the evidence for the persistence of coins of the Byzantine tradition in Greece is sporadic. Especially in urban contexts such as Athens, Corinth, Argos, and Thebes, the twelfth-century tetarteron coinage was still widely used.35 Tetartera might still have been counterfeited in places such as Elis or Athens.36 It is also possible that certain much earlier billon trachea – such as small module Latin Imitatives – were still available in Greece.37 A possible connection between this coinage and the minting of petty denomination issues would further underpin this supposition.38 Before the advent of the Palaiologan dynasty and the re-conquest of Constantinople (1259/1261), Thessalonican trachea in the names of John III and Theodore  II arrived in limited, often but not exclusively military, contexts.39 This movement of specie from Thessalonike to our area of concern continued under Michael VIII and Andronikos II Palaiologoi, but no later than ca. 1300, and affected almost exclusively Epiros, where it led to a highly distinctive episode of hoarding.40 Even silver (electrum) trachea might still have been in use in Greece in the second half of the century.41 As far as the gold hyperpyron is concerned, issues of Latin Constantinople and Byzantine Nicaea of a slightly 34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41 

Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. Appendix II.1.A.1, pp. 1201–1203. Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206. Appendix II.1.B.3, pp. 1221–1233. Appendix II.8.A.2, p. 1363. Appendix II.1.B.6, pp. 1239–1240. Appendix II.1.B.8, pp. 1243–1245. Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1250–1252.

92

Chapter 2

earlier period (see above) were still being hoarded in the 1250s and 1260s (see, with certainty, hoards «52», «53», «62», «63», «65», «70», perhaps also «42», «45», «46», «47»). It is noteworthy that issues of the Palaiologan emperors are missing from this body of finds and that in fact only one post-1261 hyperpyron find from Greece has so far been recorded.42 Constantinopolitan hyperpyra might nevertheless have continued to be used in Greece,43 as they were in South Italy.44 The reason why hyperpyra were still hoarded in Greece into the second half of the century was probably because they formed an integral part of the system of account based around sterlings, grossi, and tournois. The preference for older issues may have been due to their higher quality. 1.6 Main Imported Silver Currencies after 1250 Also the English and related pennies hoarded after 1250 were largely of an earlier generation, since issues bearing the long cross rev. design (minted after 1247) barely made any appearance in Greece.45 By contrast, this was the period during which Venetian grosso imports were gaining momentum, reaching all parts of the analysed territory, and playing a particularly important role in Thessaly and Epiros.46 In the 1250s and 1260s the importation of deniers tournois into Greece reached its final phase. In these years tournois were being minted in large quantities by the brothers of King Louis IX at mints in the south and southwest of France.47 These were simultaneously pushed out of the kingdom by royal legislation, and diverted to Italy and Greece through multiple channels, including possible administrative routes. Clarentza Mint: Petty Denomination Issues and Deniers Tournois, 1260s–1300 It was in this context of increasing imports of western silver coins that the principality of Achaïa under William II of Villehardouin opened the new mint of Clarentza in the western Peloponnese. It is uncertain whether petty denomination issue Metcalf type 12 was initially produced there on its own,48 or whether the mint issued this concurrently with the first denier tournois variety GV101 in William’s name.49 The possible end of feudal and royal tournois 1.7

42  Appendix II.1.D.6, pp. 1264–1268. The coin is from «228. Aktaio». 43  See also the evidence for the gold hyperpyron of account: Appendix III.1, pp. 1515–1516. 44  Appendix II.1.D.2, p. 1256. 45  Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 46  Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. 47  Appendix II.3.C and D, pp. 1289–1293. 48  Appendix II.8.B.3, p. 1373. 49  Appendix II.9.A.2, pp. 1385–1391.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

93

minting in France in 1263/1266 may have contributed to Clarentzan tournois issues50 which, on all accounts, were started in the second half of the 1260s. This reliable silver-based coinage had a profound impact on the monetary affairs of Greece. Most notably, it led to the launch of tournois issues at four other Greek mints before the end of the century, and it ensured that a host of pre-existing and subsequently imported silver coinages came to be culled from Greek circulation. The Clarentza mint went through successive issues in the names of Princes Charles of Anjou, and possibly Prince Charles II (1278–1289),51 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297),52 and Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301).53 Certainly by 1294 the output of the Clarentza mint was consistent and high. Thebes Mint: Petty Denomination Issues and Deniers Tournois after 1285 After more than two decades of inactivity, the Thebes mint began issuing coinage in about 1285 in the names of the newly appointed dukes of Athens.54 The Theban tournois coinage was paralleled by new petty denomination issues Metcalf types 3–5.55 The early history of the Theban tournois remains shrouded in some controversy: the mint output may not have been entirely regular and there may have been an adversarial stance to the Achaïan coinage in terms of the standard of issue. We may, by contrast, assume that from about 1296 onwards these tournois were consistently issued, in large quantities, and at a more acceptable quality.

1.8

1.9 Minor Issues ca. 1291–1301: Karytaina, Corfu, Salona, Counterfeits The small Peloponnesian tournois issue of Karytaina, possibly dating to the last months of 1291, must be viewed in the context of the monetary controversy between the ruling houses of Athens and Achaïa.56 Equally small, but of quite different importance, was the Corfu issue in the name of Philip of Taranto, which can be dated with some confidence to between August 1294 and September 1296/August 1298.57 This issue is testimony to the northward extent of the area of influence of this currency and the sustained efforts by the Angevins towards the monetisation of their Greek holdings. Within the duchy 50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57 

Appendix II.3, p. 1284. Appendix II.9.A.3, pp. 1391–1394. Appendix II.9.A.4, pp. 1395–1399. Appendix II.9.A.5, pp. 1399–1403. Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1427–1439. Appendix II.8.A.2, pp. 1362–1363. Appendix II.9.C, pp. 1440–1441. Appendix II.9.D, pp. 1441–1443.

94

Chapter 2

of Athens, a small baronial tournois coinage was emitted at a mint in Salona in Phokis for a short while sometime between 1294 and 1301.58 With the great augmentation in tournois minting particularly in the 1290s the rate of counterfeiting of these same issues also increased.59 1.10 Post-1270s Greek Monetary Revolution From the mid-1270s onwards the hoards of Greece (see «76»ff) were almost completely dominated by Greek deniers tournois. The first victims of this new coinage were evidently the remaining sterling pennies and the much larger quantity of French royal and feudal issues, all of which were re-minted wholesale. Venetian grossi kept arriving in Greece unabated,60 remaining in circulation and being the subject of some hoarding, although we must assume that a good number of these grossi were also re-minted at Clarentza and Thebes. The other western fine silver coinages which would have come to Greece from the 1270s and 1280s onwards – although there are very few numismatic data to support this –, and which would also have been converted into tournois, were French royal gros tournois61 and saluti of the Naples mint.62 The route for most of these coins was via the Angevin kingdom of Sicily, sometimes through administrative channels, and occasionally through the warfaring efforts in Albania. Another coinage which would have further increased the stock of high quality metals in Greece as early as the last two to three decades of the thirteenth century was the gold florin, which was used, still in relatively humble quantities, in the administrative and commercial domains.63 Because of the increasingly healthy and regularised monetary situation in Greece there was much less scope than in the first half of the century for the infiltration and usage of diverse, lower quality, specie. It is possible that some of the aforementioned coins – issues of Armenia, the Golden Horde, Champagne, etc. – still came to Greece in small quantities after 1250. The single most important groups of coins to penetrate Greece after that date were from late Hohenstaufen and early Angevin Sicily,64 and piccoli and their multiples from the Venice mint.65

58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65 

Appendix II.9.E, pp. 1443–1445. Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490. Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. Appendix II.11.A, pp. 1500–1502. Appendix II.11.B, pp. 1502–1503. Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1314. Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1337–1340. Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

95

1.11 Post-1300: Byzantine Coins For the period after 1300 it becomes increasingly difficult to detect whether twelfth-century tetartera were still in use, or were still being counterfeited. The most likely context in which both would have occurred is Attikoboiotia during Catalan domination (from 1311).66 Freshly minted Byzantine coins were already largely absent from Greece during the first half of the fourteenth century. One may suppose that gold hyperpyra from Constantinople were still available to some extent, although there are no hard data to support this.67 The large and successful silver coinage of the Trapezuntine offshoot of the empire is represented at merely one Greek find dating to the 1310s.68 1.12 Post-1300: Clarentza, Thebes, Naupaktos The fourteenth century began as the thirteenth had ended, with Clarentza and Thebes as the most important tournois mints and the most important source for monetary specie in Greece. However, important changes were underway. At Clarentza, between 1301 and 1304, tournois were issued in good numbers in the name of Prince Philip of Savoy, who had married Isabelle of Villehardouin against the wishes of her Angevin overlords.69 Philip also produced the first Achaïan petty denomination issues since the 1270s, Metcalf type 13, which stressed in its design the joint Villehardouin and Savoy lineages.70 It was probably during Philip of Savoy’s princeship that a very large wave of tournois counterfeiting affected the principality.71 The monetary situation in Achaïa triggered an Angevin reaction. During the 1301–1304 period Philip of Taranto, the despot of Romania and son of King Charles II of Anjou, issued tournois at a rival western Greek mint at Naupaktos, which managed to attract a substantial proportion of the incoming bullion.72 It is likely that, as was the case when minting first began at Thebes (see above), the minting standard that was being applied at Naupaktos was inferior to that of Clarentza. With the restoration of direct Angevin rule over Achaïa in 1304/1306 any rogue specie (especially counterfeit) was rounded up and cancelled. We have concrete evidence for this activity at Corinth, but this may reflect activities throughout the peninsula. The Naupaktos mint continued also after October 1304 with a small issue, but we do not currently know 66  67  68  69  70  71  72 

Appendix II.1.A.1–2, pp. 1197–1206. Appendix II.1.D.2, p. 1256. Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1275–1278. Appendix II.9.A.6, pp. 1404–1406. Appendix II.8.B.3, p. 1373. Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1486–1487. Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453.

96

Chapter 2

when around 1306 these minting operations might have ceased altogether, and when (presumably sometime before) Philip of Taranto started issuing tournois at Clarentza.73 When he did, the quantities emitted there appear to have been inferior to those of his predecessor Philip of Savoy, and certainly inferior to the combined output of the Clarentza and Naupaktos mints during 1301–1304. The duchy of Athens, in the form of the prolific GVI.DVX issues, was also steadily producing large quantities of tournois at Thebes in the early 1300s.74 1.13 Post-1300: Neopatra and Tinos Under Athenian guidance, a tournois issue was launched in the name of John II Angelos Doukas at Neopatra, presumably in 1303.75 Just as Achaïa was experiencing a downturn after a certain point, matters unravelled at Thebes and Neopatra due to the premature death of Guy II de la Roche in October 1308. This caused, in both places, the halt of the normal issues and the launch of irregular issues on a reduced scale. At Thebes this was accompanied by a renewed output of petty denomination issues.76 In 1309 Walter of Brienne arrived as the new duke, but John II definitively broke his alliance with Athens in favour of Byzantium. A final tournois issue which requires mention is that produced on the island of Tinos at an unknown point during the same decade by George I Ghisi, who had close personal and political ties to Achaïa.77 1.14 Monetary Output 1300–1310s In general terms, the first decade of the fourteenth century began with an enormous output of tournois at diverse Greek mints. For different dynastic and strategic reasons minting became compromised after mid-decade. During 1309–1311, in the face of the advance of the Catalan army into our area, the minting effort was renewed at Clarentza, Thebes, Neapatra, and perhaps at Tinos, each mint in its own way, in an attempt to assemble armies or to pay off the foe. This was to no avail, and the Catalan occupation of Attica and Boiotia after 1311 left a deep mark on the monetary affairs of Greece. The minting of regular tournois issues was after that date for some time limited to Clarentza. It is possible that the Catalans themselves produced a sub-standard issue at Thebes bearing the names of the earlier dukes of Athens, an issue which was 73  74  75  76  77 

Appendix II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413. Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1435–1439. Appendix II.9.G, pp. 1453–1462. Appendix II.8.A.3, pp. 1363–1364. Appendix II.9.H, pp. 1462–1463.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

97

perhaps required to make payments connected to the military operations.78 A large number of hoards was deposited and not retrieved during the Catalan conquest itself. 1.15 Currencies Associated with the Catalans. Serbia and Chios With the Catalan army, and the establishment of a political class which owed its allegiance to the Aragonese kingdom of Sicily, more monetary specie was specifically brought to the eastern Greek Mainland, French gros tournois79 and South Italian pierreali and gigliati and related issues of Provence.80 From the 1310s to the 1330s, perhaps later, these issues formed an integral part of the monetary system in the Catalan duchy of Athens, beside deniers tournois. Even the earlier trachea of Manfred, which bore a physical resemblance to these coins, were hoarded.81 We must assume that smaller Catalan and Sicilian denominations also came to Greece in this period, although there is currently only one penny of Barcelona to vouch for this.82 Especially gigliati would also have arrived in the Peloponnese where, however, they have failed to leave a substantial record since the bullion would have been largely re-minted at Clarentza. The continued counterfeitings of tetartera (see above) and of deniers tournois83 within the duchy are further testimonies to the laxness of the monetary policy of the new administration. The eastern Mainland, not least because of its geographical position, was also receptive to other coinages in these years. Fine silver issues from Chios in the name of the Zaccaria brothers have been documented in Athens.84 Serbian grossi found their way to southern Greece approximately at the time of the Catalan conquests, although these two events were probably unrelated and the circulation of these issues was determined by their high quality and the general availability of the related Venetian grossi.85 1.16 Towards Mid-Century: Grossi and Tournois Overall, the quantities in which grossi reached Greece diminished in the first decades of the fourteenth century, and the coinage came to a definitive end in the 1340s.86 In the northeastern part of our area Venetian grossi retained 78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86 

Appendix II.9.L, pp. 1481–1483. Appendix II.11.A, pp. 1500–1502. Appendix II.11.B–E, pp. 1502–1508. Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. Appendix II.5.E, pp. 1342–1343. Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490. Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305. Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302.

98

Chapter 2

their relative importance for longest, and it was there that in the 1330s and 1340s a more recent generation of Serbian grossi came to be used, and formed a short-lived account system of its own.87 Given the extensive occupation of most of Epiros and Thessaly by the Serbian empire from 1340s, the relative lack of Serbian coins from these areas is worthy of note.88 In the meantime, the Greek tournois coinage was evolving. After the battle of Almyros in 1311, especially during the rival princeships of Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316)89 and Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316),90 the output of the mint of Clarentza was low and sporadic. In contrast, under Princess Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321)91 and Prince John of Gravina (1321–1332), minting there was uninterrupted, high, and of consistent quality,92 despite the political and strategic difficulties of the time. Tournois of Chios, Damala, Arta 1.17 The success of the tournois coinage in Greece and beyond induced also the mint of Chios under Martin Zaccaria to emit this denomination, very probably after 1320 or 1322, followed by a small issue of the same for Damala in the Peloponnese.93 During the same decade a noteworthy and highly distinctive tournois issue was launched at Arta.94 John II Orsini ruled over Epiros in a fine balancing act between Angevin Romania and Byzantium. The issues in his name lasted on all accounts from the late 1320s until his death in 1336 or 1337. The coinage was initially of modest size and respectable quality, and it began circulating together with other tournois issues. Soon, around 1330 or just after, the coins were made entirely of copper, with fluctuating weights, while the output of the Arta mint increased significantly. This coinage was henceforth, like other inferior tournois issues such as those of Catalan Athens (see above), handled and hoarded separately. For a combination of purely monetary reasons, and the geopolitical constellation involving the Epirote and Serbian states and Byzantium, this coinage migrated in large quantities to Macedonia and Bulgaria. 87  Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305. 88  This phenomenon is further discussed in Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”, on the occasion of a single contemporary Bulgarian grosso find from Thesprotia which is not contained in Appendix I.4 (see however #247). 89  Appendix II.9.A.8, pp. 1413–1414. 90  Appendix II.9.A.9, p. 1415. 91  Appendix II.9.A.10, pp. 1416–1418. 92  Appendix II.9.A.11, pp. 1418–1422. 93  Appendix II.9.I, pp. 1464–1466. 94  Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1466–1476.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

99

1.18 Greek Tournois Abroad The tournois minted for Achaïa, Athens, and Naupaktos between the 1260s and the 1330s has also been found in great quantities outside of our primary territory, and for other reasons than those applicable to the coinage of Arta, which has just been discussed. These finds are gathered in Appendix I.5–12. Not included in these appendices are, from Italy, four tournois of Athens excavated in the northeastern part of the modern region of Lazio;95 and a few of the materials presented for the Salento.96 I had the good fortune to be shown the remarkable numismatic finds from the tomb of St. Nicholas at Bari. These include, beside many coins of France, Germany, England and Ireland, Byzantium, Italy (Venice, Aquileia, Marche), and other areas, four Clarentzan tournois of Florent of Hainaut, Philip of Savoy (*2), John of Gravina, four tournois of Athens (GR101–103, A3, GR20Δ, and an unspecified fragment), two of Arta (IGB), and three more small and unreadable tournois fragments.97 The Balkans have seen the largest number of recent additions to our knowledge: from western Macedonia one denier tournois of William II of Villehardouin can be reported.98 The Chalkidike peninsula is rich in Venetian grossi and Palaiologan copper coins, but three single stray deniers tournois (two of William II of Villehardouin, one of Athens) are still statistically significant.99 Opposite, on the island of Lemnos, one Achaïan tournois is now at Myrina museum.100 From central Thessalonike, the excavations for the future Venizelou metro station near Hamza Bey Mosque produced three tournois.101 From Thrace, from the entire area between Komotini in Greece to the outskirts of Istanbul, and the Rhodope mountains to the north, many finds can now be added:102 stray tournois come from a number of sites, from Thasos to Maroneia and Ainos, and from the inland area around the Greek and Bulgarian mountains, the modern province of Edirne, to Lake Küçükçekmece. Two hoards containing tournois were concealed in 1307, Ainos Kral Kızı 1985 (containing mostly French and Italian pennies) and Xylagani 1968. Hoards from Keşan 95  Ranucci, Cittareale, pp. 24–27, 29, 31. 96  Degasperri, “Salento”: some of the finds the author discusses on this occasion are nevertheless known from previous sources and are contained in Appendix I. 97  I thank G. Libero Mangieri for this information. 98  Stavridopoulos, “Dispilio”. 99  Maladakis, “Late Byzantine Chalkidiki”. 100  Polosa, “Moneta”, pp. 141–142. 101  E. Lianta, “Τα νομισματικά ευρήματα της βυζαντινής περιόδου από το σταθμό της Βενιζέλου”, presented to a conference on Byzantine Macedonia, organised by the Society for Macedonian Studies, Thessalonike, 24–25 May 2016. 102  The relevant publications are Baker, “Ainos”; Tekin, “Küçükçekmece”; Baker, “Edirne”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”.

100

Chapter 2

and Didymoteicho (1972), of the 1320s and 1330s, contained tournois and hyperpyra. From the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia, the castle of Mytilini has revealed a coin which may be a denier tournois.103 The situation for Rhodes is less clear cut: such coins have only ever been hinted at in the existing publications.104 I was made aware of denier tournois from Kyme in Aeolis after Appendix I was completed (Philip of Taranto),105 while others excavated by the Italian mission there will be published by Benedetto Carroccio. In forthcoming publications of the coins excavated in the Ancient Agora of Smyrna, and at Anaia, Ceren Ünal and I will be presenting, amongst others, two tournois each (Athens and uncertain; Philip of Savoy and Athens). The evidence gathered in Appendix I, and the newer materials I have been made aware of since, draw distinctive pictures for the three main areas – Italy, Macedonia and Thrace and surroundings, and the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia. The Italian finds are naturally the most impressive. There are a substantial number of hoards going back all the way to the 1270s. Strays also begin in this period. The coins cover many regions between the Veneto and Marche and Tuscany in the north and centre, to Rome and all of the mainland regions of the south, with some sporadic Sicilian finds. The Balkan hoards are fewer and begin a few decades later. The stray finds are altogether more dispersed, although in places such as Thasos, Rentina, Maroneia, Ainos, and perhaps Constantinople itself, they are quite concentrated. The Anatolian picture is not dissimilar. The hoards there are limited to only two rather unusual and unreliable ones («468» and «469»). Nevertheless, stray tournois in the area date all the way back to William II of Villehardouin, and considering the rather low value of the contemporary Byzantine trachy coinages of Michael VIII and Andronikos II, and the slow rate at which beylik silver coins made their presence felt, also here local monetisation may have been carried to a large degree by tournois over a number of decades before and after 1300 (consider for instance «483», «487», «488»). This evidence will be further considered in the main chapters.

103  Williams, “Mytilene” p. 112. 104  See Kasdagli, “Medieval Rhodes”, on the coin circulation in Rhodes; see also Kasdagli, “Χριστιανικά νομίσματα από τη Ρόδο”, where some Frankish material and torneselli are briefly indicated, though not substantiated; on Rhodian circulation see further Kasdagli, “Provenance of coins found in Rhodes” and Kasdagli, “Νομισματική κυκλοφορία στη μεσαιωνική πόλη της Ρόδου”. Kasdagli, “Νομίσματα στα Δωδεκάνησα” covers also other islands. 105  Ünal, “Kyme”.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

101

1.19 Closure of the Clarentza Mint It was during the last phase of its production at Clarentza that the tournois coinage first suffered significant reductions in fineness. This resulted in increasing distrust in and avoidance of this coinage by users, paving the way to its disappearance. The issues in question were produced in the name of Prince Robert of Taranto after 1332.106 I have put forward two suggestions for the closing date of the Clarentza mint – 1347 and 1353 – but these remain hypotheses and we can only assume that this event occurred in either of these respective years or at one point in between. 1.20 Soldino The indigenous tournois coinage of Greece was further undermined by continued counterfeiting, especially in Catalan territories. This general reduction in reliability played into the hands of a new Venetian fine silver denomination, the soldino, which was introduced in 1332.107 This coinage was designed to unite the two main Venetian systems of account. Its success in Greece was based, in addition to the demise of the tournois and of the Venetian grosso, on its increasing use by Venetian public and private interests, and the fact that it managed to find, or was made to find, a position in the Greek account systems at 1:4 to the tournois, and 20 or 25 to the main hyperpyra. The soldino was adopted the quickest and the most thoroughly in the western Peloponnese and in Boiotia/Attica/Euboia, that is to say in areas most exposed to the Venetian colonial presence and witnessing the greatest commercial activity. 1.21 Gold Coinages We may infer from documentary sources and very sparse numismatic evidence that the main Italian gold coinages – ducats and florins108 – became increasingly available in Greece in the first half of the fourteenth century, although the data are altogether not sufficient enough to determine the relative extent and importance of this phenomenon. The aforementioned Robert of Taranto minted an extremely small gold florin issue at Clarentza.109 1.22 Minority Coinages As in the previously analysed period, during 1300–1350 the overall quantity and quality of the circulating specie, and the generally tight control by the local authorities, allowed for few additional coinages to make their presence 106  107  108  109 

Appendix II.9.A.12, pp. 1423–1426. Appendix II.4.E.1, pp. 1320–1322. Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1314. Appendix II.4.D.4, pp. 1316–1317.

102

Chapter 2

felt. French coins evidently ceased to arrive in Greece and there was a small trickle of Italian pennies ranging from the north and centre of the peninsula to the Angevin kingdom of Sicily (Naples).110 1.23 Post-1350s Developments, the Tornesello and Its Derivatives After 1350 the hoards of Greece («163»ff) initially continued the previous pattern of containing the now discontinued local tournois and/or soldini. Soldini were hoarded according to their types, either in conservative or progressive constellations, while the most recent and basest of the Clarentzan tournois, those in the name of Robert of Taranto, were taken out of circulation more rapidly than earlier tournois issues. Despite the availability of soldini and tournois, the closure of the Clarentza mint evidently caused considerable difficulties for the Venetian colonial and trading interests and led to a quick reaction. In 1353 the Venice mint launched a successor coinage, the tornesello, which was minted on a lower standard than even the tournois in the name of Robert.111 This led to a further reduction in the values of the local hyperpyra currencies of Greece, which were increasingly based on the tornesello rather than the soldino. From the dogeships of Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) and Antonio Venier (1382–1400) onwards, torneselli were minted in very large quantities indeed, so that they came to dominate the specie in circulation in Greece in this period, with the consequence that hoards contained an increasingly large numbers of coins and that torneselli were amongst the most frequent stray losses of the entire medieval period in Greece. The importance of the tornesello was such that it inspired coinages of the dukes of the Archipelago112 and of Byzantium. The issues of Naxos were of little influence and were evidently confined to the central Cyclades. Byzantium arguably minted its second generation of tornesi, based on the tornesello, at Constantinople from ca. 1372.113 Only one specimen from the metropolitan mint, dating to the late fourteenth or very early fifteenth century, has been found in Greece. However, a Lakonian issue, launched very probably in the 1390s by Manuel II Palaiologos, was hoarded in decent quantities at Sparta, and also circulated in other parts of the eastern Peloponnese and the Mainland.114 On a previous occasion, as regent in

110  111  112  113  114 

Appendix II.5.A–D, pp. 1335–1342. Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1327. Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494. Appendix II.1.E.2, pp. 1269–1272. Appendix II.1.E.3, pp. 1272–1273.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: OVERVIEW

103

Thessalonike, Manuel had produced a tornese coinage of a slightly heavier standard. This coinage has been found hoarded at Athens.115 1.24 Profile of Coinages at the Turn of the Fifteenth Century Although from a certain period onwards torneselli were dominant in Greece, there were still some hoards which contained preferentially soldini. Such hoards included, in the western Peloponnese during the 1380s, also coinages of Hungary116 and – in merely one instance – of Lesbos,117 which were based on the Venetian soldino. It is possible that these coins were culled from circulation by the Achaïan authorities, as were the increasing numbers of counterfeit tournois118 and torneselli,119 which were either indigenous to the Achaïa, or which were infiltrating the area from Catalan and Navarrese parts of the Mainland and later the Peloponnese. Soldini, by contrast, were very seldom counterfeited.120 As in the earlier part of the fourteenth century, the eastern Mainland was also during the second half of the century and later ideally placed to receive coinages from the eastern Aegean and further east – issues of Chios under the Maona Company,121 Lesbos under the Gattilusio,122 the Knights of Rhodes,123 and the Kingdom of Cyprus.124 Coins of the latter two entities have also been found in the Peloponnese and have been brought in connection with the two main Hospiteller involvements with Achaïa. The same humble amalgam of Italian penny coinages as previously, with a larger emphasis on the issues of Ancona,125 remained available in Greece. The new tournois coinages of southern Italy of the fourteenth century, by contrast, evidently did not cross the Ionian Sea.126 Numismatic proof for the availability of Italian gold coinages in later fourteenth century Greece is as scanty as previously.127 With the deterioration of the local currencies, seeking to fall back on a reliable international standard would have seemed a logical course of action.128 Nevertheless, 115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128 

Appendix II.1.E.4, pp. 1273–1274. Appendix II.4.E.4, pp. 1324–1325. Appendix II.4.E.5, p. 1325. Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490. Appendix II.4.F.2, pp. 1331–1332. Appendix II.4.E.3, pp. 1323–1324. Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. Appendix II.6.F, pp. 1349–1350. Appendix II.6.D, pp. 1346–1347. Appendix II.6.A, pp. 1343–1344. Appendix II.5.C, pp. 1340–1341. Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1478. Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1314. Appendix III.6, p. 1575.

104

Chapter 2

it remains difficult to state what percentage of the ducats and florins of the documentary sources was actually met in gold coinage. There is evidence that such gold coins were occasionally hard to come by.129 1.25 1400–1430 For the last of our periods, 1400–1430, much remains the same as before: the availability, or not, of gold; the modest arrival of coins from the east and west (and especially Ancona); and of course the domination of the Venetian tornesello coinage. From the period of Doge Michele Steno (1400–1413) the hoards contain almost nothing but torneselli. The exceptions are «190. Mesopotam», a soldino hoard; «194. Sparta 1926A & B», of local tornesi; and a cluster of hoards of either side of the Gulf of Corinth with older tournois and soldini, which I have ascribed to the preferences of the Knights of St. John, who were present in the area at the turn of the century.130 The territories of Charles I Tocco were identified in some Venetian documentation as a source of tournois counterfeits affecting the Peloponnese in the early fifteenth century.131 It is noteworthy that Greece apparently failed to attract tornesi being emitted in the last years of the fourteenth century in Italy,132 nor those of the eastern Aegean of the fourteenth and fifteenth century.133 Despite of the cut-off date of 1430 for Appendix I.1, some of the hoards closing in Doge Mocenigo (1414–1423: «204»ff) might well have been deposited later, although this would be difficult to prove. Also earlier single coins, torneselli or otherwise, may well have been used and lost after this watershed.134 1.26 Overall Patterns 1350–1430 With regard to all of the described developments for the period 1350–1430, the availability of tournois, soldini, torneselli, and their offshoots, and the infiltration of diverse coinages from east and west, we cannot fail to be struck by how much of this activity was limited to the southern part of our analysed territories. Only some later evidence of hoarding stems from Epiros and the Ionian Islands, whereas Thessaly is almost totally bereft of numismatic evidence. It

129  Appendix II.4.D.2, pp. 1309–1314. 130  Baker, “Corinthe”. 131  Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1487–1488. 132  Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1478. 133  Appendix II.9.N, pp. 1490–1491. 134  On both of these possibilities see the discussions in the further course of this chapter, pp. 119 and 149.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

105

is quite possible, though again there is little proof on this matter, that it was precisely there that Ottoman coins first made an impact.135 2

Site and Single Finds

2.1 Nature of the Evidence In medieval Europe coins were handled, carried, and exchanged on a daily basis. This occurred in urban and village contexts, in the open countryside, or at particular spots outside of areas of residence in which people gathered for particular purposes. A by-product of this activity was the fortuitous loss and non-retrieval of coins. In modern times some of these coins have been found and recorded, and they make a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the kinds of coins in circulation and use. In addition to this, loss rates should be able to inform us about the quantity of money in circulation, the numbers of exchanges, and general trends in the population using coins. Although hoards, which are the subject of my next discussion, encapsulate a number of chronologies (the dates of the issues contained therein, the dates at which they were added to the assemblage), they are defined primarily by one moment in time, that at which they were finally abandoned. Single finds by contrast have the ability to chart developments diachronically. Nevertheless, this body of evidence is vested with its own problems which can be summarised as follows: the coins are often limited to particular kinds, of lesser value, and do not cover the circulating stock in its entirety. The second great unknown is when a particular coin was used and lost, that is to say the temporal distance between its issue and loss. Finds of single coins in our own times can occur haphazardly, for instance during agricultural work, or systematically, through stratigraphic excavations or with the help of a metal detector. Once found, they need to be recorded in order to be useful to science. As I have already indicated,136 and this is the final and most serious concern, both the recovery and the recording of single coins of the medieval period in Greece are not being undertaken systematically. 2.2 Medieval Excavations I will address these limiting factors while considering the overall contribution that this material can make. 163 different locations of single finds are listed in 135  Appendix II.6.G, p. 1351. 136  See the Preface, pp. xxi–xxii and Chapter 1, p. 5 and ff on the archaeology of Greece and of middle and late Byzantium, and the relative dearth of published coin finds.

106

Chapter 2

Appendix I.4, and most are contained on Map 1 («223»–«385»). The historiography of medieval coin finds is discussed in Chapter 1,137 coins at sites and in regions in Chapter 4.138 Currently, the number of specifically medieval excavations which have produced significant coin finds is quite small. Of greatest note are the town of Clarentza («262») and the so-called Frankish complex at Corinth («268»), followed by much lower-key enterprises on the islands of Andros («230» and «231») and Naxos («322»–«333»), the fourteenth-century Boiotian settlement of Panakto («340»), and the Peloponnesian monastery of Zaraka («385»). To this list can now be added Akronauplia, an excavation by a Byzantinist, whose coin finds were recently published.139 Within the modern Greek borders, other smaller sites, for instance churches and fortifications, have also been investigated. Coins unearthed through such efforts, by the local Byzantine Ephorates in Elis and Epiros, have already been presented elsewhere.140 To be included in any list of specific medieval sites investigated by the Greek authorities or associated institutions such as the Archaeological Society are further the churches at «341. Pantanassa» in Epiros (a more recent excavation than the cited publication), at «378. Tigani» in Mani, and at Riganokampos, south of Patra;141 also the castles of «303. Karystos» on Euboia, «314. Ligourio» in the Argolis, as well as of Mouchli which also appeared too recently to be included in Appendix I.142 The (People’s Socialist) Republic of Albania had and has a strong tradition in medieval archaeology which is reflected in some of our data.143 For our territory, rural medieval settlements have only seldom been the outright object of study.144 137  Pp. 72–85. 138  Pp. 426–483. 139  Chapter 4, p. 428. 140   See respectively Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza” and Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”. These finds are fully integrated in Appendix I.3. 141  Moutzali, “Αγία Ειρήνη Ριγανοκάμπου Πατρών”, p. 143. This find was not included in Appendix I.4. 142  Chapter 4, p. 428. 143  Consider these purely medieval excavations: «253. Ballsh»; «254. Berat»; «258. Byllis»; «299. Kaninë»; «316. Mashkieza». Additionally, reference to the ancient and medieval sites of Apollonia and Butrint is made here below. 144  See «340. Panakto» and «349. Pylos in Elis»; further, for middle Byzantine times, Nichoria in Messenia (MacDonald et al., Nichoria, with p. 406 specifically for the coins). Compare this picture to the much more lively archaeological investigations of rural settlements in late medieval England: Dyer, “Peasants and coins”, p. 32ff. Consider also Delogu and Sorda, Moneta in ambiente rurale, although this subject matter would be deserving of a more thorough treatment than is given there. See also Bompaire, “Monnaies dans les villages” and Moesgard, “Monnaies à la campagne”.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

107

2.3 Classical and/or Bronze Age Excavations Most of the single finds which can be used for our study derive in fact from excavations of sites whose periods of interest is not in the first instance medieval, from salvage excavations, and from other disparate sources such as donations and confiscations. The towns/sites which have yielded the greatest amount of usable material are discussed separately in Chapter 4. The largest concentrations, which have necessitated the drawing of additional maps (Maps 2–4), derive from Corinth, Thebes and Athens, thanks respectively to the excavations of the ASCSA and of the Greek Archaeological Service, or a combination of both (and other institutions) in the case of the greater Athens area. Of all the individual excavated sites contained in Appendix I.4, the Athenian Agora («238»: Map 3) and the ‘Central Area’ of Ancient Corinth («263»–«269»: Map 2), that is to say areas which have been excavated largely with the classical past in mind, have produced by far the biggest quantities of single finds. While this material is of utmost importance, its dominance is also unhealthy on two accounts: first, it outweighs that from all other sites; and in both cases these were in the medieval period extra-mural suburban areas of mixed residential, industrial and religious usage whose developments may not even have been typical for the two towns themselves. Even then, these towns were not even in the first category of contemporary importance. Foremost amongst the other important units is the ancient town of Argos («233»–«236»), investigated at different times by the Ecole française d’Athènes and the Greek authorities. The numerous coins assembled for «237. Arta» are the result of particularly intensive rescue excavations conducted by an engaged local Byzantine Ephorate, combined with the fact that they were brought to the attention of the NM for the purposes of a conference. Lastly, the British School at Athens has had a long-established tradition of working at Sparta, particularly on its Bronze Age and classical past, and these activities have produced the useful lists «351» and «352». There are some additional sites which have been worked on with these ancient phases in mind that have yielded much more humble runs of medieval coins: intimately linked to Corinth are the locations of «223. Acrocorinth», «305. Kenchreai», and the sanctuary at Isthmia («296»). Also investigated by the ASCSA have been the ancient sanctuary of «334. Nemea», with a good selection of relevant coins, the classical site of Pylos in Elis («349»), and the Bronze Age site of «290. Eutresis» in Boiotia. Excavations at the site of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, and at nearby Chrisso, the ancient town of Krisa, have also yielded single medieval coin finds («282»–«285»). British work in Lakonia has resulted in the following entries in Appendix I.4: «225. Agios Stephanos», a small-scale Bronze Age and medieval site, and «311. Lakonia»,

108

Chapter 2

from survey work. Other ancient sites from the same appendix which bear pointing out are the following: Akraiphnion in Boiotia («300. Karditsa»); Karthaia on Kea («302»); Lepreo in Elis («313»); Melitaia in Phthiotis («318»); «319. Messene» (with recent additions during the cited Peloponnesian conference); «337. Olympia»; «382. Troizina», all in the Peloponnese; «379. Tinos» in the Cyclades; and «381. Trikala» in Thessaly. Across the present-day border one must mention «232. Apollonia» and Butrint («256» and «257»). Both of these ancient towns, the latter more so than the former, also had important medieval phases. Given the extensive research there during the Italian and communist eras, and in successive campaigns under Greek and British scholars in more recent times, it can be supposed that many medieval coins have been unearthed there. Unfortunately, our current knowledge extends mostly over the central part of the medieval period, that is to say roughly from the mid-thirteenth to mid-fourteenth centuries, and these coins cannot be used for statistical purposes. Amongst data obtained in other ways I should like to single out the activities surrounding two medium-sized contemporary towns and their vicinities, Amphissa and Lamia. Here our knowledge has been enhanced respectively by the engagement of a local numismatist (see «229» and «298»), and through acquisitions by the local museum («312»; «384»). 2.4 Limits of the Medieval Greek Evidence With this spectrum of available information in mind it becomes easy to point out those aspects and areas which are not covered in a satisfactory manner. Most striking is in the first instance the neglect of some towns which would have been in the first order at importance in medieval times: elsewhere in this book I express my regret at not having any information from Venetian colonial centres in the area (see merely the meagre results from «259. Chalkida» and «320. Methoni»), since one may well imagine that these places benefitted from a different kind of money supply, particularly in the lower denominational reaches.145 In the Peloponnese, the three main Latin and Byzantine centres of the last medieval phase (Patra: «343. Patra»; Mystras; Monemvasia) remain almost completely unstudied. Overall, the spread of single coin finds across the main regions of Greece can be observed on Map 1. We can discern the particular scientific attention which has been given for instance to Elis in the western Peloponnese, to Epiros and to two modern Albanian areas, the coastal strip from Butrint northwards, as well as the triangle formed by Valona, Berat and Apollonia. Modern demographics 145  Appendix II.4.A, p. 1295.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

109

are also quite clearly visible on the map: the main urban areas of Thessaly, of the eastern Mainland, and of the northern Peloponnesian band have all been able to generate at least some data. However, there is no escaping the generally uneven and unsatisfactory coverage, since there are vast tracts of territory, not just confined to the many mountainous areas, which are totally devoid of information. No productive sites have been identified for our area, that is to say assemblages of single coins dating to a more or less confined timespan which can identify particular commercial or military activities in certain extra-urban locations. This compounds further the absence of rural archaeology, which I have already indicated. Leaving aside the six most significant concentrations of material, the greater Corinth and Athens areas, Thebes, Arta, Argos, and Sparta, Appendix I.4 contains usable data on just about 500 coins, for an extent of some 80,000km2. This can be contrasted with the ca. 25,000 coins dating 1180–1430 which were available for England and Wales in the summer of 2012,146 a body of material which excludes coins from major excavated urban locations such as London, York, or Winchester. Figure 1 shows the even coverage of finds achieved for England and Wales, which have just under twice as much territory as our analysed area but might still have had a population of the same order of magnitude as that of Greece.147 As I argue in this book, the per capita level of monetisation of medieval Greece may well have been higher, particularly with respect to the lower denominations, than areas of the contemporary Latin west. One can see from this brief comparison of the English/Welsh and Greek data how much remains to be achieved, and what the potential of any concerted effort might be for the latter area. Of course the legislative frameworks for retrieving coins in the Hellenic Republic and in England and Wales are completely different. 2.5 Extrapolating Meaning A lot of the argumentation that follows rests on the different kinds of conclusions which may be drawn from single and hoarded coin data. Both sources

146  See www.finds.org.uk. On the importance of English numismatic data, see also pp. 60–61 above. 147  For the contemporary population in Byzantium and medieval Greece population, see Chapter 1, pp. 2 and 30–31, and Chapter 3, pp. 194–195. For estimates of the English population before the Black Death, which place it between four to six million, see Allen, “Volume of the English currency”, p. 606, n. 90. I thank John Naylor for generating this distribution map for me.

110

Figure 1

Chapter 2

Single coin finds of England and Wales, 1180–1430

have been discussed elsewhere for their particular merits,148 although there has yet to be an attempt at providing a set of rules with which one might approach these pieces of evidence in a more systematic fashion. In seeking to describe coin circulation one must avoid relying solely on one or the other, although even if taken together they will fall short of telling the full story of coin availability and usage. In particular, we must assume that the degree of monetisation was generally high,149 perhaps even in areas so far completely devoid of any numismatic data. 148  See for instance Kraay, Greek Coins and History, pp. 43–63, and Kent, “Interpreting Coin Finds”. 149  See also the comments to this effect in Chapter 1, p. 13.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

111

In order to investigate further the limitations and opportunities of the single coin finds of Greece, I have assembled in the following Table 1 the most prolific denominations and issues150 at the sites of Appendix I.4 with the largest number of finds (n/a indicates a category of coinage which has not been investigated and/or for which the relevant data are not available). 2.6 Majority Coinages The sites in this table, in combination with the aggregates established by all the other sites of Appendix I.4, clearly identify certain coinages as absolutely fundamental to day-to-day circulation, Latin billon trachea,151 Greek deniers tournois,152 and Venetian torneselli,153 being the most obviously present throughout the entire area. Faithful Copy billon trachea,154 trachea of the Byzantine successor states,155 French tournois,156 petty denomination issues,157 sterling pennies,158 and Venetian soldini,159 were also common but cannot provide complete coverage, either because they were not available in all areas, or because their loss rates were not as high as the other named coinages. The limitations of these kinds of data already become obvious in the case of another important coinage which would also have been prolific at many medieval Greek sites, the tetarteron.160 This denomination is omitted from the table since most of this currency would have been represented in the thirteenth century by twelfth-century issues, or by counterfeits which did not have as good a spread and are not properly identified for many of the sites. 2.7 Rates of Survival This brings us to one of the two problems which have been formulated above: what was the chronology of coin survivals, or, in other words, how does one determine which coins were available contemporaneously, and in what relative proportions? For certain contexts, for instance England, for which good stray and hoard data are available in addition to corresponding mint records, where the currency is extremely homogeneous, largely indigenous, and the 150  For elucidations on these coinages see the relevant discussions in Appendix II. 151  Appendix II.1.B.3, pp. 1221–1233. 152  Appendix II.9, pp. 1374–1491. 153  Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 154  Appendix II.1.B.2, pp. 1212–1221. 155  Appendix II.1.B.5 and 6, pp. 1233–1240. 156  Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293. 157  Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374. 158  Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 159  Appendix II.4.E, pp. 1317–1320. 160  Appendix II.1.A, pp. 1197–1206.

112

Chapter 2

Table 1

Single finds of the most significant denominations, issues, and types at selected Greek sites

«223. «234. «236. «237. «238. «239. «262. «263. «264. «265. AcroArgos» Argos» Arta» Athen. Athens» Clarentza» Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» corinth» Agora» Bill. trach. post ca. 1204

n/a

n/a

Faithf. Cop.

n/a

n/a

Latin

n/a

n/a

Latin large mod. CP A–C

n/a

n/a

Latin large mod. Thessal.

n/a

n/a

Latin small module

n/a

n/a

Latin large mod. CP, Dff

n/a

n/a

Nicaea

n/a

Thessalonike

313

n/a

n/a

/

101

13

24

8

n/a

n/a

/

3

1

/

60

n/a

n/a

/

83

12

23

2

n/a

n/a

/

4

/

1

1

2

n/a

n/a

/

4

/

/

9

49

n/a

n/a

/

75

12

22

/

7

n/a

n/a

/

/

/

1

n/a

/

3

n/a

n/a

/

/

/

n/a

n/a

/

150

n/a

n/a

/

3

/

Byz. Emp. post 1261

n/a

n/a

/

76

n/a

n/a

/

1

/

/

Petty den. Issues

27

n/a

20

/ 711

65

6

55

41

13

Achaïa

27

n/a

19

/ 433

34

4

55

41

12

n/a

1

/ 274

31

2

/

/

Athens

/

10

/ 10 /

Sterlings

1

n/a

1

Den. tor.

5

n/a

25

Fr. abbatial

1

n/a

French royal

1

n/a

Philip II Louis Philip III and later

/ 1

/ 2

n/a

/ 2

/

/

1

3

/

91

88

45

23

22

/

2

1

/

1

1

/

/

6

1

/

6

5

/

1

2

/

5

3

/ /

/

/

1

383

19

n/a n/a

/

/

/

/

/

/ 6

/ 1

/

/

/

/

/

4 / 3 1

113

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

«266. «267. «268. «271. «296. «334. «340. «351. «354. «357. «385. Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» Isthmia» Nemea» Panakto» Sparta» Thebes» Thebes» Zaraka» n/a

136

149

14

7?

n/a

4

7

3

/

n/a

111

91

11

7?

n/a

5

3

1

/

n/a

4

4

/

n/a

101

80

n/a

1

3

/

10

/

4

/

16

48

12

1

/

1

3

1

/

/

12

44

10

1

/

/

1

/

/

/

1

/

1

/

/

10

44

9

1

/ 4

4

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

6

11

/

5

7

3

/

/

/

/

1

2

3

2

/

/

/

/

1

1

276

232

165

8

2

3

1

55

5

2

2

276

224

149

8

2

3

/

55

2

1

2

/

7

15

1

/

3

1

/

/

6

3

3

204

141

537

18

9

4

8

2

27

17

29

3

4

24

13

/

/

/

1

1

/

/

3

49

3

13

/

/

/

3

/

/

2

4

/

/

/

5

/

/

2

3

1

/

/

/

/

/

1

26

3

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/ 5 /

/ 8

/ 1

/ 6

/

/

1

/

/

/

114

Chapter 2

Table 1

Single finds of the most significant denominations, issues …(cont.)

«223. «234. «236. «237. «238. «239. «262. «263. «264. «265. AcroArgos» Argos» Arta» Athen. Athens» Clarentza» Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» corinth» Agora» French feud.

/

n/a

2

1

5

1

/

1

Achaïa

/

n/a

13

7

77

14

15

17

7

7

GV

/

n/a

3

3

16

3

2

10

4

1

KA

/

n/a

1

2

16

4

3

3

1

2

FH

/

n/a

1

1

2

/

/

1

1

IV

/

n/a

8

/

/

PS

/

n/a

2

PT

/

n/a

2

/

10

/

LB

/

n/a

1

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

FM

/

n/a

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

MH

/

n/a

/

/

3

1

/

/

/

/

IG

/

n/a

/

6

4

/

/

RA

/

n/a

/

/

Athens

1

G.DVX

/

/

/ 1

3

14

/

1

/

/

n/a

3

8

49

n/a

1

3

14

4

1

2

2

2

/

/ 9 /

/

/

/

1

/

/

1

/

1

1

/

1 /

5

9

5

8

1

7

3

5

2

2

GVI.DVX

1

n/a

2

5

32

8

4

2

Naupaktos

1

n/a

1

1

16

3

1

1

n/a

2

/ 187

52

67

4

21

/

7

/

/

/

3

Counterfeits Soldini

/ 1

2

/ 5

/ 2

4

/

2

/

/

15

/

/

/

/

/

/

2

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

F. Dand.

/

B. Grad.

/

A. Dand.

/

M. Falier

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

G. Grad.

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/ 1

/

1

G. Dolfin

/

L. Celsi

/

M. Corner

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

A. Contar.

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

A. Venier

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

M. Steno Later

/ 1

1

1

1

115

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

«266. «267. «268. «271. «296. «334. «340. «351. «354. «357. «385. Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» Isthmia» Nemea» Panakto» Sparta» Thebes» Thebes» Zaraka» 8

4

13

1

93

46

98

6

53

22

37

4

15

10

21

5

5

7

10

4

11

5

1

15

4

2

6

1

/

/

/

23

2

/

7

/

/

/

2

/

/

/

5

/

/

/

/

2

/

/

/

3

/

4

2 /

1

1

/

1

/

/

2

/

1

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

2

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

1

1

/

/

5

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/ /

2 /

1

23

19

58

/

1

9

/

/

/

/

18

16

24

/

1

1

/

/

/

/

/

5

3

21

/

/

8

/

/

/

/

/

12

5

11

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

30

10

318

/

/

1

/

/

1

1

/

/

/

2

/

/

1

3

1

4

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

1

3

116

Chapter 2

Table 1

Single finds of the most significant denominations, issues …(cont.)

«223. «234. «236. «237. «238. «239. «262. «263. «264. «265. AcroArgos» Argos» Arta» Athen. Athens» Clarentza» Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» corinth» Agora» Torneselli before 1486

18

49

1

1

533

63

A. Dand.

/

1

/

/

M. Falier

/

/

/

/

G. Grad.

/

/

/

/

G. Dolfin

/

/

/

/

3

1

1

L. Celsi

/

4

/

/

8

3

M. Corner

/

5

/

/

22

24

/

/ 135

A. Contar.

2

M. Moros.

/

/

A. Venier

11

/

14

/

M. Steno

4

1

/

T. Mocen.

1

/

/

1

195 1

2

2

2

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

2

/

/

/

11

1

/

/

/

29

16

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

13

/

/

/

228

50

14

/

/

36

14

3

/

/

/

/

/

9

4

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

Later

/

/

/

/

/

1

Counterfeit torneselli

/

/

/

/

n/a 34

/ 8

/ 2

/ 1

processes of injections and cullings of coinage are relatively well understood, the volume and composition of the medieval currency has already been much debated.161 Despite of all its potential, even for England no sophisticated methodology which allows one to establish the chances of survival of single coins has so far been developed.162 One particular approach pioneered by Marion Archibald,163 which uses wear and weight loss to determine rates of survival, cannot currently be applied to Greece for lack of data. However, these physical attributes seem to me particularly useful explanations for the discrepancies 161  Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”; Mayhew, “Population, Money Supply, and the Velocity of Circulation”; Allen, “Volume and composition of the English silver currency”; Allen, “Volume of the English currency”; Mayhew, “Money supply”; Allen, Mints and money, esp. pp. 317–345. On the usefulness of using English data, see also Chapter 1, pp. 60–61; on calculating the volume of the currency, see this chapter, pp. 176–184. 162  In fact, Mayhew, “Late medieval countryside”, charts single coin data but does not consider longevity of circulation; Allen, “Interpretation of single-finds”, by contrast, uses hoards to estimate the latter while leaving aside actual single coin data. 163  Allen, “Interpretation of single-finds”.

117

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

«266. «267. «268. «271. «296. «334. «340. «351. «354. «357. «385. Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» Corinth» Isthmia» Nemea» Panakto» Sparta» Thebes» Thebes» Zaraka» 16

12

9

10

21

14

8

12

4

/

8

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

4 / 6 / 2

1

1

/

1

/ 1 /

1 2

/

/ 2

1

/

/

/

/

/

1

2

2

1

/

6 /

/

/

/

2

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

1

2

/

/

/

1 /

/

/

1

/

3 /

11

/

2

3

4 /

1

3

1 /

1

1 1

/ 3

/

/

/ 2

between single and hoard profiles since one can well imagine that less than perfect coins were not immediately forced out of everyday usage, but may still have been less attractive objects of thesaurisation. I will return to this consideration when discussing the hoard evidence, here below. For Greece, in trying to understand the chronology of single coin usage, we must rely largely on the direct comparison of hoards and single finds, and additionally, as far as the chronological question is concerned, on the stratigraphical fills contained in Appendix I.13 and 14.164 At Corinth (Appendix I.13) most of these fills date to the first century of Latin rule. We find a good number of tetartera, billon trachea, and petty denomination issues still in usage many decades beyond their dates of issue. The tournois coinage is no less interesting, with many relatively early Achaïan issues still available at the beginning of the fourteenth century. By contrast, the even earlier French royal and feudal tournois are quite rare in these contexts, certainly rarer than their overall appearance rates at Corinth, as we may judge from the table. At Athens 164  A similar methodology was used for instance in Saccocci, “Monete romane in contesti archeologici medioevali”.

118

Chapter 2

(Appendix I.14) we can follow the presence of copper and billon coins of the Byzantine tradition, and even of petty denomination issues, all the way to the end of the middle ages. Counterfeits are also very prominent, as they are at Corinth. The most interesting observation on the stratigraphical fills from Athens is the relative lack of regular denier tournois issues, and the domination of torneselli. These fills are therefore able to pick up some interesting tendencies for the most menial of the coinages, as well as the medium-range silver-based currencies, which can be further looked into through the table and the hoard data. 2.8 Generations of Majority Silver-Based Coinages The three main generations of silver-based coinages – French tournois, Greek tournois, Venetian torneselli (and to some extent soldini) – were evidently in primary circulation over certain limited periods, one following on from the other. Within these periods fresh coinage was added to the existing stock so that there was a natural progression of issues, but the older specimens remained available. Comparing the single and hoard data, we cannot fail to notice the top-heaviness of some of the issues in the first of these, the French tournois, the Greek tournois, and even the soldini. Evidently, at the end of the respective periods, in different ways, the coinages in question ceased to circulate, either entirely or partially, just as they did for instance in contemporary England as a result of successive re-coinages.165 Prior to this, older issues had the longest survival rates so that, for instance, a tournois of King Philip II (1180–1223) could reasonably have been lost in any decade down to the mid-thirteenth century, or a tournois of Prince William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) to the mid-fourteenth. How far this tendency also applied to the first soldini, those of Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339), is more difficult to ascertain since progressive issues were typologically and metrologically different. Judging from two of the fills of Appendix I.14 (nos. 17 and 28) some early soldini were still available at later stages (see also the soldino data in Table 1). Important caesuras in these coinages certainly occurred in the 1260s and then from the 1330s, although on the second of these occasions this was gradual, did not amount to an official cull, but more to an end of usage according to the rules of Gresham’s Law, as we can see from the re-appearance of Greek tournois in hoards some fifty years later.166

165  See the bibliography cited here above on the survival of single English coins, nn. 161–163. 166  See Baker, “Corinthe”, and the next discussion. On Gresham’s Law see also Chapter 1, p. 72.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

119

Table 1 gives a remarkably different picture for the Venetian torneselli: curiously they have none of the said top-heaviness, but they resemble much more the pattern of contemporary hoards which are usually dominated by the key dogeships of Andrea Contarini (1368–1382), Antonio Venier (1382–1400), and Michele Steno (1400–1413). A few reasons may be proposed for this. The first is a continuation of my previous argument, the domination of earlier Greek tournois, to the detriment of later tournois issues,167 and perhaps also an initial reluctance to embrace the tornesello on a day-to-day basis. This is certainly confirmed by the relative lack of early tornesello hoards. The mentioned domination of early soldini also fits this line of argumentation, especially at sites which were particularly active during these decades such as Argos, Athens, and Clarentza. The particular pattern of single tornesello losses might also be due to the Venetian authorities, more so than those of the principality in earlier times, trying to keep a firmer control over the currency in all its contexts (as single pieces as much as in assemblages) by taking older and inferior specimens out of circulation more regularly for re-mintage. Perhaps there was also a closer inter-relationship between single and assembled torneselli than for previous denominations, suggesting greater fluidity in usage and a more active monetary life. Some or all of these factors might have been responsible for ensuring that torneselli were, on average, lost in proportion to the quantities in which they were produced.168 Lastly, and this is a major consideration which will occupy us in the latter part of this discussion, some of these sites fizzled out towards the end of the medieval period, cutting again the opportunity for losses of earlier coins. This said, it is clear from the hoards of Appendix I.2 that torneselli of all doges were still available in the period 1430–1500, as were many other and diverse earlier coinages. The survival and culling of coins will be discussed in the further course of this chapter.169 2.9 Minority Coinages The sites, especially the larger ones, are also the most important source of information on the great diversity of minority coinages available in medieval Greece, which are mostly discussed in Appendix II.5 and 6. Athens and Corinth in particular constitute proverbial tips of icebergs for the arrival and 167  Until the publication regarding Riganokampos near Patra, cited n.  141 above and in Chapter 4, p. 428, no single tournois of Prince Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) had been known. 168  Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, p. 474, had already used parallel stray and hoard data from Greece to re-construct tornesello production. 169  Pp. 166–176.

120

Chapter 2

availability of different coinages from the east and west. It is also more than likely that in such contexts earlier arrivals from the twelfth century, most famously the coins of Lucca and Antioch, were still circulating in our period. 2.10 Concentrations of Single Grossi In our body of stray finds there are also other surprises, for instance the large number of single grossi in some of the more northerly reaches of the analysed area,170 which were evidently prized there for their good quality and perhaps in the absence of all other denominations in the wake of the demise of the Byzantine coinage system. 2.11 Establishing the Typical Medieval Greek Site(s) Ideally, the table and the corresponding Appendix I.4 should allow us not merely to identify those coinages which were of importance to circulation, but also the relative proportions in which one may expect to find these and their sub-varieties at fully developed sites. Unfortunately, the single coin data available for Greece do not derive from a good mix of sites and areas, nor are the overall quantities of coins satisfactory. For this reason it is difficult to discern tendencies and to ascribe them confidently either to common Greek developments, or to the particular idiosyncrasies of a site or area. We may hazard the guess that no site of the thirteenth century was entirely devoid of tetartera (which are, however, virtually impossible to quantify) and billon trachea. We know that this was the case even at Athens, despite doubts, although we lack precise quantities. At Arta billon trachea may, relatively speaking, have been more common than elsewhere, although again we cannot quantify this since the excavated plots there seem to have suffered an arrested development about a century into our analysis. The same can be said for Thebes, where billon trachea far outnumber all other medieval coinages. In the Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland only very few places have produced trachea of the successor states or the Palaiologan empire. There are, by contrast, certain sites in the southern reaches of our area which were active in the period after 1204 but which appear to have been more hesitant towards these copper denominations, for instance «385. Zaraka» and «230. Andros» and «231. Andros».171 As we have said, billon trachea, even if they were of early thirteenth-century mintage and arrived in the Peloponnese in quick succession to their issue, may well have been lost many decades later, with presumably progressively fewer being available as time went by. 170  Appendix II.4.B, p. 1299; see also the discussions in Chapter 4, pp. 468–470 and 473. 171  See Appendix II.1.A.1, pp. 1201–1203.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

121

At Argos, Corinth, Sparta, and Athens and elsewhere petty denomination issues were added to this mix of lowly copper or low-rate billon coinages, in large quantities and with similarly long periods of availability. In the Peloponnese there were generally more petty denomination issues than billon trachea, at Athens even more so, perhaps because of the large influx of such issues from Achaïa and the prolific output of the Thebes mint. The Theban stray data are all the more disappointing, whereas the absence of this coinage at Arta is conspicuous. These single find data, not least because most single billon trachea were of the smaller module weighing in the region of one gramme, may suggest an inter-relationship and conceptual kinship between billon trachea and petty denomination coinages not least in the way in which they were handled by the population at large, quite beside the shared bullion and the practical considerations which had induced their minting and their initial distribution by the authorities. At the Peloponnesian sites (even at Sparta), and to a more limited degree in the eastern Mainland, French tournois and English sterling pennies were used individually during a long period mid-century. In other areas the aforementioned single grossi, which date on average much earlier than their hoarded counterparts,172 may have had a similar role in the same period. These silverbased coinages were found in much smaller quantities than the copper and billon coinages, but we must also not forget that they might have been used less frequently, and would have been lost less easily. If the middle years of the century offered a rather mixed picture, the adoption of the Greek tournois from the 1260s onwards was universal at all Greek sites. Even though the products of the major mints can be found mixed in all the main areas, we can nevertheless witness some distinctive distribution patterns. In order to compare like with like we must consider the Achaïan issues down to Philip of Taranto, during whose princeship (1304/6–1313) the Naupaktos and Thebes mints closed. We notice that at the Peloponnesian sites there are accordingly more than twice as many Achaïan issues than those of Athens. At Arta and Athens the two issues hold a much more even balance, while Naupaktos issues are best represented at Athens. The implications of these important data – compared with the information derived from hoards – with respect to the handling and circulation of tournois are explored in the further course of this chapter. Overall, tournois were available in increasing and cumulative quantities so that one may surmise, as a general tendency which was not necessarily adhered to by all sites, that a large amount of tournois coinage was available in 172  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 215.

122

Chapter 2

the first decades of the fourteenth century. The genuine issues were mostly but not universally (see the negative evidence from Arta and Sparta) supplemented by even larger quantities of counterfeits. This phenomenon, which can neither be dated nor quantified with any degree of confidence, went through a number of phases and was inspired by diverse opportunities and needs:173 note that the table combines the figures for good quality counterfeits of the thirteenth (?) century, less good ones of the fourteenth and later, and the issues attributed to the Catalan Company. Nevertheless, the end result, as far as everyday coin usage at our sites was concerned, may have amounted to something quite similar to the previous situation, the large-scale availability of low-grade and substandard specie. In the further course of the middle ages, torneselli counterfeits and Lakonian tornesi of Manuel II Palaiologos174 (the latter not featuring in the table) may be seen in the same light. There can be no doubt, to judge by the Athenian units and from the totality of finds in Appendix I.4, that torneselli were very widely available, outnumbering virtually any of the other coinages of medieval Greece. Arguably, a site that was active in the early fifteenth century would have been better supplied with coinage – in quantitative terms – than in any previous period in the middle ages, not merely in the shape of genuine torneselli, but counterfeit torneselli and tournois, and a residue of other older coinages as well, even if we take into account wastage.175 The problem, as has already been pointed out, is the variable experiences which the sites underwent in this last phase. The use of single coins to describe the history of a site will be briefly explored with reference to the most poignant examples:176 2.12 Distinctive Site Developments Developments at the excavated plots in Arta and Thebes came to a noticable halt some time in the fourteenth century, to judge by the single finds. The Boiotian «290. Eutresis» has a profile which is not dissimilar to that of Thebes. Modern Chrisso near Delphi («282»), the ancient town of Krisa, may also have developed on similar lines, including a fluid transition from middle Byzantine times. A different, but possibly equally typical experience for locations in the eastern Mainland, is described by Panakto (Table 1), and by the area around the ancient sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi («283»–«285»): here the earliest 173  Appendix II.9.L and M, pp. 1481–1490. 174  Appendix II.1.E.3, pp. 1272–1273. 175  See the discussions in this chapter, pp. 176–184, on the size of the currency. 176  The specific problem of the transition from middle Byzantine to Frankish times in the archaeology of Greece has been highlighted in Chapter 1, p. 6.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: SITE AND SINGLE FINDS

123

frequentation is in the middle of the thirteenth century, and full maturity may have been reached during the Catalan phase, if not as late as the turn of the fifteenth century. The castle of «303. Karystos» on Euboia is another typical example of a site which flourished in the last medieval phase. Further to the north, in present-day Albania, Berat and Kaninë («254» and «299»), much as Arta, lack phases after certain points in the course of the fourteenth century. «381. Trikala» may redeem the negative impression we get from Epiros and Thessaly, though the evidence is very slight. One may surmise that otherwise in this part of our territory only a location such as Butrint («256» and «257») may have witnessed discernible monetary activities in the late fourteenth/early fifteenth century. Unfortunately, neither the data for Trikala nor those from Butrint can presently be used for statistical comparisons. On the Peloponnese, locations at Argos, Clarentza, Nemea, and Zaraka, also do not reach full maturity during the tornesello period, and peter out at different points in the fourteenth century. Comparing «234. Argos» and «236. Argos» is instructive since the second of these lacks the entire later phase of the town’s history, suggesting its contraction.177 The new data from Akronauplia are closer to the central area of Argos, and Mouchli in neighbouring Arkadia displays quite late developments.178 The coastal Lakonian site «225. Agios Stephanos», which has no torneselli, came to an end approximately at the same time as the Argive contraction. Sparta, by contrast, is relatively more frequented into the fifteenth century than virtually any Peloponnesian location. These sites had also undergone different developments, at earlier points in their histories. For instance the fact that Clarentza was not founded until the mid-thirteenth century, as suggested by the historical data, can be clearly seen from the record.179 Lepreo in Elis («313») also has a properly Frankish phase but nothing earlier, which is in fact the overall pattern I have already described for the western Peloponnese. Sparta, Zaraka, and maybe Nemea, all experience temporary downturns in the central medieval period. The Corinthian excavations document the deepest caesura of all, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, from which the ‘central’ locations never entirely recovered. By contrast, Acrocorinth, Isthmia, and the Kraneion basilica («271»), show somewhat more activity in the last medieval phase. The Corinthian port of «305. Kenchreai», even more curiously, was active in precisely the period of Corinth’s greatest crisis. Even the only two Cycladic islands for which usable data are available paint very diverse pictures: at Andros («230» and «231») activities are confined 177  I have already made this point in the relevant publication. 178  See Chapter 4, p. 428 for both of these sites. 179  Again, I have explored this in the publication.

124

Chapter 2

to a central medieval phase, whereas Naxos («322»–«333») displays an overall distribution which is exactly the mirror image, with stronger early thirteenth and later fourteenth centuries and little in between. 3

Hoarding and Non-retrieval of Hoards

The hoarding of coins in urban and rural locations was a very common feature in all pre-modern societies. Hoards contain coins of one or multiple denominations and types, they have internal chronologies and suggested dates of concealment. The study of coin hoards is a fundamental numismatic tool but the different phenomena associated with hoarding can also be used for broader monetary, historical and archaeological enquiries. 3.1 Methodological Considerations The exploitation of hoards for typological and especially chronological purposes is comparatively straightforward and has greatly informed Appendix II. It relies on some basic premises, such as the notion that the concealment date of a hoard would usually have been in close succession to the minting of the most recent issue contained therein, and that inclusion or exclusion of an issue provides an indication as to the dating of the issue. The assessment of the wider implication of phenomena associated with hoarding is fraught with many more difficulties. We must not forget, for instance, that we are looking at original hoarding patterns twice or even three times removed.180 First, only those hoards which had not been retrieved by their original hoarders are available for study; second, our sample is conditioned by rates of recovery in modern times, and indeed by the ways in which such finds may or may not have been communicated. The vast majority of hoards, unlike single and grave finds which are also discussed in this Chapter 2,181 were concealed with retrieval in mind. Typically, useful and valuable coins were chosen for hoarding. However, hoarding also withdrew these coins from circulation, and where this occurred on a large scale we may suspect negative influences, such as political/economic or monetary instabilities. In the latter case I am referring in particular to the workings of Gresham’s Law, whereby bad specie of equal face value forced out good specie.182 This leads to the paradoxical situation, which is quite difficult for the 180  A point also made in Grierson, Numismatics, p. 126. 181  Pp. 105–124 and 149–152 respectively. 182  See Chapter 1, p. 72.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

125

modern observer to surmount, of hoards signalling in different circumstances either useful and viable coinages and healthy conditions, or in fact exactly the opposite. In some rare cases it appears that inferior coinages were hoarded because they must have been deemed less useful and therefore targeted for exclusion from circulation and stored away, or even discarded,183 but in many other cases the usefulness of the hoarded specie, in relation to the totality of specie in circulation, requires assessment. 3.2 Hoards of Medieval Greece: Quantities Appendix I.1. lists 208 hoards of Greece with proposed concealments during the period 1200–1430. These can be analysed under diverse aspects. While the geographical and topographical profile of coin hoarding is mostly addressed in Chapter 4, a few points should be made with reference to the previous discussion of single finds, and to the general overview provided by Map 1.184 Once more we witness large tracts of land which are devoid of hoard evidence, yet somewhat less so than in the case of single finds. Clearly, during medieval times the instances of non-retrieval of hoards would have been far fewer than the accidental losses of single coins, yet this proportion is inversed in our collected data. This may be attributed to the fact that hoards are easier to detect in our own time during regular work in town and country (construction, agriculture, etc.), or through illicit searches with metal detectors, that finders are more likely to bring them to the attention of the authorities, or indeed that they try to dispose of them via illegal routes, during which they may be discovered and confiscated. One may also surmise that, once found, either casually or during excavations, and in the safekeeping of the state, archaeologists and numismatists are more likely to publish an attractive hoard than an amalgam of badly preserved single finds. There is also a large body of hoards which is kept in museums outside of the original areas and countries of circulation. All of this skews our evidence towards hoards. Within this material, there are three broad categories of coinage which are relevant to medieval Greece – Byzantine, western, and Islamic. There is a progression from the first to the last in terms of popularity and attractiveness amongst scholars dealing with this territory, which would have informed their choices in terms of material acquired, preserved and published, which further creates a bias. In the

183   So-called ‘abandoned hoards’ according to Grierson, Numismatics, pp. 135–136. 184  On the history of publications of medieval Greek coin hoards, see also Chapter 1, pp. 72–85.

126

Chapter 2

case of Ottoman coins this may have been to the serious detriment of the evidential basis.185 3.3 Hoards of Medieval Greece: Methods of Retrieval Many of the factors described above regarding the acquisition of single find data apply in an equal measure to hoards. The main medieval urban areas I discuss in Chapter 4 have yielded in combination nearly a quarter of all hoards. There are approximately 16 for greater Athens (see also Map 3), 10 for Corinth (Map 2), 12 for Thebes (Map 4), four for Arta (Map 1, B), two to three for Argos (Map 1, B), and three to four for Sparta (Map 1, F).186 Additionally an impressive six hoards derive from Delphi and nearby Krisa (Map 1, C); three from Eleusina (Map 1, D). Some of the major modern conurbations, besides Athens, which have yielded multiple hoards are Ioannina (Map 1, A), Larisa («82», «153», «209»), Lamia («100», «173»), Agrinio («41», «84», «140», «165», «169»), and Patra (Map 1, G). More minor centres, either in modern or contemporary terms, which might be pointed out are Eretria in Euboia («49» and «184»); Thespies in Boiotia («161», «171»); Naupaktos («94», «102», «148»); and the Amphissa/Itea area («116» and «138»). Modest excavations, even at sites which are not primarily relevant for the medieval period, will often result in hoard finds. This has been the case for instance for multiple hoards at Troizina («81» and «182»), or the nearby sanctuary of Asklepios of Epidauros,187 investigated respectively by the EFA and by the Archaeological Society of Athens. The DAI at Olympia was first made aware of the find from «158. Petsouri 1997». Kalapodi, a significant Bronze Age and classical stite, produced «185». In neighbouring Thespies, excavations of the EFA at the sanctuary of the muses uncovered «161». «15. Oreos 1935» was discovered during excavations in this humble ancient and medieval location; «21. Kephallonia 1932», by the Dutchman Dr A.E.H. Goekoop in his search for Homerian remains. The «54. Berbati 1953» hoard was found by a Swedish mission interested primarily in the Bronze Age; «60. Nemea 1936» was excavated by the ASCSA. «75. Salamina» was excavated by Pallas during specifically medieval investigations on the island. Three Cycladic hoards were also found during excavations («6. Paros 1999»; «30. Amorgos 1909»; «31. Thira 1910»), as were two Albanian hoards («93. Apollonia» and «183. Butrint»). There is a notable 185  Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1351–1353. 186  In the cases of the last two towns, hoards which do not feature in Appendix I.1 have been added to this record by the 2011 Argos conference, Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο. See p. xxiv and Chapter 4, pp. 427–428. 187  «89. Epidauros 1904», and a second hoard from this site examined by Galani-Krikou and me for the same Argos conference, cited in the last note.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

127

concentration of hoards that have been found in churches or monastic structures during regular archaeological work (restorations and small scale excavations), which is one of the main activities of the Byzantine Ephorates or the medieval section of the Institute of Archaeology in Tirana. These are, in chronological order, «3. Mapsos 1991»; «6. Paros 1999»; «103. Spata»; «140. Ermitsa 1985A»; «147. Nivicë»; «150. Elateia before 1885»; «156. Shën Jan»; «162. Nea Sampsous 1982»; «169. Ermitsa 1985B»; «193. Naxos 2005»; «201. Vasilitsi 2000». Finally, the only available data from the important location of Mystras («180») are the result of restoration work. The vast majority of the hoards in Appendix I.1 – at least 50% of the 208 – were, however, donations and confiscations which cannot be brought in relation with any obvious ancient, medieval, or modern urban area, and which were not the product of any pro-active enquiry such as an excavation. Such hoards have ended up in the hands of the Greek or Albanian authorities, in Athens and Tirana, or locally, or are now conserved or dispersed in other countries. Naturally, amongst this material there are also a substantial number of hoards with only vague or completely unknown findspots. As I have pointed out, this material has no counterpart amongst the body of stray finds. What it lacks in geographical and sometimes compositional precision is made up by the fact that it takes us into the heart of the country, and the randomness with which these finds are generated is of vital statistical importance. 3.4 Chronological Distribution An obvious way of categorising hoards as a body of material is by chronological units according to dates of concealment. Absolute numbers in each of the brackets are difficult to give since there is frequently some ambivalence as to the precise date of a hoard, but the listings of Appendix I.1 can give approximate orders of magnitude for the various periods. There are an impressive 38 hoards which may be placed in the decade from 1200 to 1210, or just a bit later («1»–«38»). The following seven decades (ca. 1210–ca. 1280) have produced about the same number («39»–«77»). Thereafter, 35 hoards («78»– «112») fit into the timeframe ca. 1280 – ca. 1311, that is to say about three decades, although «94»–«110» (or «112») may all be datable to within a couple of years of 1311. The subsequent four decades, to exactly mid-century, are filled with 50 hoards («113»–«162»), the same approximate number for the next 80 years, ca. 1350–1430 («162»–«208»). Overall, after the one mentioned caesura in about 1311, the remainder of the fourteenth century and the early fifteenth century have a very steady rate of hoarding, apart from perhaps another, if much less tangible, concentration just before 1350. The thirteenth century, by contrast, is much less even. The years after the end of the primary period of

128

Chapter 2

investigation, 1430–1500, are treated in Appendix I.2 and cover merely four hoards («209»–«212»). 3.5 Contemporary Values of Hoards Of some interest are also the developments in the values of the hoarded currency. An attempt is made here to give values to hoards in contemporary terms, based on our knowledge of the accounting systems and their relations to the actual specie, which of course is not always easy.188 In this particular exercise some assumptions and shortcuts had to be applied: first, we may treat the tournois and the later tornesello on a par, and also the sterling penny and the Venetian soldino (4t = 1s), if one bears in mind in general terms that the fourteenth century experienced a significant currency debasement.189 One can apply a mean ratio of 10 tournois to the grosso, which lies between the thirteenth-century rates of 6–8, and the fourteenth-century one of ca. 12. A representative Greek hyperpyron of account – which resembles that of Negroponte and Thebes more than the hyperpyra of the Peloponnese190 – may be given as 100 tournois/torneselli, 25 sterlings/soldini, or 10 grossi. We may also equate one actual hyperpyron coin in the name of John III Vatatzes with 1.5 of these hyperpyra of account.191 Consequently, each twelfth-century hyperpyron which was still in circulation in our period, at ca. 21 carat fineness,192 would be counted as two of the hyperpyra of this exercise. The hyperpyron rate used here, being rather on the valuable side within the Greek context, is also relatively close to the hyperpyron of Constantinople. At the end of the twelfth century 184 billon trachea were required to make up one of these hyperpyra.193 We know from Pegolotti

188  In general terms, Appendix III treats the monies of account; Chapter 3 their relations with the available specie. 189  See especially Appendix II.4.F, p. 1327: to judge by the rates of the tornesello to the ducat, the values of the hyperpyra of Greece, which were substantially based on the tournois/tornesello, had dropped by anything up to 250% by the turn of the fifteenth century in terms of the main gold coinages. On equivalents more generally, see especially Appendix III.8, pp. 1585–1597. 190  Appendix III.3, pp. 1522–1553. 191  This equation relies on a gold : silver ratio of 1:13 (see Spufford, Money and its use, p. 272). The ca. 22g of silver of ten grossi (Appendix II.4.B, p. 1298) are to be equated with 1.7g of gold. At ca. 16 carats fineness, and an average weight of 4.2g (see DOC IV, pp. 476 and 482ff), a hyperpyron in the name of Vatatzes is, at 2.7g of gold, 1.5 times more valuable than 10 grossi. 192  Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 915. 193  Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 933.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

129

that four trachea were valued as one tournois in Constantinople.194 In reality, how the base trachea of the thirteenth century and their small modules might have been valued in Greece is anybody’s guess. Nevertheless, a ca. 200% decrease in value since the late twelfth century provides a convenient figure for present purposes. I will apply here a rate of 200 older pre-conquest trachea to the hyperpyron, 400 of the main thirteenth-century issues, and twice this rate (i.e. 800) for small module issues and for tetartera. Petty denomination issues will be given corresponding values based on their possible respective low and high weight standards (400 and 800 to the hyperpyron). The larger imported silver denominations also need to be converted into the hyperpyron used in this exercise. The figure of 20 tournois to the gros tournois or the carlino, that is to say five of the latter to the hyperpyron (of the Mainland), provides a convenient conversion and is backed up by the sources. In the last decades of the middle ages, the gold florin/ducat is often given a value of three hyperpyra (and unofficially it might have been a lot more). Nevertheless, for our present purposes the more conservative 2.5 ratio is used, because most gold hoards are relatively early within the fourteenth century, and not least since this puts us in the same order of magnitude as the officially applied relationships of 24 grossi or 288 torneselli to the ducat.195 With all these values in mind, the hoards of medieval Greece worth more than 10 hyperpyra, in descending order and rounded to the nearest full hyperpyron, are: Table 2

Hoards of Greece with estimated contemporary values of 10 hyperpyra or more

No. Hoard 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.* 10.

«41. Agrinio 1978/1979» «168. Elis 1964» «197. Kephallonia» «122. Thebes 1967» «166. Euboia» «109. Eleusina 1862» «195. Zakynthos 1978» «58. Naxos ca. 1969» «198. Delphi 1894A» «158. Petsouri 1997»

Value in hyperpyra 469 259 202 At least 100, perhaps a lot more 93 78 to 156 depending on the coins not seen by Lenormant At least 60, perhaps more 58 52 51

194  Appendix II.1.B, p. 1208. 195  A  ppendix II.4.D.2, p. 1312 and II.4.F, p. 1327.

130

Chapter 2

Table 2

Hoards of Greece with estimated contemporary values of 10 hyperpyra (cont.)

No. Hoard

Value in hyperpyra

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

46 45 Ca. 45 44 39 33 Ca. 33 26 26 25 24 21 20 18 18 17 16 16 16 15 14 14 13 13 Ca. 13 11 More than 10 At least 10, probably considerably more 4 to 17 depending on the precise identity of the issues

«170. Eleusina 1952» «175. Pyrgos 1967» «46. Patra before 1940» «64. Ioannina 1821» «42. Albania» «105. Thessaly 1992» «92. Pylia 1968/1969» «45. Erymantheia 1955» «196. Delphi 1894B» «83. Xirochori 1957» «107. Unknown Prov.» «143. Limni Ioanninon» «65. Kirkizates Artas» «162. Nea Sampsous» «205. ANS 1983» «206. Arta 1985B» «94. Naupaktos 1977» «99. Delphi 1927» «159. Patra 1955B» «40. Athens 1928» «106. Unknown Prov.» «174. Ancient Elis 2005» «63. Kordokopi 1972» «190. Mesopotam» «137. Kafaraj» «130. Romanos Dodonis» «112. Pikermi/Spata» «187. Thebes 1973» «27. Volos 1907»

* «78. Sphaka», at 55 hyperpyra, could be ranked in ninth place, but its medieval dating is rather doubtful.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

131

The first thing that strikes one is the considerable number of hoards, out of a total of 208, which attained the value of at least 10 hyperpyra, a not inconsiderable sum in view of contemporary wages and prices,196 but not within the higher reaches of the documented monetary exchanges (see below). The hoards were generally well spaced out, in terms of geography, chronology, and the denominations included. For instance, within the top ten, hoards contained hyperpyron coins, ducats, large silver coins, grossi, sterlings, soldini, as much as tournois and torneselli. This is to say that even with the lower value coins of the later periods large sums could be assembled. In fact, in the period from the 1370s/1380s onwards there was the highest concentration of valuable hoards. Prior to this, there had been concentrations of valuable hoards in the 1230s and 1240s, reliant on the influx of hyperpyra, and again in the 1290s–1320s, with hoards composed of tournois and other silver coins. Only the very early wave of hoarding after 1200 failed to produce particularly valuable hoards. With regard to the spread of the most valuable hoards – and this takes us into the heart of the dilemma which I discussed here above – one can notice a certain concentration in the western Peloponnese, an area of supposed political and economic sophistication.197 However, a large number of valuable hoards also came from areas which were obviously backward: this applies to the greatest assemblage of wealth of medieval Greece («41. Agrinio 1978/1979»),198 and also to other finds made between the Gulf of Corinth in the south and Albania in the north, including the Ionian islands to the west, and Thessaly and Phokis to the east (note that three of the six hoards from Delphi feature in Table 2). A last category of valuable hoards derived from the eastern Mainland during Catalan times (post-1311), an area which may have thrived in some respects, but which was still politically and strategically precarious, and most importantly had recently been deprived of an official mint. 3.6 Profiles of Hoarded Coinages and Denominations A very large spectrum of coinages and denominations was hoarded in medieval Greece. Initially, billon trachea and tetartera were dominant, with only three electrum trachy hoards («4», «5», and «7»). After hoard «3», gold hyperpyra only re-appear from the later 1220s, at the earliest. At the same time the first sterling pennies were hoarded (starting with «39»), followed in quick 196  Morrisson and Cheynet, “Prices and wages”. 197  This point has already been made in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”. 198  The area of the ancient/modern town itself was apparently uninhabited in medieval times. On locations in the vicinity see TIB 3, s.v. Eulochos and Zapanti, and the medieval excavations at Ermitsa which produced «140» and «169».

132

Chapter 2

succession by grossi («43») and tournois («49»). These four coinages dominated the middle years of the thirteenth century, tournois and grossi also afterwards, with a vast number of hoards. In mid-century there was also a small instance of petty denomination issue hoarding («55», «56», «57», «59»). In the fourteenth century the picture diversified, with the appearances, in chronological order, of gros tournois and coinages of the carlino tradition (from «109»), of Italian gold coins (from «143», if we exclude the doubtful «78»), Venetian soldini («144») and torneselli («164»/«165»). As I have said, the main objects of thesaurisation, and especially the combination of different coinages and denominations, and their relative proportions, can reveal which of these carried the currency in the different periods, and which values might have been operational. Only seldom has this been achieved in such an obvious manner as in the case of an early fourteenth-century grosso hoard from the Republic of North Macedonia, which proves through its composition that the Venetian and Serbian issues of that generation were compatible and valued the same at 12 to the hyperpyron of account.199 In our area, hoards «5» and «7» (the second hoard containing a number of specimens which divides neatly into three) might prove that even at the turn of the thirteenth century the two lower-value Byzantine cup-shaped coinages could still operate according to their traditional roles, and within a unified system. Trachea and tetartera were also consistently hoarded together («25», «36», «38»), later on in combination with petty denomination issues («55» and «59»). How positively this can be evaluated is difficult to assess. Trachea and tetartera may have constituted an integrated system, and petty denomination issues, as I have already indicated above, may to a certain degree have succeeded them and could have performed similar functions to them. However, certainly by the time of the second group of hoards, all of these coinages were hermetically sealed off from the majority silver-based currencies of Greece. These were, in turn, frequently hoarded together (most obviously in «63» and «70»), and with the latest generation of hyperpyron coins. In southern Greece the grosso-sterling-tournois system was broken up with the arrival of indigenous tournois issues, and this may also account for the disappearance of hyperpyron coins from the archaeological record. The compositions of «77. Corinth 1992» and «88. Delphi 1933» may reveal that the grosso was valued at six tournois at one point in the thirteenth century;200 and a string of other hoards containing grossi in multiples of ten («62. Trikala 1949»; «80. 199  Ivanišević, “Usje”. 200  Compare Appendix III.3, p. 1531.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

133

Athens/Agios Andreas 1937»; «96. Kapandriti 1978»; «99. Delphi 1927») can either demonstrate that the corresponding hyperpyra were valued at ten grossi in this timespan,201 or that the grosso was a system in its own right accounted perhaps in tale. The latter hypothesis might find confirmation in the fact that even during the period of tournois domination there were still numerous pure grosso hoards («74», «80», «82», «96», «106», «107», «110», «113», «137»). Grossi did not always entirely harmonise with the lower-value silver coins, and this separation is a very logical phenomenon which can be found elsewhere in the Latin medieval world, and relates to its extreme fineness and superior weight and therefore value.202 In the same years Serbian grossi could also be found besides Venetian grossi in the hoards, reflecting, as in the Macedonian case cited above, compatibility. The heavy gros tournois and coins of the carlino tradition, either of the older (pierreali and saluti) or newer (gigliati) weight standard, paint a rather ambiguous picture. The uncertainty is further enhanced by some of the very high values of the hoards in question, as already mentioned. These issues mixed quite readily, also with pre-existing grossi and tournois (see «109», «121», «122»), thereby forming assemblages of uneasy compatibility, and bearing witness to something less than an entirely viable monetary system. On the other hand, the fact that the hoards were often dominated by one or the other of the issues, and perhaps the round figure of 10 carlini in «112. Pikermi/Spata 1936», might be said to lend these coinages more an air of regularity. In the first decades of the fourteenth century there might therefore have been three monetary systems – perhaps even more – in operation, which were variously combined or kept apart according to requirements. When the Italian gold coinages appeared they seem to have aligned themselves most naturally with the Venetian grosso (see «143»), although by the time the gold coinages reached greatest diffusion («162» and «166») the main period of grosso usage was already over. Judging by the hoarded record, the new Venetian soldino was integrated remarkably quickly into both the grosso («144», «145») and the tournois («146», «149», «150», «154», «155», «156» etc.) systems, suggesting great compatibility, based on metrological grounds, while invoking also the memory of the sterling, which had held the same position within these systems in an earlier period and was still used in accounting.203

201  Appendix III.3, p. 1525 and ff. 202  Rolnick and Weber, review of Sargent and Velde, Small change, p. 460. See also Chapter 1, pp. 59–60 on the birth of the groat denominations in the west. 203  See Appendix III.3, pp. 1540–1545.

134

Chapter 2

By contrast, the tornesello had obvious problems of integration in Greece when it was first emitted by the Venice mint. An early hoard («165») contained just one, perhaps accidental, specimen. Torneselli were gradually included in tournois and soldino hoards in the years that followed («171»/«172» onwards), although even thereafter some hoards obviously excluded them («173», «175», «176», «185», «190»). Some of the Peloponnesian hoards which have come to the fore since the completion of Appendix I also reflect this same phenomenon: they target soldini and exclude torneselli (see Mantineia 1867, Patra 1939, Grivitza 1867, and also the less well-known Achaïan hoard from Vasiliko).204 Hoards «192», «196», «198» are noteworthy for the fact that they were dominated by tournois in a period in which torneselli usually prevailed. As in earlier times, we can see here monetary systems, based on the tournois, the soldino (and the denar), and on the tornesello, which were compatible in broad terms, but which were nevertheless frequently divided into their constituent elements. To judge by hoard «194», the Palaiologan tornese coinage was incompatible with its prototype, the tornesello. Despite all the resistance to the tornesello, after a certain point in the history of medieval Greek hoarding («199»/«201») this coinage was to be even more dominant than the tournois had been a century previously. 3.7 Profiles of Hoarded Coinages and Denominations: Negative Evidence In trying to pinpoint the prevalent monetary systems, the absence from the hoards of certain coinages which we know from the record of single finds (and to a lesser degree from documentary sources) is very revealing. Billon trachea were first introduced to most of our analysed area in exactly 1204, in the form of twelfth-century issues and Faithful Copies, but their hoarding may have been delayed by a year or two. We know that tetartera, trachea, and petty denomination issues were available for much longer than the hoards would suggest. Manfred’s trachea were never seen to be hoarded during their approximate period of issue, but emerge in a sense accidentally in considerably later contexts («109», probably «111») because of their physical affinities with a new wave of western imports. Tournois – often inferior and counterfeit issues – were widely available throughout the second half of the fourteenth century and later, but are often avoided in hoards, although there are some which contain them exclusively. Worn and broken genuine Greek tournois and Venetian torneselli also often remained available and were used, but no longer considered for hoarding. The various eastern and western coinages of Appendix II.5 and Appendix II.6, which have already been mentioned in the discussion of 204  Chapter 4, pp. 427–428.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

135

the stray finds, were seldom hoarded, and if so often in periods much later than their first availability in Greece. Even silver grossi, gros tournois/carlini, and gold florins/ducats became objects of thesaurisation much later than their initial appearances as single coins or in the relevant sources. Gold hyperpyra were probably available in Greece throughout the thirteenth century, and possibly also later. Their early presence is deduced from the healthy twelfth-century situation and the fact that «41» contained many older issues; for the later period we rely on documentary evidence. Nevertheless, hyperpyron hoarding only manifests itself for a certain central period of the thirteenth century. These examples suggest on the one hand a strong consensus as to which coinages carried the currency in a given period, and were used to meet the regular, bulk payments in the state and private sectors. On the other hand, there were always coinages which stood apart from the main currency but which nevertheless performed monetary functions. These were sometimes intrinsically valuable (see the cited examples of the grossi/gros/carlini, and of the ducats/florins and hyperpyra), but somehow did not fit the prevailing system, but usually they were far inferior to the coinages which were of primary importance to the currency, being either of pure copper or very low-grade billon, or worn and broken regular tournois of ca. 20% silver or less. The latter category of coins might in combination be termed ‘petty’, since they stood below and apart from the other coins, were not used and hoarded together with them, and would seldom have been stored or held in reserve.205 Such petty coins were very common in medieval Greece, but may well have prevailed in urban contexts. We must assume that they would have been used in tale for everyday purposes. Logically, they would have converted into the main silver-based currencies, but presumably at very irregular and unreliable rates since the transition from one system to the other would not necessarily have been based on intrinsic value or on official directives, as would have been the case for all other coinages. Petty coinages constituted therefore another monetary system to the ones already described. The existence of such starkly different, parallel monetary systems in medieval Greece recreated a situation which was closer to that in Byzantium than to that of the medieval west.206 Medieval Greece inherited from Byzantium the tradition of fiduciary copper coinages, and the particularly large gap between the very lowest and highest denominations

205  See also Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374: the early denominations of Athens and Achaïa have been called ‘petty’ for precisely that reason. 206  See the summary of the system in the middle Byzantine period in Chapter 1, pp. 8–24.

136

Chapter 2

available, which was traditionally unknown in the Latin west,207 up to a certain point in history.208 The massive urban coin finds which I have described for Greece are also closer to what we are used to from early or middle Byzantine sites than from the average urban excavation in the west.209 However, this was a situation which in the particular medieval Greek context came about not through design, but as the result of different factors and motivations, amongst which the creation of a base of petty coins for everyday usage would at best have been secondary. Even tetartera of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ and the petty denominations of Athens and Achaïa would have been produced with purposes in mind other than creating petty coinages with which to conduct everyday business. A final important difference to the early and middle Byzantine situation is that copper coinages in these periods were very commonly hoarded. 3.8 Typological Make-Ups of Individual Coinages in Hoards Now that we have clarified which coinages were the subject of hoarding, alone and in combination, and when, it would be useful to delve deeper into the make-up of each of the hoarded coinages and denominations, on the level of precise issues, types and (ideally) dies. This has further potential in bringing us to the heart of coin circulation, storage, and usage.210 The results are seldom as neat as in the case of the late twelfth or early thirteenth-century211 gold hoard from Gornoslav in Thrace, which has been identified as the reserve

207  Sargent and Velde, Small change. The authors of this book ignore, in fact, Byzantium and the existence of copper coins in areas under Byzantine influence. 208  See, for the first Italian copper coins introduced through the Balkans, Appendix II.12, pp. 1508–1509 and Chapter 1, p. 65, n. 366. In the fourteenth century, with the advent of gold, also the medieval west acquired a broader range of values. For instance, the new gold noble of England (post 1351) was worth 320 farthings, not far off the relationship of the gold solidus to the new Anastasian follis of 598. 209  Southern Italy had a similar Byzantine numismatic tradition to Greece, and also petty copper coinages might have been available there even if the current monetary system of the medieval period was based on western-style silver and gold. Consider for instance the eclectic hoards concealed in the fifteenth century in the province of Reggio Calabria: Castizio, “Calamizzi”. 210  See also Hendy, Studies, pp. 342–343, for Byzantine hoards which permit similar extrapolations on the basis of their compositions. 211  The fact that this hoard may well date to the thirteenth rather than the late twelfth century, as is traditionally assumed (Appendix II.1.D, pp. 1254–1255 and 1262, n. 386), does not detract from this aspect of the hoard’s interpretation. On the long term storage of gold coins in monastic and similar environments, and its effects on the age profile of hoards, see Chapter 1, p. 11, n. 58.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

137

chest of the nearby Bačkovo monastery.212 This is suggested not merely on the grounds of its size and value, in combination with the information provided by the relevant typikon, but also in view of the rather conservative nature of the hyperpyron issues it contained. In general terms, and with respect both to the values achieved by the medieval Greek hoards, and to that of the Gornoslav hoard (at 786 hyperpyron coins), we must state that the monetary activities to which our hoards may bear witness are not on a par with the larger monetary accumulations and movements orchestrated by the various political entities and their employees, the lay or ecclesiastical holders of landed wealth, or even the bigger business interests, which are recorded in the documentary sources. Another important general point needs to be made, with reference to the mixed typology of all of our hoards, as much as to the presumed – though yet to be comprehensively proven – lack of any excessive die linking within single hoards: namely, none of these hoards are particularly close to any mint and to the minting process, which might have given us more clear-cut ideas on the formation processes of a given find. The vast majority of hoards of medieval Greece combine in fact to varying degrees elements both of storage and of contemporary availability. They reflect coin circulation, modified however by considerations of quality and usefulness, as we have discussed. The typological make-up of hoards is also the most important piece of evidence regarding the injection, subtraction, and gradual falling away of coinage, to be further discussed below (pp. 161–176). I will therefore describe at this point in the discussion any perceived normal or unusual distributions with suitably neutral terminology, before extrapolating their meanings later. 3.9 Typological Make-Up: Byzantine Denominations Beginning our analysis with the main Byzantine denominations, gold hyperpyra are spread across a number of quite eclectic hoards dating ca. 1200 to ca. 1267 («3» to «70»). Three main units are of interest to us, issues of the preconquest empire; issues of the empire at Nicaea; and issues of the Latin empire at Constantinople (although in some cases we are unable to distinguish between the latter two). In the twelfth century the availability of hyperpyra in Greece was apparently healthy.213 «41», concealed about three decades after the conquest, still contains a good quantity of older hyperpyra. This situation soon changed, since such issues are entirely absent from all subsequent 212  See Lefort and Smyrlis, “Gestion du numéraire”, p. 196, n. 43 for this suggestion, a reinterpretation of Hendy, “Gornoslav”. 213  See Chapter 1, esp. pp. 10–15; Appendix II.1.D, pp. 1253–1254.

138

Chapter 2

hoards. Greece was henceforth supplied with gold hyperpyra from Anatolia and Constantinople, preferentially from the latter. It is significant that issues post-dating those in the name of John III Vatatzes (†1254) are present only in one hoard («53»), and that hyperpyra of the restored Byzantine Empire are absent from Greek hoards despite the fact that hoarding of hyperpyra continued in Byzantium into the 1260s. Electrum trachea feature in just three hoards dating to the first years of the thirteenth century. It is noticeable that they contain predominantly («7»), or exclusively («4» and «5»), issues which pre-date the major debasement which took place under Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203). Billon trachea are contained in a very compact initial group of hoards («5» to «38») followed by a few more sporadically spaced later hoards. The circulation of this currency is discussed in some detail in Appendix II.1.B, because questions of attribution are so intimately linked to distribution. It is important to recall that often this coinage was handled in bulk in apokombia, which made for some of the peculiar combinations of issues at varying stages of their internal developments. The most distinctive hoards are the Cycladic «30» and «31», which contain more than average proportions of coins of Hendy’s ‘Thessalonike’ mint and are an important element in the demonstration that such a mint presumably did not exist. The initial group of trachy hoards shows very nicely the addition and subtraction of successive generations of coins: twelfth-century Byzantine; ‘Bulgarian’; and issues of the successor states. By about 1207, the first of these issues was already heavily marginalised, apart from in the two Cycladic hoards (NB: the evidence from «33. Arkadia 1958» is not reliable), and in the much later, and quite remarkable, «68. Ioannina».214 However, also the ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives, and even the large module Latin Imitatives, were soon no longer to feature in the hoards at their initial strengths. Latin small module coins, especially of type A, were the most common trachy issue in a great bulk of the hoards (also at «44. Thebes 1967»), until we arrive at the more northerly group of hoards. «48. Ioannina 1983» is, uniquely, a single-type hoard (of Thessalonike), whereas «66»–«69» have significant proportions of Thessalonican and Palaiologan issues, while all Latin issues are marginal by this stage. This reinforces the peculiar character of hoard «68», which, while also devoid of any Latin issues, contains predominantly twelfth-century Byzantine trachea. The nuanced circulation pattern of trachea in medieval Greece is not reflected in our single find data – leaving aside the rather more complex picture which we gain from «237. Arta». Table 1 has revealed the total domination of Latin issues, and of small modules in particular. 214  See also Appendix II.1.B.1, p. 1212.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

139

We have seen that the tetarteron coinage had a very tight typological progression in the twelfth-century hoards, especially for the reigns of the first three emperors of the Komnenian dynasty, Alexios to Manuel.215 Correspondingly, our earliest hoards of the thirteenth century («1», «2») retain a typical late twelfth-century profile. This situation soon changed, gradually for hoard «16» with the addition of some more recent counterfeits (the proportion of twelfth- to thirteenth-century issues is unknown for «15» and «17»), and more dramatically for «25. Brauron 1956». The significantly later hoards «38» and «59» continue – with regard to the types of tetartera they contain – the same tendency towards counterfeit issues. «79», by contrast, if it is acceptable as a genuine hoard, preserves a much older tetarteron profile. 3.10 Typological Make-Up: Sterlings and Grossi Sterling pennies have been found in Greece in hoarded contexts dating ca. 1214, or later («39»), to ca. 1267 («70»). We currently know the precise typology of only some of these specimens, but enough (see hoards «39», «54», «58», «63», «70») to ascertain that some issues dating to before 1204 found their way to Greece (short cross classes 1–4), followed by a larger number of class 5 issues of the first decade of the thirteenth century, and an even more substantial number for classes 6–7 of the subsequent three decades. Within class 7, however, the specimens peter out after 7b (dating to 1236, at the latest). There are only relatively few specimens of class 8 and early long cross classes (after 1247). Sterling pennies other than those of English mintage are insubstantial in the hoards (see «58»), and no sterling penny dating after ca. 1258 has been found hoarded in Greece, even if the last hoard dates about a decade later. One hoard («70») included two counterfeit sterling pennies from a total of 10. Venetian grossi are contained in a broader range of hoards which span about a century from «43» to «145». In two of the thirteenth-century hoards, the represented grosso issues are somewhat older than the totality of the hoards («58» and «83»), a situation which is not dissimilar to that we have just observed for the sterling pennies. On the whole, however, there was a steady progression in grosso arrivals and hoarding in Greece from at least the issues of Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) onwards. Until the last decade of the century the main issues, with an emphasis on those of Doges Jacopo Tiepolo, Raniero Zeno (1253–68), and Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289), were consistently added to the hoarded record, with earlier issues in turn disappearing progressively from it. In due course, issues of the Doges Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311), Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329), and Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339), also made steady appearances in the hoards 215  Chapter 1, pp. 16–17.

140

Chapter 2

of our area. This said, our information on the hoards of the first half of the fourteenth century is much less detailed in terms of findspots and compositions, and it remains possible that there might have been variations of inclusion and exclusion of grosso issues. The best-known grosso hoard of this period («143. Limni Ioanninon 1965»), which is also from a remoter area than many of the others, is remarkable in the longevity of the issues that it represents. With regard to grosso typology we should note, finally, that Serbian issues feature in some hoards (between «82» and «99») precisely in the period when their quality was at its best and the closest to the Venetian prototype. No other inferior grossi of Serbian or other mintage have been found hoarded in Greece, with the possible exception of «144» and «145», which are in more than one way unreliable pieces of evidence. It is difficult to ascertain whether the absence of Serbian grossi of the first generation in somewhat later hoards (consider «113» and «143») is significant or not. 3.11 Typological Make-Up: Petty Denomination Coins Petty denomination coins were hoarded primarily over a very short period («55»–«59»), and an examination of the different issues reveals few typological surprises, with the exception of the new Chalkida 2011 hoard of Negroponte issues.216 «55» is clearly a hoard which focuses on the small module issues, with no immediate implications for the dating and behaviour of the issues of larger module. All other hoards of this period, which are all from the Peloponnese, concentrate on the larger issues, which are also those minted by the principality of Achaïa. The peculiar composition of «59. Argos 1988», that is to say its emphasis on Metcalf’s type 10, remains difficult to explain. There are a number of much later hoards which contain very small quantities of petty denomination issues. 3.12 Typological Make-Up: Tournois In Greece, deniers tournois were hoarded from the middle of the thirteenth century (from «49» onwards) until the end of the middle ages. Naturally, during this extended period the hoarded specimens underwent some typological developments in terms of areas (France and Greece, much later Italy) or mints of origin, and with regard to the issuers and sub-groups that are represented. There are no early tournois hoards which contain exclusively abbatial issues of Tours, the first generation of tournois in Greece. The hoards from ca. 1250 («49») to ca. 1270 («75») are – insofar as they comprise a certain basic number 216  Chapter 4, p. 448.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

141

of specimens – composed of abbatial and royal issues, and coins of the royal appanages. The royal issues are dominant in this period. «75. Salamina» is interesting because it contains exclusively French issues although the Clarentza mint was evidently already producing tournois. The evidence of the new Argos 2005b is no less significant for this transitional period, containing mostly French issues with only a few of William II of Villehardouin.217 In the subsequent hoards all French issues are heavily marginalised by the Greek issues, but within the French issues there is still a movement towards those of the appanages.218 The early and large hoards «81. Troizina 1899» and «83. Xirochori 1957» are compositionally interesting, since the first of these displays a degree of immaturity in its KA1 and KA2 element, is advanced in the Athenian typology but still contains on the whole relatively fewer Athenian specimens.219 During the first major surge of minting in Greece, before the end of the Thebes mint in 1311 a number of hoards are available from diverse parts of Greece («84»–«109») to suggest some distinctive patterns of distribution. The two earliest hoards of this grouping («84» and «85»), as noted elsewhere,220 are unduly immature for the Athenian series. The first of these also has unusual compositions for the Achaïan issues of Prince Florent, while the second is particularly conservative in the Achaïan series. The subsequent hoards all date to within five or six years (ca. 1305–ca. 1311). The Naupaktos mint had by this stage largely stopped issuing, while Clarentza and Thebes were still emitting in good quantities. We can notice that hoards of the eastern Mainland, but also from the eastern Peloponnese («90»), usually do not have in excess of 40% Achaïan issues and are dominated by issues of Athens at between 40 and 50%. Thessaly («105») is closer to the eastern Mainland in this respect. The relationship is hugely tilted in favour of Achaïa in the west, with for instance 71% of all tournois at «92. Pylia 1968/1969», and 72% at «94. Naupaktos 1977». The issues of Naupaktos make rather sporadic appearances in east and west (see for instance only 5% and 7% in these same hoards, but 24% at «102. Naupaktos 1970»). We must compare the hoards dating ca. 1305–ca. 1311 to later ones, with respect to the Achaïan issues from William II of Villehardouin to Philip of Taranto’s PTA and PTB. We can observe in fact that after ca. 1311 the Achaïan issues only ever slightly outnumber their Athenian counterparts, and that there are about two to three times as many Athens than Naupaktos issues. This is the case for 217  Chapter 4, p. 427. 218  Noted in Appendix II.3.C, p. 1291. 219  Appendix II.9.A.3, p. 1394 and Appendix II.9.B, p. 1433. 220  Appendix II.9.A.4, p. 1398 and Appendix II.9.B, p. 1435.

142

Chapter 2

post-1311 hoards from all parts of Greece (the largest tournois hoard from the later period, «168», has a typical distribution of these three issues, at 1083 – 709 – 295). Before that date distributions were much less even than thereafter, and the overall flow of issues was from west to east. When comparing our hoard data to the information derived from single tournois finds for the pre1311 period (see above, esp. p. 121) we also notice that these tendencies were even more accentuated at the level of individual coins. After 1311 the main or often only tournois issue of Greece which was added to the hoarding record was that of Achaïa. The hoards from «114» onwards have far fewer noteworthy inconsistencies in the distributions of the different princes, although it is clear that older issues were gradually falling out of the hoarded record. How quickly the coins of the respective princes moved from Clarentza to the different parts of Greece is difficult to measure since the hoards are usually dated on the basis of the level of maturity of these very issues. There are nevertheless some hoards which retain a concentration of Achaïan issues minted up to the princeship of Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313), to the detriment of subsequent issues even if the hoards were concealed in the further course of the 1310s to 1340s («123», «130», «151», «155», «156»). There is, by contrast, another smaller grouping of hoards which have few or no coins of the earlier period («152», «153», «165»). Many of these hoards originate, if known, from the northwest (and in one case the northeast) of our analysed area, although we should note that there are other hoards of similar origin which are entirely regular in their composition (see for instance «132»). The period after 1311 also distinguishes itself from earlier times in the existence of single-type tournois hoards, or hoards in which one type is greatly overrepresented. The issues in question are, on the one hand, those of Arta in the name of John II Orsini, represented exclusively or in higher than usual quantities again in the same area: «127», «128», «140», «147», «148», and «151». On the other hand, there are the issues attributed in this book to the Catalans at Thebes after 1311: see hoards «136» and «141». There are two further hoards which are worth pointing out in this context. It is suggested in this book that the tornese coinage of Thessalonike, minted for a short period in the second half of the fourteenth century, was issued on a weight standard akin to that of the Greek tournois. There is one single-type hoard from our area of such coins, «178. Athenian Agora 1936». Hoards usually contain only a very small percentage of the counterfeit tournois types that dominate some of the excavations. «140. Ermitsa 1985A» has, at ca. 5%, considerably more of these issues. The steady progression whereby new Clarentza issues were being added to the hoarded stock, while older issues were falling away, came unstuck at one point

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

143

during the princeship of Robert of Taranto (1332–1364).221 While some of the initial hoards, for instance «159», «160», «163», «167», «168», have decent representations of issues of this prince, others («154», «165», «170», «192», «196», «198») fall woefully short in this respect. 3.13 Typological Make-Up: Gros Tournois and Carlini To determine the level of typological maturity or immaturity of the hoarded Greek stock of French gros tournois and carlini of different traditions is difficult or even impossible to do, in view of the fact that many typological details elude us and that the relevant hoards are often difficult to date. At least some of the Neapolitan saluti/gigliati and Sicilian pierreali of hoards «111», «112», «120», «121», «122», were quite conservative by the time the hoards were concealed sometime after 1311 and 1317 respectively. Nevertheless, the same hoards all contain also progressive elements. 3.14 Typological Make-Up: Soldini and Torneselli The Venetian soldino, and related coinages, appear in different constellations in the hoarded record.222 There are, during the early phase, a number of hoards which are very heavily concentrated around the issues of Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339): see notably «158», «159», «160», «161», «165». Therafter, there is a shift in the soldino hoards, sometimes steady, elsewhere more marked, towards the more recent issues. Counter to this general tendency we find hoards with a more developed savings element: «172», «184», and particularly «198». Hungarian denars of the soldino standard appear initially in three hoards during a very short period, in a confined part of Greece, and the issues themselves are very tightly grouped, where known, around some of Pohl’s mint marks (see «174», «175», «185»). There is one outlier to this, «185», which preserves an earlier Hungarian nucleus in a later context, and is also geographically isolated from the previous hoards. The other Venetian denominations have fewer surprises in store. For the tornesello, the addition of new stock and the gradual falling away of older specimens appears, from the hoards, to be totally uniform, resulting in very similar distributions as the single pieces (see above). Neither the hoarded soldini nor the torneselli show any particularly pronounced clusters of counterfeits. Gold ducats and florins appear very rarely in the hoards, but where they do, they are entirely up-to-date and represented in general

221  See Appendix II.9.A.12, p. 1424, and Baker, “Corinthe”. 222  See Appendix II.4.E, pp. 1317–1322.

144

Chapter 2

terms according to the otherwise known relevative mid-fourteenth century production levels.223 3.15 Identifiable Causes for Hoarding and Non-retrieval of Hoards A final discussion relating to the phenomenon of coin hoarding has to be dedicated to some of the identifiable causes of hoarding and non-retrieval. Being able to establish certain patterns can have historical implications. The most obviously detectable causes are man-made violence, particularly warfare, natural disasters such as earthquakes and diseases, and monetary upheavals. Coinage reforms and the introduction of new coins can lead to more pronounced hoarding of older specie. One specific scenario is Gresham’s Law, which has already been discussed in Chapter 1.224 In the present discussion I will offer some suggestions for the concealment and non-retrieval of a number of our hoards – sometimes multiple reasons for the same hoard – in the full knowledge that none of these may have applied and that only in the rarest of cases can we be entirely confident about the causes applying to a particular hoard. Hoarding was an everyday activity which did not in itself necessarily require any identifiable motivation. Possible military contexts for the hoarding pattern in Thessaly and western Macedonia, in late 1204 and ca. 1207 respectively, as well as in the Peloponnese and the Cyclades between ca. 1207 and ca. 1210, are discussed elsewhere.225 In the subsequent decades, continuing warfare in the southern Balkans, but outside of the area covered directly in this book, now between Byzantines and Latins, and then Bulgarians, can be detected in a number of hoards, particularly from Thessalonike and Serres.226 In the meantime, there is a block of southern and central Greek hoards (from «38» onwards), which also includes the most valuable hoard of the entire Appendix I.1 («41. Agrinio 1978/1979»), for which no such apparent violent causes can be found. The single-type billon trachy hoard «48. Ioannina 1983», and the main petty denomination hoards of mid-century, may have been formed in military contexts, though their motivations of concealment are less clear cut. «58. Naxos ca. 1969», which features in my top ten of most valuable hoards of medieval Greece, may well be the result of an imperial excursion into the Cyclades sometime after 1261. «62. Trikala 223  Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, pp. 479–480. 224  P. 72. 225  Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1230. Consider additionally: for Thessaly, the electrum trachy hoard «4. Ithomi 1900»; for the Peloponnese, hoards «1» and «3». See also, with respect to some of these areas, Baker, “Cicladi medievali” and Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 226  Hoards from these cities are mentioned in the discussion of the Nicaean and Thessalonican trachy coinage, Appendix II.1.B.5 and 6, pp. 1233–1240. See also ODB, s.v. Klokotnica and Serres.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

145

1949» may have been concealed a bit earlier, on the occasion of the town’s sacking and occupation by John Palaiologos in 1258.227 More secure seems to be the pattern whereby five to six Epirote hoards («64» to «68» or «69») all date to a same imperial offensive in 1264, which is otherwise undocumented, though probable. Also «63. Kordokopi 1972» may have been concealed during a Byzantine offensive in the Peloponnese in the same year. There follows another stretch of hoards whose circumstances of concealment are not suggestive of any known military operation. This was a period during which the tournois coinage gained prominence in our area, and went through a number of phases of development. One wonders whether some of the tournois hoards might have been the direct result of the introduction of newer and inferior generations of tournois, first French feudal, then indigenous Greek. This would explain some of the rather unusual and conservative compositions, for instance at «70. Corinth 8 May 1934» and particularly «75. Salamina».228 We next arrive at «89» and «90» from the Argolis, which, together with another hoard from the sanctuary of Asklepios, may have been caused by a Byzantine attempt to break into the Saronic Gulf via the Argolis in 1308 or 1309.229 A couple of years later we encounter the aforementioned cluster of ca. 16 hoards from Attikoboiotia («94»–«109»: although some of these hoards are of uncertain provenance, others are from surrounding areas of the Mainland and Thessaly). There can be no doubt that the concealments of many of these were related to the Catalan invasions and its direct repercussions,230 just as the developments at the site of Ancient Corinth were severely curbed by the Catalans. As I have pointed out in an earlier part of this discussion, the subsequent forty years were filled with a disproportionately high number of hoards. I would suggest that at least some of these are to be brought in relation with the workings of Gresham’s Law. This affected predominantly the tournois coinage, whereby the two inferior issues of the Catalans and John II Orsini at Arta, the massive private counterfeiting activities especially in Catalan areas, and the Achaïan issues of Robert of Taranto (from 1332), would have caused the hoarding of older, regular issues of Achaïa, Athens, and Naupaktos. It is also possible

227  T IB 1, s.v. Trikala. 228  Also the Argos 2005b hoard, which is not in Appendix I, may be considered in this respect, containing as it did mostly French coins and only a few of William II of Villehardouin: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”. 229  See also Appendix II.9.A.6–7, pp.  1404–1413. For the Epidauros 1891–1892 hoard, see Chapter 4, p. 427. 230  Appendix II.9.A.7, p. 1410; Appendix II.9.B, p. 1436; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 315.

146

Chapter 2

that some of the hoards containing purely Venetian grossi, particularly our latest and most northerly hoard («143»), could have been caused by the influx of later genuine Serbian issues, and Balkan counterfeits.231 However, whereas this is a noted phenomenon for instance in contemporary Macedonia,232 we have no direct information on any such inferior grosso issues in our area.233 The Black Death hit the latter in 1347/1348. It is quite possible that this massive and sudden loss of life234 would have caused the abandonment of at least some of the hoards in the appropriate chronological range (ca.  «157»– ca. «163»). Violence also affected large parts of our area in the first half of the fourteenth century. An early Turkish raid on Euboia was presumably the cause of the hoarding of «135. Orio 1959» in 1328.235 The eastern Mainland was affected by successive raids, first a rather unsuccessful venture of the pretender to the duchy of Athens, Walter VI (II) of Brienne in 1331; and then by the emir of Aydın in 1339/1340.236 It is possible that some hoards can be linked to these episodes,237 although neither the routes nor the dates of hoards are necessarily known with any degree of accuracy. There are a number of Athenian hoards from these years, although the town was not threatened militarily.238 Walter’s army apparently did not penetrate Catalan territory very far. Perhaps it caused the concealment of «121. Delphi 1894Δ», and perhaps some of the possible Attic hoards («124», «126», «131», «136», «141»). It is noteworthy that the Catalans destroyed central Thebes preemptively in 1331,239 in the context of which the extremely valuable «122. Thebes 1967», and perhaps the much more humble Thebes 2011,240 may well have been abandoned. The one Mainland hoard which fits best the activities of the Aydınoğlu Umur bey is «154. Delphi 1894Γ». He raided also in the eastern Peloponnese, with some effect on the

231  Metcalf, “Echoes of the name of Lorenzo Tiepolo”. 232  Discussed in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”. 233  See merely Appendix II.4.C, p. 1303, and the recent find of a single Bulgarian grosso from Riziani in Thesprotia: Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”, not contained in Appendix I: #247. 234  See Chapter 1, p. 31 and Chapter 3, p. 194. 235  See also Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 307. 236  T IB 1, pp. 74–75. 237  As has been attempted in Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 471. 238  T IB 1, s.v. Athenai. 239  T IB 1, s.v. Thebai. 240  This hoard is not in Appendix I and will be published in Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. See further Chapter 4, p. 448.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: HOARDS

147

urban development of Argos.241 It is quite possible that the newly discovered hoard from Argos may have been deposited on this occasion.242 The western Mainland and Epiros were no less troubled in the first half of the fourteenth century, with frequent military conflicts between the main protagonists, the Angevins, Byzantines, and the Orsini. A major Byzantine offensive was launched in the 1310s, but in the period 1318–1320 Nicholas Orsini carved out substantial holdings around Arta,243 and then in parts of presentday Albania.244 The town of Arta itself changed hands on several occasions and also succumbed to a large fire.245 Hoards «110», «115», «118» may fit into this context, less securely «119. Ioannina 1986», since the town was apparently spared conflict.246 Nicholas’ brother and successor, John II Orsini, enjoyed the wrath of the Angevins and was threatened on two occasions in 1325 and 1331 by John of Gravina and Walter VI (II) of Brienne (see also above) respectively.247 Ca. 1330, Emperor Andronikos III also conquered parts of John’s territories in the north. It was probably shortly after the second episode that John began to produce his inferior IGΓ tournois issues, which supported his large-scale military efforts in Epiros and Thessaly in the first years of the same decade. Following his demise, most of Epiros was around 1337–1340 re-integrated into the Byzantine Empire for a short while.248 A number of hoards may be tentatively placed in this scheme, for instance «123. Sterea Ellada 1975» in 1325, and «140. Ermitsa 1985A» (which significantly has no IGΓ issues) in 1331. While the formation of some of the hoards which are dominated by IGΓ («127», «128», «147», and «148») probably occurred during the lifetime of Orsini, their concealments might equally have been due to the Byzantine offensives under Andronikos III, although technical-monetary reasons may also be given for this setting aside of inferior specie. The troops of Andronikos were active in central Albania in 1337/1338249 (see «137») and in southern Epiros around 1339–1341250 (see «155»). The massive Serbian invasions of Thessaly and Epiros in 1347 and 1348 resulted, however, in only one or two identifiable hoards, «156. Shën Jan» and «162. Nea Sampsous 1982». 241  Baker, “Argos”, p. 232. 242  On this hoard, named Argos 2005a, which not contained in Appendix I, see Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”, pp. 227–228. 243  T IB 3, p. 68. 244  Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο, p. 48. 245  T IB 3, s.v. Arta. 246  T IB 3, s.v. Ioannina. 247  T IB 3, p. 69. See also the account given in Appendix II.9.J, p. 1475. 248  T IB 3, pp. 69–70. 249  Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο, pp. 49 and 203. 250  Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο, p. 203.

148

Chapter 2

Just after the middle of the century, Gresham’s Law or similar monetary considerations might have caused some hoarding. The introduction of type 2 soldini, and of torneselli, both occurring in 1353, could have led to some hoarding of older soldini and tournois. In this case some hoards which appear to date to just before 1350 (see above) may in fact have been concealed a bit later. From this episode onwards, once the transitions from older to newer soldini and from tournois to torneselli had been digested, in the second case not until a decade or two later, the rules of Gresham’s Law no longer impinged on the hoarding pattern of Greece. In the second half of the century the eastern Mainland continued to be the focus of pronounced hoarding. While social instability, to which the area was particularly prone,251 may have been a contributing factor, these territories were also the targets of multiple invasions from the west252 and north.253 «167. Kaparelli» has been tentatively ascribed to the presence of the ill-disciplined Turkish troops employed by the Catalan Marshal Roger of Lluria254 («170. Eleusina 1952» fits this scenario much less plausibly). It is possible that «171. Thespies» and «173. Lamia 1985», and «181. Thebes 1995», «185. Kalapodi», and «187. Thebes 1973», may be associated with the respective Navarrese and Ottoman occupations of same regions in 1379–1380 and 1392– 1394. From Euboia, the significant and valuable gold hoard «166» might have been the cause either of Turkish piracy, to which the island was particularly exposed, or the Veneto-Genoese war of 1350–1355.255 The later Euboian hoards offer no obvious contexts: the 1380s/1390s saw the final and apparently peaceful establishment of Venetian rule throughout the island («184»),256 and even its usually exposed north coast («191») would have been comparatively tranquil during the period of the battle of Ankara (1402) and subsequently.257 Further to the west, two hoards from the Agrinio area of the 1350s and 1360s («165» and «169») might well have been concealed and not retrieved during the initial Albanian penetration into this precise area, and the subsequent counterstrikes

251  Identified as such by Kydones: Bartusis, “Brigandage”, p. 393, n. 28. See also Chapter 1, p. 31, and the wide-sweeping social and ethnic changes in Greece and the southern Balkans in the period after the Black Death. 252  The Acciaiuoli and the Navarrese companies: TIB 1, pp. 75–77. 253  The Ottomans: see the last note and Savvides, Οθωμανική κατάκτηση της Θήβας και της Λεβαδειάς. 254  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 471. 255  Koder, Negroponte, p. 53; Jacoby, “Consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont”, p. 175. 256  Koder, Negroponte, pp. 54–55. 257  Koder, Negroponte, p. 57.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: ABANDONED COINS

149

of Leonardo I Tocco.258 Further to the north, the 1380s saw significant Ottoman advances followed by Venetian consolidations in their Ionian holdings.259 «183. Butrint» has to be seen in this context, and perhaps «186» more vaguely. «199. Sterea Ellada», dating ca. 1410, could be the result of the ongoing conflict between the Tocco and regional Albanian rulers; «206. Arta 1985B» more specifically the siege of that town by Charles I Tocco (1416).260 No obvious historical contexts can be found for the hoards from the three Ionian islands («195», «197», «204»). Peloponnesian hoards may also have been the result of political fragmentation. The same Navarrese companies which were involved in Boiotia were called by the political powers of the Morea in 1378, but soon turned against them, and their campaigns resulted in the Elis hoards «174. Elis 2005» and «175. Pyrgos 1967» (and maybe «176. Achaïa»), as well as in the destruction of the second settlement at «385. Zaraka» (1381/1382).261 From the later years of the same decade, until 1397, the Ottomans threatened many areas of the Morea and perhaps one or the other hoard of the peninsula («179», «180», «182») may have been the result.262 A tentative scheme for three hoards on the banks of the eastern part of Gulf of Corinth has been proposed, whereby «192. Corinth BnF» might be the result of a major earthquake of 1402, and «196. Delphi 1894B» and «198. Delphi 1894A» of the Ottoman re-conquest of the area around Salona, which occurred shortly after 1404.263 The extensive Ottoman raids in the Peloponnese of 1423,264 or perhaps an earthquake a year earlier,265 resulted perhaps in only one currently attested hoard, «208. Morea 1849». 4

Abandoned Coins: Graves and Dumps

4.1 Graves The great majority of coins so far discussed in this chapter were lost or abandoned accidentally. We must assume that most of the coins found in graves (Appendix I.3) were by contrast deliberately abandoned together with the remains of the dead. The obvious exception might have been coins which had 258  T IB 3, pp. 70–71. 259  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 117ff. 260  T IB 3, s.v. Arta. 261  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 252. 262  Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest” p. 7. 263  Baker, “Corinthe”, p. 49. 264  Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest” p. 7. 265   Evangelatou-Notara, Σεισμοί στο Βυζάντιο, p. 101.

150

Chapter 2

been carried by the deceased and were not recovered by those preparing the burial, perhaps as the result of haste and/or a reluctance to examine the body in any detail, caused maybe by fear of contamination. From the Republic of North Macedonia there is one possible such case, a hoard of early thirteenthcentury billon and silver trachea from Ohrid found at the hip of the dead.266 None of the grave-finds of Greece reach the value of this hoard, not even grave 19 of «216. Clarentza». The three graves of Italy which contain deniers tournois are also very similar in composition to the Greek finds (Appendix I.6, «404»– «406»). My assumption that the coins from graves listed in Appendix I.3 were consciously abandoned is based on the lack of obvious archaeological tellers, as in the case of the Ohrid hoard. It is also founded on the mediocre values of our Greek hoards. Nevertheless, we need to be attentive since even hoards of relatively high values have been found to have been purposefully included in graves: consider the case of another grave from the Republic of North Macedonia (Stobi), in which 90 grossi were placed in a silver vessel.267 Finally, the Orthodox practice of exhumation and re-burial, or the eventual placing of bones in ossuaries, which might have allowed the retrieval of any such coins, was demographically insignificant in the period under consideration, and would have been limited to the monastic environment.268 An additional observation worth highlighting is that no systematic attempt has been made to list and to explain coins in graves, neither here by me, nor by anybody else for other areas of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine world. The examples given in Appendix I.3 are incidental and haphazard, and any study directed to this subject matter would undoubtedly be able to identify many more amongst the archaeological record for medieval Greece, and to describe the precise find situations in greater detail.269 Even for the medieval west, beyond the period of the great migrations and the transition from paganism to Christianity, very little consideration has been given to the phenomenon

266   Razmovska-Bačeva, “Theodore Angelus Comnenus Ducas”. See also Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1237 and Appendix II.1.C.2, pp. 1250–1251. Even here, however, it cannot be entirely excluded that the coins were not left there intentionally: see Veit, “Münze im Totenkult”, p. 103, for other coins left in pouches. The hyperpyron hoard from Anaia was, see below n. 277, was similarly placed close to the hip of the deceased person. 267  Mirnik, Coin Hoards, p.116, no. 539. 268  Abrahamse, “Rituals of death”. 269  Consider also the related issue of jewellery in graves, for which only a few examples can be assembled for middle Byzantine times: see Albani, “Hoffnung auf ewiges Leben”; Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck, pp. 58–62, and the discussion on jewellery below.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: ABANDONED COINS

151

of coins in graves. A few disparate analyses and opinions have to date been given.270 The coins in medieval Greek graves take three basic forms. There are assemblages which closely resemble the kinds of hoards usually found outside of graves. This is the case for «213. Aliartos», grave 19 of «216. Clarentza», and «221. Palaiochora», and to a lesser extent grave LXIII of «214. Athenian Agora», grave XVIII of «215. Athens», and «219. Naxos». Next, there are graves containing one or two regular, contemporary, low- to medium-value issues. Finally, there are graves which contain substandard issues, what I have termed petty coinages in the earlier part of the chapter, for instance counterfeits or older coins. In this category there is also a grave hoard, «217. Corinth 31 May 1932». We need to add to our records a few middle Byzantine and early Frankish graves from the lower town of Sparta, presented by Ch. Stavrakos and A. Bakourou at a conference in Argos in May 2011, though not published in the relevant proceedings nor listed in Appendix I.271 Also absent from the latter are the Frankish Greek coins found in graves on the acropolis of Doliani in Thesprotia.272 The rather meagre data from Greece offer little scope for further analyses in terms of chronological or geographical distributions. Most of our finds derive from urban or sub-urban locations from within a belt across Mainland Greece and the northern Peloponnese, with the exception of the Spartan graves, «221», and two Cycladic finds («220» and «222»). It is noteworthy that in Macedonia and surrounding areas, apart from the two examples that have already been cited, there are multiple graves with coins from the medieval sites of Demir Kapija273 and Agios Achilleios,274 and that Byzantine copper and billon coins have been found hoarded in graves at Thessaloniki 1933A275 and Preslav 1978.276 A dramatic grave find (ca. 30 hyperpyra of the type of John III Vatatzes) has also been made in a church in Anaia.277 In all of this it is undeniable that our database of coin finds from graves is extremely sketchy, but also that the vast majority of graves from medieval Greece and the remainder of 270  See, amongst others, Veit, “Münze im Totenkult”; Maguire, “Magic and money”; the conference proceedings Dubuis et al., Trouvailles monétaires de tombes; Travaini, “Saints and Sinners”. 271  See the Preface, p. xxiv. 272  Aidonis and Emmanouil, “Doliani”; Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”, pp. 77–78. 273  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 218, n. 5. 274  Païsidou, “Άγιο Αχίλλειο”. 275  Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 395–396, no. 21. 276  C  H, 7 (1985), pp. 240–241, no. 367. 277  Mercangöz, Kadıkalesi, p. 15.

152

Chapter 2

the Balkans, Anatolia, just as graves from medieval Italy, did not contain coins, although it is again impossible to further quantify such an observation.278 It is also premature to say that there was perhaps a greater propensity to include coins in graves in certain contexts, Macedonia, or in the main urban areas of Greece (and Anatolia) inhabited or frequented by Latins. Neither is it possible to state which of the general reasons for including coins in graves in the medieval period – put forward in some of the literature which I have cited – might have prevailed in Greece: was it a desire to establish a lasting bond with the deceased, did the coins represent a percentage of the payment which the relatives would have received from the community, were the coins a symbol for the earthly wealth which the deceased had accumulated in their lifetime, or was it a combination of these and other factors279? For one particular grave inclusion – the rather plentiful finds for only one of the graves at Clarentza – I have sought elsewhere to give an explanation relating to an extra-ordinary context, namely the violence of the onslaught on the town by the Epirote forces in 1407.280 4.2 Dumps Looking beyond the context of graves, in my discussion of single finds and coin hoards I have already mentioned certain substandard coins which might have been lost rather more frequently than other coins, or which might have been specifically kept apart from the general circulating stock, not hoarded at all, or hoarded separately.281 Whether any of these coins were purposefully abandoned, or taken out of usage as money, is difficult to prove. Most dumps contain all kinds of materials and in some circumstances coins may have been transferred to them inadvertently with a great deal of rubbish. Obvious examples are the two small dump hoards Thebes 2011 and Chalkida 2011;282 or the individual soldini and torneselli of «385. Zaraka», which had been included in the foundations for the next building phase in the history of the site.283 There is only one instance in which one may perhaps say more confidently that we are dealing with a group of coins which were consciously eliminated 278  A point made in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 253. 279  Note that Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck, gives no explanation as to why occasionally, and not dissimilarly to coins, jewellery is included in middle Byzantine graves. Albani, “Hoffnung auf ewiges Leben” is also not explicit on this matter, although her title is suggestive of one particular kind of interpretation. 280  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 254. 281  See for instance in this chapter, pp. 122, 125, 135–136. 282  C  hapter 4, pp. 447 and 448. 283  For a discussion: Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: ABANDONED COINS

153

and literally thrown away. These coins were found in a dump at the eastern gate of Clarentza, and consisted mostly of counterfeit deniers tournois of the worst quality.284 5

Monetary Functions Performed by Uncoined Fine and Base Metals: Ingots and Jewellery, Jettons and Tokens

Money is a measure of value with which wealth is stored and exchanged. While some moveable and unmoveable objects met at least some of these functions occasionally, coins were by far the most frequent embodiment of money in medieval Greece according to this definition. It is not my aim to engage in the present discussion in matters of preservation and transmission of material wealth – for which the documentary and archaeological data are now large, if not always easy to interpret –, but rather to explore specifically those instances in which metals might have been used in a coin-like fashion, often together with coins. The focus will be on the scant physical data available in this regard. Before looking at the evidence we need to begin with a few premises. I have chosen four categories of metallic objects which either had physical associations with coins, or which have been said to have performed functions of coins: ingots (and other silver objects) and jewellery, jettons and tokens. The ingots and jewellery of interest to us were made of fine metals. With these may be grouped here a few other kinds of objects, usually made of silver, which had other primary functions (personal devotional objects, tableware, belts, etc.). Jewellery and silver (‘zoieli’, ‘arçentiere’285) are often the most important objects beside ‘denari’ with which transfer wealth. These can also be further specified on occasion: “[…] arzenterias, videlicet bacilia, raminos, confeterias, stagnatas magnas, botacios magnos argenti, tacias multas argenti, que omnia in parte errant daurata […]”; “zoielli di perle”.286 A document reports a 1397 embassy of Despot Theodore I to Venice which lost in a shipwreck “ducatos octingentos inter denarios et alia iocalia” (the latter being translated as jewellery by its editor287). Silver belts also appear in some sources, one is valued 284  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 254 and 273–274, pl. 35. The coins are listed in «262. Clarentza». 285  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 299, no. 152 (1394); p. 312, no. 160 (1394); p. 413, no. 212 (1399–1401). 286  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, pp. 432 and 434, no. 221 (1400). 287  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 381, no. 191.

154

Chapter 2

at exactly 50 hyperpyra and given as part of a dowry (Coron, 1343).288 A decade earlier, more silver belts can be found in wills (in Coron and Modon).289 Different thefts also record impressively expensive belts (of ingots?) or other items of clothing, for instance in an official Venetian act of 1228, or a Ragusan act of 1373 (total value being 270 pounds of silver).290 In many notarial records, however, there is an overall reluctance to specify the nature of the goods in a given dowry, beyond giving total values “inter res et denarius”.291 Since many of the accounting systems of medieval Greece were based on standards of fineness and weight – particularly those which are unambiguously formulated in such a fashion (marks of silver; pounds of gold; etc.292) – it may have been easy to convert any of these objects into monetary values, provided one had some idea of their finenesses. Also in Byzantine legal documents of the late period we find jewellery being weighed and valued in exactly such a way;293 in Venetian Crete silver and gold objects were frequently cited in dowries according to their values;294 and various objects which were lost together with coins in the Trapani shipwreck of 1270 were given precise monetary equivalents.295 Silverware was also offered as diplomatic gifts, in which cases precise values may be recorded.296 Precious-metal jewellery has quite naturally received a fair amount of scholarly attention.297 One recent contribution has presented all Byzantine jewellery in context from the ninth to the early thirteenth century,298 while even

288  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 1.83; 1.88; 1.89. 289  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 6.250; 2.259. 290  See respectively Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 29, no. XIX (1228) and Krekić, Dubrovnik, pp. 213–214 nos. 306 and 307, and further Appendix III.7, p. 1585. 291  Pasquale Longo; Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata. 292  Appendix III.7, pp. 1581–1585. 293  Parani, “Byzantine jewellery”. See also the accounts of Kantakouzenos of the divisions of some mid-fourteenth-century private wealth in Constantinople in gold hyperpyra and other objects: Hendy, Studies, pp. 204–205. 294  McKee, “Households”. 295   On the Trapani shipwreck and its contents, see also Appendix II.1.D.2, p.  1256; Appendix II.4.D.2, p.  1310; Appendix II.11.A, p.  1500. For a list of the objects, see Carolus-Barré, “Trapani”, p. 117: four silver cups; 17 silver spoons; two silver gilt vases; one silver foot of a cup; one silver chalice, all valued at 73 ounces and 15 tarì. 296  See Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 360, no. 179, on the occasion of the 1396 embassy to Bayezid I. 297  See for instance Pitarakis, “Objects of Devotion”, and some of the papers in the recent volumes Entwistle and Adams, Byzantine jewellery, and Bohlendorf-Arslan and Ricci, Small finds in Byzantine archaeological contexts. 298   Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: ABANDONED COINS

155

more recently our knowledge of late Byzantine rings has been summarised.299 Unfortunately, no synthetic work of all jewellery has been undertaken for the territories and period under consideration here. Very few individual items of precious-metal jewellery pertaining to medieval Greece have in fact so far been published, and even rarer are those from archaeological contexts.300 The main functions of jewellery that interest us here, that is to say as storage and exchange of wealth, are almost never contemplated.301 Ingots, which again might have been handled and especially stored like, and together with, coins are so far completely absent from the Greek record. We need to assume that any potential hoards of this kind, if they had existed, while in the process of being reported, sold-off or dispersed, or published, may have been divided into coins and any non-coin objects they may have contained. Jettons and tokens are in a different category.302 These were made respectively of brass or other copper alloys, and of lead. Jettons, also known as reckoning counters, were originally produced to facilitate accounting. They may also have been intended for very specific payments, for instance indirect taxes or fees, mostly in an urban context. Apart from these primary functions they may have been used in certain contexts as a form of petty coinage.303 Lead tokens, also called trade tokens by modern writers, are more elusive in terms of their designs and types, manufacture, and purpose. It is assumed that these were used for various small exchanges.304 Accordingly, both jettons and tokens would have been given a fiduciary value. They would have been seldom hoarded but might turn up in the stray find records. Lead tokens have also so far not been positively identified as such in the medieval Greek context. All the cited objects elusive two considerations in common: the small amount of specialist attention dedicated to them for medieval Greece; and the controversial nature and extent of the monetary functions which they may have performed there.

299  Spier, Late Byzantine rings. 300  Consider for instance, with reference to an early thirteenth-century hoard of coins and jewellery from Thessalonike, Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck, p. 48: “Damit stellt der Fundkomplex den einzigen bislang bekannten Schmuck-Hortfund zwischen dem 11. und 15. Jd. dar”, although one or two additional finds may be classified as such (see below). 301  These aspects are for instance entirely neglected in Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck, but they are touched upon in Spier, Late Byzantine rings. 302  See Grierson, Numismatics, pp. 162–170, on these items. 303  See in general, for this assumption, Sargent and Velde, Small change, pp. 216–218. See also the discussions in the earlier part of this chapter, pp. 135–136, on the nature of petty coinage. Jettons of medieval Europe are treated comprehensively in Labrot, Jetons. 304  Allen, “English currency”, p. 35.

156

Chapter 2

5.1 Ingots and Other Silver Objects Silver ingots305 were a by-product of the massive expansion in mining in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Europe.306 They were usually produced by recognisable issuers, in well-established forms, sometimes marked, according to standards of weight and fineness. There are a number of reasons why we may want to believe that silver ingots were known to medieval Greece, but all of our evidence to date is either indirect or relates to adjoining areas. Late Serbian frescos suggest that ingots were a common form of money.307 In the first half of the thirteenth century certain payments within the Latin empire, and even the Peloponnese, were specified in marks of silver and, more rarely, gold; throughout the medieval period these metals were also sometimes weighed in local Greek pounds.308 From this we may extrapolate the occasional availability of unminted fine metals, but we must not forget that these terms were also used as systems of account for actual coins. Movements from west to east, for instance in the context of the crusades, often led to the transportation of ingots. In the crusade of 1248–1254, Alphonse of France was in receipt of an amalgam of coins and ingots,309 which was not dissimilar to the treasure lost off Trapani during his brother King Louis’ Tunis crusade a couple of decades later (see above). Commerce between the Latin west, the Black Sea and the Levant, and with areas further to the east, was often conducted in ingots.310 A recent publication has revealed, for the last couple of decades of the fourteenth century, the existence of silver ‘ingots of Thessalonike’, two of which weighing 22 pounds and two ounces, and being worth 421 hyperpyra and four carats.311 The same publication discusses a second document which shows not merely that ingots of the sommo weight were being produced at the Trebizond mint in the first years of the fifteenth century, but also that any unspent sommi would be brought back to Venice for remintage there. Sommi

305  For general overviews on this subject, see Spufford, Money and its use, pp. 209–224; Spufford, How rarely did medieval merchants use coins?; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 196–197. 306  Chapter 1, pp. 58–59. 307  Frolow, “L’argent de parure”. There does not appear to be a parallel Byzantine body of material, to judge by its lack of consideration in Parani, Byzantine material culture. 308  Appendix III.7, pp. 1584–1585. 309  Spufford, Money and its use, p. 211. 310  See, in addition to Spufford’s contributions, Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, p. 272; Kuroda, “Eurasian silver century”, p. 259. 311  Morrisson and Ganchou, “Lingots de Thessalonique”. For further interpretations regarding these ingots, see also Appendix III.5, p. 1572.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: ABANDONED COINS

157

at Constantinople in the fourteenth century, used for the Black Sea trade, are generally well documented,312 but we do not know whether they were produced in the city.313 Our ignorance on these matters is such that it comes as a great surprise to learn that even the well documented mint of Venice in the fourteenth century processed a significant amount of silver for the production of ingots.314 An attempt has been made to identify precise ingots (Venetian and Genoese) that went into the production of specific Bulgarian silver issues, though the existence of such a direct correlation seems somewhat fanciful.315 Finally, there is some very rare material evidence for the use of ingots, but not from Greece: two hoards from present-day Romania which contained silver bars, some of which might be tentatively identified as actual sommi;316 «461. ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard» of the late twelfth century contained them; the hoard from the Artemision at Ephesos, excavated in 1871 and concealed ca. 1365, had a substantial number of silver pieces weighing 17 pounds, 4 ounces, and 368 grains.317 These pieces, which arrived at the British Museum in 1871/1872 but were discarded by the museum curators, substantially increased the value of the hoard. It is difficult to ascertain whether these are to be considered ingots, whether they are perhaps a reflection of the operation of a local mint (which was certainly producing akčes in this period, perhaps also gigliati), or both. All in all, it still remains to be determined whether ingots played any role at all in the monetary economy of medieval Greece, and even if they did their importance in terms of monetary volume would no doubt have been negligible.318 One of the hoards listed in Appendix II, from Constantinople, contained silver medical implements and a personal icon.319 312  Hendy, Studies, pp. 547–551; Spufford, Money and its use, p. 219; DOC V, pp. 36–37; Spufford, How rarely did medieval merchants use coins?, pp. 6–11 and 14–15. 313  See also the previous Chapter 1, p. 40, on this question. 314  Stahl, “Ingots and the Venetian mint”. 315  Avdev, “Venetsianskite i Genuezkite srebărni slitătsi”. 316  Iliescu and Simion, “Le grand trésor de monnaies et lingots”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 284; Spufford, Money and its use, pp. 220–221; Spufford, How rarely did medieval merchants use coins?, pp. 14–15. One of these is the famous hoard of Uzun Baïr in the Danube Delta, cited elsewhere in this book in relation to the gold hyperpyra which it also contained: Appendix II.1.D.4, p. 1260, n. 373; Appendix II.1.D.6, p. 1266, n. 403; the second hoard is from further inland, in the historic Moldovia region. 317  Appendix II.11, p. 1497. 318  The latter point has been made, for instance, for medieval England, which is much better known than Greece, for which the use and production of ingots is attested, and which was also surrounded by areas in which ingots were in use: Allen, “Volume of the English currency”, p. 598, n. 31. 319  «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987». See specifically Pitarakis, “Objects of Devotion”, suggesting that these had monetary values.

158

Chapter 2

5.2 Jewellery and Belts Although jewellery was an everyday object in medieval Greece, and base-metal rings and earrings have frequently been found as strays at sites,320 hoarded jewellery of all kinds is, as I have said, much less common. Precious-metal jewellery, which was only seldom lost casually and which would more naturally be known to us through hoards, is therefore a very rare occurrence. Only three known Greek locations have so far yielded any single gold jewellery dating from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries: Andros in the Cyclades,321 and Monemvasia322 and Aigio/Vostitza323 in the Peloponnese. Amongst the hoards presented in Appendix I.1 only «112. Pikermi/Spata 1936» is known to have contained jewellery, a pair of earrings of unspecified metal. A few examples of perhaps similar gold and silver pieces of jewellery in Greek and foreign collections are known,324 but these rarely have secure provenances or datings. There are a number of important sites, for instance Clarentza325 or Arta,326 which have not produced any medieval precious-metal jewellery at all, and even at Corinth the examples in silver are few and far between,327 while gold is virtually absent.328 The final find which must be mentioned is a very substantial hoard of precious jewellery found in the 1860s at Chalkida,329 concealed very likely on the occasion of the Ottoman conquest of the island in 1470, that is to say at the same time as coin hoard «211. Chalkida», and a third hoard of armour, 320  See, for instance, the case of Corinth: Davidson, Minor objects, pp. 234–263. 321   See Kontogiannis, “Το δακτυλίδι” and the same author’s recent contribution in Bohlendorf-Arslan and Ricci, Small finds in Byzantine archaeological contexts. Described are two gold rings from the upper and lower castle of Andros respectively (see also «230» and «231»), and a few additional silver rings. 322  A ring dated to the fourteenth or fifteenth century, found in the sea off this location, is presented in the exhibition catalogue Mystras, pp. 162–163. 323  Spier, Late Byzantine rings, p. 51, n. 208. 324  For rings, see the book referred to in the last note; for earrings: Albani, “Byzantine earrings”, esp. plate 16 with a pair of Thessalian earrings which might date to the period of concern to us. 325  C  larence, pp. 50–51. 326  Papadopoulou, Arta. 327  See, for possible examples, Davidson, Minor objects, nos. 1823, 1890, 1903, 1904, 1940, 1958, 1961, 1965, 1985, 1986 (silver or silver alloy rings dating to the late Byzantine and Frankish periods); 2010, 2012, 2024, 2040, 2042, 2053, 2054 (earrings of similar materials and dates). 328  See merely, from the list in the last note, 2053 and 2054 for small gold elements and some gilding. I wish to thank also Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst of Corinth Excavations, who has confirmed this picture. 329  Dalton, “Mediaeval personal ornaments”; McLeod, “Chalcis treasure”. The find is also extensively referred to in Spier, Late Byzantine rings.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: ABANDONED COINS

159

found in the walls of the town.330 The jewellery find from Chalkida, which is now preserved at London and Oxford, has yet to be fully published and assessed according to modern requirements, but we can confidently say that its contemporary value would have been greater than any of the coin hoards listed in Appendix I.1–3. One may assume that some of the wealth of a single well-to-do individual was bound up in the items of this treasure. The hoard might also graphically illustrate one of the belts (or rather girdles) known from the documentary sources (see above).331 Nevertheless, its importance to us is negligible, not only because it post-dates the main period of analysis of this book, but also because of its very uniqueness – the nearest parallel being the early thirteenth-century hoard of Thessalonike already mentioned.332 All in all, to judge by the material evidence, precious-metal jewellery did not pervade medieval Greek society and its role in the preservation and transfer of wealth appears to have been marginal at best. 5.3 Jettons and Lead Tokens A number of medieval jettons (reckoning counters) have been published, or at least mentioned in print, for Greek locations: Corinth,333 Patra,334 Clarentza,335 and Pontikokastron, above Katakolo, in Elis.336 Two further unpublished jettons, one Florentine and another possibly local, were excavated in Chalkida on Euboia.337 The origin of the specimens found in Greece is invariably central and northern Italian, with the occasional specimen from the 330  Ffoulkes, “Italian Armour from Chalcis”. For information on this find I thank Nikos Kontogiannis, who will give a detailed account of it in a future publication. 331  I owe these two points to Nikos Kontogiannis. Such belts were also a useful way of storing a large amount of wealth on the body, particularly in times of crisis: see the example of Samuel Pepys given in Grierson, Numismatics, p. 124. 332  See p. 155, n. 300 above, and Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A 13th-century jewellery hoard from Thessalonica”. Also the Thessalonike treasure has enough elements to suggest a Latin context, and is valuable enough to invite an extraordinary interpretation for its concealment and non-retrieval, in this case the end of Latin rule in the city (1224). 333  Saccocci and Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV”, esp. pp. 223–241, provided an overview of the material which had either been previously published in Hesperia reports, or had been discovered in the 1930s and remained unpublished. 334  Saccocci and Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV”, p. 214. The tokens were found in the Plateia Pantokratoros, in close proximity to the medieval castle. 335  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 251. 336  Labrot, Jetons, p. 148. 337  The jettons, identified by F.M. Vanni, are from a single deposit in Mitropoleos Street, in an area which would have been an extra-mural suburb of Negroponte. The archaeological contexts and materials were discussed by S. Skartsis, I. Vaxevanis, and me at the 12th

160

Chapter 2

Kingdom of Naples or Achaïa itself. Some were issued by recognisable families and firms. Their datings are far from secure, but can be generally placed in the fourteenth century. Saccocci and Vanni have postulated that these jettons performed monetary functions in Greece.338 They based this view on the relatively expensive manufacturing costs, on the existence of a small hoard of jettons from Patra (four specimens, in addition to a Byzantine follis), and the fact that the Corinthian pieces seem to date to a period (the first half of the fourteenth century) when few new coinage issues reached the site. While the hoard is to my mind a strong piece of evidence, the last argument appears to me flawed. It is quite obvious that the area in question, the Frankish Complex and the ‘Central Area’ of Corinth in general,339 saw little or no activities during these years. The great majority of these jettons would have been handled and lost there from mid-century onwards. Even if the area was inhabited or frequented in the intervening period, any perceived shortage of petty coinage for everyday exchanges would have been met by the amalgam of old and inferior pieces I discuss elsewhere in this chapter.340 Overall, the presence of jettons is marginal in medieval Greece, more so than in some areas of the Latin west. Lead tokens are known from the Latin Orient,341 where they may have been relatively plentiful and significant, and there are some Greek lead disks which bear resemblances,342 although these have not been explicitly identified as such. No doubt, a concerted search through publications and archaeological storehouses would provide more such specimens. This, however, would not change the fundamental conclusion which we need to draw from the present discussion, namely that none of the analysed categories of objects had important monetary functions, and that their combined mass made only a negligible contribution to the available monetary volume.

International congress on medieval and modern period Mediterranean ceramics, Athens, October 2018. 338  Saccocci and Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV”, pp. 220–221 and 224–226. 339  See «263»–«269». For the corresponding numismatic data from these parts of Corinth, see also Chapter 4, pp. 429–437. 340  Pp. 120 and 135–136. 341  Labrot, Jetons, pp. 148–149; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 306–307. 342  Davidson, Minor objects, nos. 2101, 2102, 2105.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

6

161

Control over and Manipulation of the Monetary Stock: Official Minting and Counterfeiting, Injection and Culling, Cancellation and Other Alterations

My purpose here is to summarise all the factors which determined the shape of the coinage and to identify more clearly purposeful human actions and intentions. Our findings will inform the next discussion, which deals precisely with the quantity and quality of the monetary stock, and Chapter 3, which focuses on the issuers and users. 6.1 Coins Entering and Exiting Circulation Coinage entered Greek circulation either through local mintage or importation. The two phenomena are linked, since the minting of Greek coins was to a large extent reliant on incoming bullion in the shape of coins. The coinage stock of Greece came to be diminished in a number of ways, which in combination are termed ‘wastage’.343 The most obvious is culling, defined as a concerted action by states or individuals to withdraw coinage, which was then stored away (for instance hoarded), exported, or melted down, often for remintage. Culling stands in contrast to what might be called ‘natural wastage’, the main difference of which is that it was not determined by a conscious human decision to subtract coinage from circulation. This form of wastage took the shape of coin weight loss through wear and other forms of damage to the coins, and inadvertent losses of single coins or of entire hoards. Of course, it is not always possible to ascertain which hoards or clusters of hoards are to be counted either as culling or as natural wastage according to the given definitions. This dilemma is closely related to another problem, already discussed in the section on hoards in this chapter,344 of determining which hoarding either reflected everyday usage, or problems in the monetary structures. I will consider here obvious instances of culling, while natural wastage is factored into my next discussion on the size of the monetary stock. Other important considerations which have already been developed in this chapter345 are the parallel spheres of coin usage, reflected in the different data provided by stray and hoarded coins. Coins could enter and leave these spheres at different rates, or be transferred from one to another. Naturally, there were also regional variations in the injections and subtractions of coins. 343  More on wastage and on its calculation can be found in the next discussion, pp. 177–178. 344  See pp. 124–125. See also pp. 144–149, where attempts are made to explain some of the causes of thesaurisation of individual hoards. 345  Pp. 134–136.

162

Chapter 2

6.2 Altering and Counterfeiting Coins There are other, more marginal but deliberate, human interventions which influenced the shape of the coinage: coins have been variously found to have been clipped, cut, and cancelled. With regard to coin production, many of the medieval coinages issued on Greek soil are to be termed ‘official’, in the sense of bearing more or less explicit and accurate information regarding their emissions. The other main category of coins is those which copy official issues, in different forms and qualities, but which were not of the same production. Such coins can be called contemporary copies, imitations, or counterfeits (the term ‘forgery’ being reserved for modern copies). The choice of terminology often reflects a supposition on the coins’ issuers, their status, and the degree to which they were intended to deceive. In some cases the terms applied to such coins have already been forged by other writers (e.g. ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives/ Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives). I have chosen to call all other issues of this category counterfeits. Judgment on some of these coinages is reserved for the next chapter. ‘Official’ issues and their counterfeits were usually not of the same production. Nevertheless, counterfeits were often emitted by state entities, as well as by privates. The data in all of these regards are presented in three chronological sections: 1200–1260s, 1260s–1350s (the main period of the Greek tournois coinages) and 1350s–1430. 6.3 1200–1260s The first of these periods, 1200–1260s, is defined by the only occasional minting of issues which can be termed official according to the given definition. By contrast, instances of counterfeiting were sometimes high, and there were very significant and varied imports of coins from other territories. There were also vivid activities of culling, clipping, and the alterations to the shapes of coins to assume different denominations. 6.4 1200–1260s: Official Minting and Counterfeiting Perhaps the biggest coin production in Greece during these years concerned the tetartera of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’, of the first decade of the thirteenth century.346 Some rare counterfeit billon trachea might have been associated with this coinage,347 but counterfeit tetartera and trachea of other production are also known. Typologically and geographically speaking there cannot be much doubt that the Saronic Gulf Group is to be considered one significant 346  Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206; Chapter 1, p. 12, Chapter 2, pp. 86–87. 347  A  ppendix II.1.B.4, p. 1233; Chapter 2, p. 87.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

163

unit of production, which also led to the systematic culling of earlier tetartera from the area of concern (see below). It would be logical to ascribe both of these activities to the same protagonist(s), whom I would nevertheless, as stated above, hesitate in identifying at this early stage in the research. It is possible that a warfaring context needs to be sought for its issue. Very few other denominations were counterfeited in the first half of the thirteenth century, currently represented by only very few known specimens each: hyperpyra;348 sterling pennies;349 French deniers tournois;350 petty denomination issues.351 Evidence for this counterfeiting activity is limited to a small part of the Achaïan and Athenian territories and is chronologically dispersed, with perhaps a small augmentation after 1250. In the case of these counterfeits, as for tetartera and trachea counterfeits which were not part of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’, there cannot be much doubt that the authorship was private. It was also in this period that rather disparate official minting commenced. Michael II Komnenos Doukas emitted a small issue of trachea at Arta in the 1230s and/or 1240s, and from 1249.352 The petty denomination issues of Achaïa and Athens were produced in much larger quantities from 1249, and for much of the 1250s.353 As previously, it is possible that the culling of Byzantine-style coins (in this case trachea) contributed to the inception of this coinage. Finally, in 1259 Manfred of Hohenstaufen’s trachea were brought into circulation in the Epirote area. 6.5 1200–1260s: Imports Domestic minting could not provide Greece with an adequate degree of monetisation in the initial period of Latin rule. Naturally, pre-1200 coinages remained available, in particular gold hyperpyra and tetartera, but also some Latin coinages which had been carried there through the crusading movement and western commercial expansion.354 These were almost immediately supplemented by numerous other coinages. It can be proven that a large percentage of the available billon trachea, even those produced before 1200, came to Greece in 1204–1210, but that soon thereafter arrivals of this denomination largely ceased. Equally, electrum (and silver) trachea dating before or after 1200, reached our area in the same years. The appearance of two western 348  Appendix II.1.D.5, p. 1264. 349  Appendix II.2, p. 1280. 350  Appendix II.3.E, pp. 1293–1294. 351  Appendix II.8.C, p. 1374. 352  Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243; Chapter 2, p. 88. 353  Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374; Chapter 2, pp. 90–91. 354  On these coinages, and those that follow, see: Chapter 2, pp. 88–90.

164

Chapter 2

coinages, sterling pennies and deniers tournois, was also directly linked to the conquest of Greece. Thereafter, there was a consistent pattern of arrivals of these two western denominations, which were joined by a third, the Venetian grosso. We can now establish that the arrival rates of sterlings seriously declined in the 1230s, perhaps to coincide with the point at which grossi became more plentiful and tournois were finally considered worthy of hoarding. Also a few Anatolian gold hyperpyra began to appear in Greece from the 1220s. Both public and private forces would have been at work here, the former particularly with respect to the denominations which were expected in the payment of taxes. Privates required specie for commercial transactions and large-scale transfers. One particular case is illuminating: The French domestic ban on the circulation of the tournois of the appanages355 preceded the Angevin conquest of southern Italy by three years (1263 and 1266 respectively). It is possible that some of these tournois came to Greece through official channels immediately, but it is also likely that after 1266 feudal deniers tournois were brought to Greece via Italy.356 A strong monetary link, based largely on private initiative, between Greece and southern Italy had existed also during the Hauteville (to 1194) and Hohenstaufen and periods.357 It was also private initiative which supplied Greece with diverse coinages from the east, from the Balkans and the Black Sea in the period before and after 1200. The gold hyperpyron coinage enjoyed a renewed supply to Greece in the 1240s, no doubt as part of the commercial and political structures that linked it to Constantinople. By contrast, the billon trachea from the 1230s to the 1260s, of Thessalonican and Constantinopolitan mintage, penetrated Greece largely through military channels. Venetian piccoli in Greece, even if the evidence for their actual presence is quite sparse, might have been part of the colonial Venetian network. Although there was a surge of tournois which arrived in Greece in the 1260s, the end of its minting in France itself may have contributed to the beginning of production at the Clarentza mint.358 6.6 1200–1260s: Culling We have some comprehensive evidence that coins were also culled from Greek circulation during the period 1200–1260s, although the stray and hoarded data 355  356  357  358 

Appendix II.3, p. 1284 and II.3.C, p. 1291. Chapter 2, p. 92. Chapter 2, p. 89. Appendix II.3, p. 1284.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

165

are sometimes conflictual, as discussed above. We notice, on the one hand, tetartera and billon trachea of all descriptions in later contexts;359 on the other there is in the hoards a clearly delineated sequence of issues of both denominations, one following on from the previous one in rather quick succession.360 The first decade of the thirteenth century saw therefore very intensive cullings, which will probably have been achieved by a combination of public and private forces. It would be of great interest to establish whether or not some of this bullion returned to Constantinople (or Anatolia, and eventually Thessalonike) in support of more recent trachy issues. However, this culling was not universally applied in our territories: the Cyclades and Epiros were important exceptions. Electrum trachea in Latin Greece were initially very conservative, and therefore not immediately the subject of withdrawals,361 but their absence from Greek finds in the further course of the century was otherwise conspicuous. The situation was similar for the gold hyperpyron, since the period from 1200 to the 1220s shows no obvious signs of withdrawals, but by the 1240s the existing stock had evidently been largely reminted.362 This suggests, in much stronger terms than for the case of trachea, links to Anatolia and eventually Constantinople – the only conceivable areas of gold minting to which this bullion might have been directed –, either of a commercial or political nature. We must nevertheless note that a particularly large hyperpyron hoard whose concealment dates to this intermittent period derives from an area of the western Mainland not known for its commercial orientation, high connectivity, or spates of violence in the years of interest.363 It may therefore be a symbol for culling in the shape of thesaurisation, caused perhaps by a sluggish economic environment. More recent hyperpyron issues in Greek circulation from the 1240s to 1260s were possibly also culled for remintage at Constantinople, as were perhaps any other hyperpyra of the early Palaiologan emperors which might have reached our territories, but which are numismatically unattested.

359  Chapter 2, p. 117; Appendix II.1.A.1, pp. 1201–1203; Appendix II.1.B.1, pp. 1210–1212. 360  Chapter 2, pp. 134 and 138. 361  Chapter 2, p. 88. 362  Chapter 2, p. 88. 363  «41. Agrinio 1978/1979».

166

Chapter 2

1200–1260s: Imports and Withdrawals (or Lack Thereof ) of Grossi and Tournois The behaviour of the next highest denomination in Greece, that of the Venetian silver grosso, is quite different in the same period: issues were very steadily added to and withdrawn from the circulating stock.364 The situation regarding tournois in the period before ca. 1267 is more complex, since there were various issues, occasionally of diverging qualities, in circulation, which might have been reason enough for some culling.365 There is no sign that the political authorities in Greece sought to withdraw any of these issues – and this is most emphatically the case when we look at the stray data –, and only in some hoards can we detect the occasional preference for the slightly older and better issues.366 Petty denomination issues367 and diverse eastern and western pennies368 were also not culled from Greek circulation. Rather, these issues, having first entered Greek circulation in quite specific manners, survived for many decades beyond their original introductions mostly as petty cash, only to re-appear in some hoarded contexts much later. This rather light-handed approach by the authorities to the available currency is also reflected in the lack of any cancellations of coins.369 The only coinages which were manipulated in different ways by the population at large were tetartera and trachea: it clipped and cut tetartera, turned them into trachea, or pared down older copper coins to resemble tetartera.370 6.7

6.8 1260s–1350s The next phase in Greek monetary history, 1260s–1350s, is marked by the very extensive official issue of Greek tournois. Many other activities that are of interest to us here, notably culling, counterfeiting and cancellations, are directly linked to the extent and success of this coinage. Nevertheless, there are some important additional introductions to the Greek range of coins in this period, as we shall see.

364  Chapter 2, pp. 89–90. 365  Appendix II.3.A, p. 1286; Appendix II.3.C, p. 1291. 366  Chapter 2, pp. 90 and 92. 367  Appendix II.8. 368  Appendix II.5–6. 369  See Appendix II.8.B.2, p. 1371, where I reject the idea that petty denomination issue type 8 may have been de-monetised at Athens. 370  Appendix II.1.A.1, p. 1203; Appendix II.1.A.2, p. 1206.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

167

6.9 1260s–1350s: Tournois Production and Associated Cullings The serious intent with which the tournois were launched in Greece can already be gauged from the comprehensive culling of French tournois from Greek soil in the later 1260s.371 This would have been carried out officially, and affected not merely older abbatial and royal issues, but also some feudal issues which continued to reach Greece arguably when Greek minting had already commenced. Even the tournois handled in tale were affected by this culling. On the other hand, there is some evidence that initially the Athenian territories, which began to mint tournois more than a decade after Achaïa (ca. 1285 or later), lagged behind in extracting all French tournois from circulation. One may suppose that the good size of the issue of Prince William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278, minting probably from the later 1260s), when compared to those of his immediate successors, was due to this heavy reliance on pre-existing specie. The pace of arrival of foreign silver coins in Greece did, however, not subsist in the last years of the thirteenth century. On the contrary, incoming Venetian grossi were partially turned into Greek tournois, and particularly saluti and gros tournois, injected through official Angevin and other channels from the later 1260s onwards, were universally culled.372 A lot of this would have occurred at the point of entry into Greece. This Angevin network was mostly military and administrative. The cycle of culling and minting resulted in some very large Greek issues around the year 1300.373 6.10 1260s–1350s: Tournois Production and the Systems of Authority and Control The tournois coinage of Greece was also formidable from a different angle: we have some evidence of the extensive provisions which the Angevins put in place for its launch and further functioning, involving the highest dignitaries in the Greek territories.374 We are also occasionally informed about their desire to apply the precise legal structures which regulated this minting.375 Where documentary evidence eludes us, numismatic sources, more precisely the physical properties of the coins themselves, can demonstrate the close relationship between the exercise of political power and the production of the tournois coinage. Some of the more striking episodes of the discussions 371  Chapter 2, p. 93 and p. 141. See also Appendix II.3.D, pp. 1292–1293. 372  Chapter 2, p. 97. 373  Chapter 2, p. 96. 374  See particularly Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1379–1384. 375  See the episode regarding the mints of Salona and Naupaktos, Appendix II.9.E, pp. 1444– 1445 and Appendix II.9.F, p. 1450.

168

Chapter 2

in Appendix II.9 are the launch of the issues at the Thebes and Naupaktos mints, which were both initially acts of opposition to the Clarentzan system in place, the collapse and eventual re-alignments of the issues of Thebes and Neopatra in the wake of the death of Duke Guy II de la Roche (October 1308), or the demise of the Artan tournois as a result of the constitutional position and military ambitions of their issuer John II Orsini. The tournois issues can be defined through their weight and fineness, and additionally the precision with which lettering, so-called secret symbols, and other abbreviation and contraction marks are applied.376 These reveal the quality and the degree of ‘control’,377 and were testimony to the status and attention given to a coinage issue by the authorities.378 They ensured the inalienability of the issue, and the accountability of the people who produced or distributed it. Quality and control were, in general terms, very good for most of the Greek tournois. This said, we are still unable to understand the precise significance of the design features of many of the coins. The broad subdivisions, for instance, of the issues of Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, Neopatra, and Arta, into two or three groupings has been noted, in this book and previously by other writers. In each of these cases it can nevertheless be demonstrated that these were neither the result of multiple mints, nor of parallel workshops within mints. In fact, the groups were all produced in the same place and were largely chronologically progressive. We may suppose that some of the symbols indicate perhaps the personnel involved in the minting process,379 for instance the die cutter of Pegolotti’s list, or the moneyer, the mint masters. In the case of the Neopatra issues of type 1, groups P and L, we can maybe be more confident that this was the case, not merely because the ‘symbols’ took the shape of letters, but also because these disappeared exactly when the new political constellation of 1308 might have caused the withdrawal of personnel from the mint. The fact that certain groups (i.e. dies) can re-appear at different moments in the minting history, most importantly the Athenian GR20Z issue 376  On these aspects of the coins’ designs, see Appendix II.9, p. 1375. 377  This term has been borrowed from Michael Hendy, (DOC IV, p. 102ff), who examined the workings of the main imperial Byzantine mint of the twelfth century on the basis of the intricate system of markings on the relevant issues. On the characteristics of the Byzantine coinage system under the Komnenoi, see also Chapter 1, pp. 10–12. 378  Such concerns find surprisingly little consideration in the numismatic literature. See merely: Blanchet and Dieudonné, Manuel, 2, p. 46ff. 379  Which are known especially for Clarentza: Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1379–1383. See, for other, clearer cut, examples of mint personnel indicated on coins which circulated in Greece: Florentine florins (Appendix II.4.D, pp.  1306–1307), Venetian soldini (Appendix II.4.E, pp. 1317–1318), Hungarian denars (Appendix II.4.E.4, pp. 1324–1325. See also some German examples discussed in Dannenberg, “Münzmeister auf Mittelaltermünzen”.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

169

which pre-dates 1308 but can still be found after the interval of the anonymous types, may indicate that any symbols in the type may refer to the process of die production rather than minting. In the case of the Athenian coinage we also have the strongest indication that the usual change of groups/dies occurred at regular intervals, in this case every two years.380 It is possible that the designs of many tournois contained multiple levels of control. There are issues which, in addition to more obvious symbols, also feature complex alternating constellations of dots interspersed within the legend: this is the case for most of the Achaïan issues, but particularly GV1 and 2 for William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) and IGA for John of Gravina (1321–1332), the Athenian issues A3, GR20B, GR20Γ, GR20Z, and DR1b, DR1c, DR1e for Philip of Taranto at Naupaktos (1296/8–1314). No attempt has so far been made to understand the placing or omission of such dots, in order to determine whether there was a pattern and therefore some meaningful system in place. None of the analysed hoards cut in an obvious manner, and in large quantities, through any of the named series. A die study might be able to establish any possible progression in the series.381 These complications are exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult to compare mints such as Clarentza and Thebes, however prolific they may have been, to the imperial Byzantine mint of the twelfth century, which is a particularly well studied example of control indicated in the features on the coinage. The greatest difference would have been that in the former cases minting would have been reactive, dependent on the incoming bullion, which would have rendered any regularity and forward planning in terms of die production difficult to achieve.382 Nevertheless, these dots, that is to say protrusions on the coins which represent depressions on the dies, are the one aspect of the type which could have been altered just before minting, or even during the usage of a die. Anybody attempting to perform a die study must remain open to the possibility of encountering the same die with different dot constellations. 6.11 1260s–1350s: Tournois Injections, Counterfeiting and Targeted Withdrawals Whatever the precise meaning of the design features of the coins for the minting process, the tournois was also a well-controlled coinage once minting itself was completed. Hoards in particular show us that the issues were very

380  Appendix II.9.B, p. 1439. 381  On the desirability of some die studies for the Greek tournois series, see the next discussion pp. 177–178. 382  See the general observations on medieval minting in Chapter 1, esp. p. 58.

170

Chapter 2

regularly added to the circulating stock, and evenly distributed.383 This was especially the case after an initial period of irregularity and fluctuations (which prevailed particularly in the 1280s and 1290s, but also to a lesser degree in the early 1300s). There was no serious culling of tournois until well into production at Clarentza, instead older or inferior specimens fell out of circulation or were weeded out gradually. The circulation of tournois in these bulk contexts relied quite obviously on public and private initiative. On the level of single coins at sites, the distribution pattern of tournois of the three major mints is more peculiar.384 These finds suggest a certain degree of regionalism, overlaid by a strong west-east movement within Greece in line with the general direction taken by people and commerce. Single tournois were also much less removed from circulation than specimens handled in bulk during the primary phase of Greek tournois usage. On this level of coin usage the distribution patterns show private initiative. As tournois became omnipresent, a first wave of private counterfeiting hit the central area of tournois production and usage – the Gulf of Corinth and surrounding territories – from the 1290s onwards.385 Some important sites, for instance Arta and Sparta, were spared counterfeits entirely. But the Achaïan authorities also proved to be very competent in rounding up this specie – together with a few counterfeit grossi and petty denomination issues in the name of Philip of Savoy – and by cancelling it through cutting at the Frankish complex of Corinth.386 It is certainly noteworthy that this wave of private counterfeiting, emanating maybe in the western part of our territories, began exactly at the same time as the explosion in official minting, and that this affected almost exclusively tournois. Evidently, the general conditions favoured both official and counterfeit operations, and tournois are revealed as the denomination most desired by the state and the population. The general vogue for newly minted tournois in exactly this period is underlined by the Venetian proposal in 1305 to mint the same denomination in its Greek territories.387 6.12 1260s–1350s: Venetian and Serbian Grossi Arrivals and Withdrawals With regard to Venetian grossi, it is evident that these continued to reach Greece unabated, and were no doubt the basis of many of the Greek tournois issues (see above). Nevertheless, there were still enough specimens which 383  384  385  386  387 

Chapter 2, pp. 140–143. Chapter 2, p. 121. Appendix II.9.M, p. 1486; Chapter 2, pp. 93–94 and ff. Appendix II.4.B, p. 1299; Appendix II.8.B.3, p. 1373; Appendix II.9.M, p. 1487; «268». Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1382.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

171

escaped culling and constituted an important element in the monetisation of Greece. Serbian issues arguably came to Greece via the same Adriatic route and through the same largely private agents. As a rule, grossi handled in bulk fell out of circulation at a similarly steady rate as the tournois. There are some ambiguous data regarding Serbian issues of the first generation, and we do not know if these were ever specifically targeted for culling. In the northern part of our area Venetian grossi were generally the most conservative and least controlled, and this was also universally the case for grossi handled as single pieces. It is possible that the eventual prevalence of inferior specie in some areas caused grosso concealments according to the workings of Gresham’s Law.388 6.13 1260s–1350s: Diverse Cash Injections and Withdrawals in the Greek Regions before 1350 Returning to the tournois, after a lull in production in the middle of the first decade of the fourteenth century, the Catalan threat led to a dramatic increase,389 which demonstrates the military aspect of this coinage. The rupture in the political structure of Latin Greece in 1311 had a profound impact on its monetary life. Official minting declined to some extent, but the general spectrum of coinages increased. There were relatively large but inferior Catalan and Artan issues (the first I call counterfeits according to the given definition).390 Another wave of private counterfeiting took place in Catalan territories, this time not merely of tournois, but even of tetartera,391 and this remained unchecked by the authorities. The eastern Mainland attracted other new coinages, sometimes through official and administrative channels, sometimes through the simple movement of people: the carlini and gros tournois in Greece circulation remained heavily marked by imports of the early years of the second decade of the century.392 These were not culled from circulation393 and contributed to the existence of rather large and compositionally uneasy hoards in the Catalan territories, mostly in the 1320s and 1330s, amounting to a significant withdrawal of currency from circulation.394 By contrast, in Achaïa official attitudes to the gigliato would have been such that it was either culled by the authorities for remintage upon arrival, or used 388  On the behaviour of the grosso coinage in the first half of the fourteenth century, see Chapter 2, pp. 89–90, 97–98, 120, 139–140. 389  Chapter 2, pp. 96–97. 390  Appendix II.9.J, p. 1467, Appendix II.9.L, p. 1482; Chapter 2, p. 142. 391  Chapter 2, p. 97. 392  Chapter 2, p. 143. 393  Appendix II.11.B, p. 1504. 394  Chapter 2, p. 131.

172

Chapter 2

by privates for relations with parts of the eastern Aegean and beyond.395 The absence of a silver mint within the Catalan territories, in combination with a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the authorities, therefore had an important influence on the lack of culling. This affected coins of the carlino tradition, as well as disparate coins of the eastern Aegean which arrived there through geographical proximity.396 Some very rare western penny coinages arrived in the eastern Mainland through the Aragonese colonial network, as they did in other parts of Greece along Venetian and Angevin routes.397 Just as in the Catalan territories, other Greek areas were experiencing increasing hoarding activities – in this case of tournois – which may be considered unhealthy.398 The prevalence especially of unchecked counterfeit tournois would have triggered Gresham’s Law and led to the concealment or export of genuine issues. This trend would have been further exacerbated by the Artan issues and in due course by the inferior Achaïan tournois of Robert of Taranto (from 1332). With these issues the viability even of the official series had been reduced, and the coinage of Robert was frequently avoided in good currency hoards, just like the Catalan and Artan issues. The latter two issues can also be found extracted from circulation in the form of single-type hoards which date mostly to the 1330s. There can be no doubt that the agency in these forms of manipulation of the specie which was either in usage or, increasingly, removed from circulation, was the population at large. The introduction of the Venetian soldino falls exactly in this period.399 This currency was heavily supported by the Republic of Venice itself, which advocated its usage in the colonies. At the same time, other areas of Greece, for instance Elis and Attikoboiotia, took to it rapidly, and this underlines its usefulness to the fiscal systems in place there, as well as to the private sector. The success of the soldino created further problems for the tournois, in two ways: it was in its first manifestation (type 1) a stable, reliable and well supplied currency; at the same time it was a worse currency than the tournois in the sense of being overvalued, and it might therefore have further contributed to the effects of Gresham’s Law.400 This inferiority might also be an explanation why the soldino was seldom privately counterfeited.401

395  Chapter 2, p. 97. 396  Chapter 2, p. 97. 397  Chapter 2, p. 97. 398  Chapter 2, pp. 127 and 142–143. 399  Chapter 2, pp. 101 and 143. 400  Baker, “Corinthe”. 401  Appendix II.4.E.3, pp. 1323–1324.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

173

The prevailing tournois system and the occasionally strong tendency to officially cull any other currencies in the period from the 1260s to the 1350s reduced the general scope for other coinages to enter Greece and to remain archaeologically visible: Greece may no longer have required the Byzantine gold hyperpyron, increasingly sub-standard and perhaps difficult to use in conjunction with the new tournois. While it is likely that some gold hyperpyra of the Palaiologan emperors came to Greece, perhaps in military contexts, they have left virtually no mark in the record402 and we must surmise that they may have been returned to the Byzantine heartland by private initiative. The plentiful silver coinage of the emperors at Trebizond has also only manifested itself on one occasion, and what other specimens may have arrived in Greece were probably culled.403 The paucity of western gold coinages, florins and ducats, requires a different explanation since these were of good quality, compatible with the Greek currencies, as we may also gather from the archaeological record. They would also not have been the subject of culling to support local mintage (leaving aside the context of the very rare florin issues of Prince Robert).404 We must conclude that these were sent to Greece only seldom through official routes, perhaps in the context of the early Angevin expansion into Albania and Greece, and of the upper echelons of the Venetian colonial bureaucracy. Nevertheless, in the course of the fourteenth century international commerce came to rely increasingly on the Italian gold currencies. Achaïa in particular may have controlled the currency tightly during the domestic tournois phase. Still, there remained at the level of local single coin usage, to judge by the Corinthian stratigraphic fills, a very great diversity of older currencies in place: tetartera, trachea, petty denomination issues, and different pennies.405 There is also some evidence that tournois were privately clipped on occasion.406 6.14 1350s–1430: Introduction of Soldini and Torneselli, Culling and Counterfeiting of Tournois The end of tournois minting, and the introduction of the Venetian tornesello and type 2 soldino in 1353 had major repercussions on the monetisation of Greece, changing the whole dynamic of injection and culling of currency.407 Nevertheless, the introduction of the tornesello was far from smooth, and it 402  Chapter 2, p. 95. 403  Chapter 2, p. 95. 404  Chapter 2, p. 101. 405  Chapter 2, p. 117. 406  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 234, n. 110. 407  Chapter 2, pp. 102–103.

174

Chapter 2

is difficult to ascertain how much of the tournois and soldino hoarding in the early years after 1353 occurred in order to conceal higher quality specie. We know from three hoards of around 1400 that tournois survived in good quantities and regular internal typological order, having evidently been stored away for anything up to half a century. It took an act of political will, by the Knights of St. John, to resurrect this specie in one particular area, the eastern part of the Gulf of Corinth.408 In the second half of century and later the tournois was also still the prototype of choice for counterfeiters, as we may judge from the excavation material from Clarentza and perhaps from the Athenian Agora.409 A good number of these may have arrived from the Epirote and Mainland state ruled by Charles I Tocco in the early years of the fifteenth century and, somewhat earlier, from the Mainland and Moreote territories controlled by the Navarrese Company. Whether these coins were officially or privately produced, officially tolerated by these two powers, perhaps even officially introduced into the areas of the Peloponnese controlled by the principality and Venice, or whether in fact most of this information amounts to Venetian propaganda, is difficult to assess. Despite the lingering importance of the tournois, the stratigraphic lists of the Athenian Agora suggest that even on the level of single coin usage tournois were gradually phased out, as they were universally in the context of specimens handled in bulk: between ca. 1365/1368 and ca. 1400 practically no tournois were concealed in Greece.410 Since there was no discernible official bulk cull of genuine tournois, unlike for instance the cancellations of counterfeit tournois which we witness at Clarentza, it is not so obvious according to which mechanisms the tournois currency disappeared from Greece. We must therefore assume that this occurred gradually, through official and private actions. 6.15 1350s–1430: Control over Soldini and Torneselli The overwhelming dominance of the tornesello, and the clear designs which the Venetian authorities had for it, were no doubt a major factor in shaping overall monetisation. We have seen that Venice ensured that torneselli handled as single pieces and in bulk were regularly checked over and weeded out.411 The patterns and the authorships behind the addition and subtraction of Venetian soldini from Greek circulation – which was a currency of utmost

408  Baker, “Corinthe” and Chapter 2, p. 103. 409  Appendix II.4.F.2, pp. 1331–1332; Appendix II.9.M, p. 1488. 410  See also Baker, “Corinthe”. 411  Chapter 2, pp. 119 and 143.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: CONTROL AND MANIPULATION

175

importance to Venetian colonial designs412 – are more difficult to establish. The site finds suggest a lack of culling at this level of coin usage.413 By contrast, hoards after the mid-1350s often exclude older and more intrinsically valuable specimens, possibly as a result of a combination of private and public initiative which brought the bullion back to the mint.414 Whatever older specie remained available was often concealed in savings hoards, and thereby removed from usage all the same. That the various fiscs of the Greek region may have had a hand in the culling of soldini is also underlined by the treatment given to the Hungarian denars (see below). The Venetian soldino of whatever issue eventually disappeared from Greek bulk circulation altogether, at approximately the same time as the official Greek tournois (ca. 1400–1410). The Venetian tornesello, by contrast, lasted well beyond the chronological scope of this book.415 Genuine issues were apparently little affected by counterfeit torneselli,416 even if the latter were clearly inferior, causing uncertainties in the rates of the ducat of account, and were never properly checked in the way that tournois counterfeits were (see above). There is no evidence of pronounced genuine tornesello hoarding, neither as a result of counterfeiting, nor as a result of the serious reduction in production in the later 1410s or early 1420s. The torneselli of Naxos and Byzantine Lakonia,417 issued in rather small quantities and – in the second case – culled from circulation by unsatisfied users, also posed no threat to the Venetian tornesello. We have also seen that single and bulk torneselli might have been mixing more frequently than earlier denominations, a sign of rigorous private handling. The one area for which we witness conspicuously concentrated and high value hoarding in this phase are the Ionian Islands (with hoards dating to the first two decades of the fifteenth century), and there the reason may have been structural.418 6.16 1350s–1430: Introduction and Withdrawal of Non-Venetian Currencies Very few non-Venetian currencies reached Greece in this last phase: Athens received a few coins from the eastern Aegean by virtue of physical proximity; the Peloponnese meanwhile because of the Hospitaller connection.419 The most prominent Italian coins were from Ancona and, later, Campobasso, and the 412  413  414  415  416  417  418  419 

Appendix II.4.E, pp. 1317–1320. Chapter 2, p. 118. Chapter 2, p. 143. Chapter 2, p. 104. Appendix II.4.F, p. 1327. Chapter 2, p. 102. Chapter 2, pp. 129 and 149. Chapter 2, p. 103.

176

Chapter 2

causes for this movement may have been demographic and commercial.420 With respect to the Italian gold coinages we must re-iterate also for this phase what has been said above. There is no sign of any culling taking place anywhere in Greece of these diverse later coinages. In view of this and the fact that there was no Achaïan minting after mid-century, the experience of the Hungarian denars is all the more noteworthy:421 it is quite obvious that this coinage, which entered Greece together with soldini through commercial, Adriatic routes, were systematically culled by the Achaïan authorities, but not those of the Ionian Islands. 7

The Quantity and Quality of the Monetary Stock

For anybody dealing with the money of a given territory and period, one of the ultimate aims must be to define the overall state of the monetary stock, especially its quantity (‘money supply’; ‘monetisation’). In so doing one sets out historical data which are of undeniable importance: “Money supply is one of the fundamental variables in the economic history of medieval Europe, comparable in importance with population, agricultural production, trade, and urban commerce”.422 Scholars may consider monetisation in a broader political or commercial history, or they may try to integrate it in a more technical manner with other factors, such as prices and (indirectly) population, as can be done with the Fisher equation.423 The money supply is usually made up of coinage, uncoined metals,424 and, in certain cases, credit.425 In the case of uncoined metals, I have indicated that jettons and tokens, jewellery and other objects were either little in evidence in medieval Greece or could only perform some monetary functions. Ingots remain a great unknown, especially in the light of the recently discovered practices at the fourteenth-century Venice mint discussed in the earlier part of this chapter. Credit is also either problematic, since it may have affected the quantity of specie less than the way it was handled (V of the Fisher equation), or it is of little consequence since its extent and reach in certain less developed societies such as medieval Greece would have 420  Chapter 2, p. 104. 421  Appendix II.4.E.4, pp. 1324–1325; Chapter 2, pp. 103 and 143. 422  Allen, “Volume of the English currency”, p. 595. 423  The place of the Fisher equation in Byzantine and western monetary history has already been mentioned in Chapter 1, pp. 14 and 65–66. 424  See the discussion above, pp. 153–159. 425  Credit in Byzantium and the medieval west is addressed in Chapter 1, pp. 44–45 and 69– 71. On the money market in medieval Greece, see Chapter 3, pp. 217–224.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: QUANTITY AND QUALITY

177

been a direct reflection of the general levels of monetisation. For these reasons, for the present purposes only coins have been taken into consideration. 7.1 Methodology: Quantifying Supply and Wastage Having said this, even establishing only the volume of coinage available in medieval Greece is a more difficult task than for many other parts of medieval Europe. A complex monetary situation was in place there, with coinages of different mintage, traditions and intrinsic and face values interacting. Often it is also difficult to reconcile these different coinages and the systems of account found in the sources.426 Quite apart from the prevailing debate on the usability of die counts to extrapolate mint outputs, even if only relative,427 there are for medieval Greece,428 and for the medieval Byzantine and post-Byzantine world,429 only very few die studies which one would be able to use, let alone documented output figures. Nevertheless, there is still some great analytical potential in seeking to describe money supply, if only in an impressionistic manner, and to compare it to the other macroeconomic factors pertaining to medieval Greece – population, prices, agricultural production, commerce.430 This can be done by considering in the first instance the record of coin finds,431 and in particular the picture of injections and subtractions of specie,432 and by using approximations for the relative values of the coinages to one another.433 The matter of wastage has been discussed above, and it has been divided into culling and more ‘natural’ forms of wastage.434 With regard to the latter, wear of coins is potentially significant. It has been assessed extensively for

426  On the systems of account, see Appendix III, pp. 1510–1597. 427  See Buttrey, “Calculating ancient coin production”. The latest way of establishing original die numbers from a sample of surviving die numbers is discussed in Esty, “Dies”. 428  See merely the die study conducted by Mina Galani-Krikou and me on the issue of Neoparta: Appendix II.9.G, p. 1460; and the Athenian petty denomination issue studied by Metcalf: Appendix II.8.A.1, p. 1362. On the use of die studies, see also p. 169 above. 429  See also Chapter 1, p. 47, on the rare examples of late Byzantine coinages which have been treated statistically. 430  Which are all considered in the next Chapter 3, p. 185ff. 431  See in this chapter, pp. 105–153. Finds, and hoards in particular, are often used to determine sizes of production and monetisation: see for instance Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”. See also Grierson, Numismatics, pp. 126–128, on the close relationship of output figures to the contents of some hoards, in this case the Swedish Lohe Hoard of seventeenth-century coins. 432  Also in this chapter, pp. 161–176. 433  This is done on pp. 128–129. 434  See p. 161.

178

Chapter 2

other areas of medieval Europe, especially England,435 and has also been considered with reference to one particular medieval Greek hoard.436 The established figures are about 2–4% per decade lost through wear, which can be a considerable total sum of metal. In our Greek case, the matter is still to be tested with extensive metrological data from dated hoards, yet any figure would remain academic since our notions of the overall size of the money supply are so vague. More useful is to consider a general figure for wastage combining all human and natural causes, defined by coin survival rates per decade. Again for England, which provides a highly controlled and regular environment, this has been established at 50%.437 The measure for this are coins in hoards, and even Greece during the main period of indigenous minting (1260s–1350s) has a good number of hoards which may allow us to come to some conclusions on this matter. This might in future be complemented and verified with targeted die studies of some issues from the main denier tournois mints, which one might contrast with the one existing die study of the issues of the more minor Neopatra mint. Another aid in this respect are the intrinsic qualities of some of the same coinages, since any signs of debasement might reveal an expansion of the monetary mass, for reasons which can then be defined further.438 Once one has a general figure for coin survival one must ask what happened to those coins which did not survive. In the English case many coins would have left the country, and many others would simply have been reminted. Again in Greece the situation may have been more complex, and many of the medium range coins under a certain qualitative threshold – older issues, heavily worn and broken specimens – may have entered the ranks of the petty coinages which were used in some contexts but seldom hoarded.439 I will proceed by going through the three phases of coin usage in Greece which I already refer to in my last discussion (1200–1260s – 1260s–1350s – 1350s–1430). All my assessments are based on points already developed in this chapter, and I have refrained from referring extensively backwards, and across 435  Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”, p. 3; Allen, “Volume and composition of the English silver currency”, p. 41; see also Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 938. On the importance of English data, see Chapter 1, pp. 60–61. 436  Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 197ff («92. Pylia 1968/1969»). 437  Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”, p. 4; Allen, “Volume and composition of the English silver currency”, p. 41; Allen, “Volume of the English currency”, p. 602. 438  Debasements in the Byzantine and western contexts are discussed in detail in Chapter 1, for example, pp. 9, 14, 50–51, 64–65. 439  P. 135.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: QUANTITY AND QUALITY

179

to Appendix I and II, where the data are originally presented. For each of the phases I will also say a few words on the level of petty coin usage, which I separate from those coins readily used in the public and larger commercial spheres and which underlay the main hyperpyra of account.440 7.2 1200–1260s The middle Byzantine Empire was a highly monetised state, in a number of metals, even if coverage and the compatibility of the denominations were coming under strain towards 1200.441 Perhaps paradoxically, the groundbreaking and potentially disruptive political and monetary changes in the first decade of the thirteenth century442 dramatically increased the money supply in Greece. Because all coins, even tetartera and trachea, continued to function as part of an integrated monetary system based on the three metals, also these are factored into the general degree of monetisation. The latter was further supported by the arrival of new western coins. This situation soon unravelled. The copper-based coins were extensively culled, were hoarded and not recovered precisely because of the violent events, or fell out of usage in other ways. In the wake of the arrival of the first western silver coins at the time of the conquests, there followed a lull in such imports. Gold and silver coins started arriving again in good quantities in the 1220s, and especially 1230s–1240s. As the presence of silver began to increase exponentially towards the middle of the century, the gold coinage began a rapid decline. Although some of the seminal silver coinages of the west – Venetian grossi, sterlings of the short cross design, French royal tournois – which were also of importance to Greece were creations of the turn of the thirteenth century, their levels of production significantly increased mid-century.443 Greece therefore reveals itself as an integral part of the European monetary system, although whether this was commercially or politically and bureaucratically induced remains to be defined.444 The silver coins were increasingly copious but remained freely available since there is no sign of cullings or excessive hoarding activities. If monetisation first peaked in about 1210, and then again in the 1230s and early 1240s thanks to the gold hyperpyra and the maximum presence of sterling pennies, it was perhaps at an even higher level by 1260.

440  The following narrative can be compared to Figure 2 on p. 184. 441  Chapter 1, p. 13. 442  Chapter 1, p. 48. 443  On the steady increase in western monetisation in this period, see Chapter 1, pp. 58–60. 444  Chapter 1, p. 63. See further the discussions in Chapter 3.

180

Chapter 2

In parallel with these developments the area continued to rely on copper coins in certain military contexts, and domestic Greek production augmented such coinages at different times (1200s, 1230s, 1250s). These issues cannot be counted towards the general monetisation of Greece, although in northerly territories (Epiros and Thessaly) they may have carried the currency sporadically in the absence of silver. Usually, however, they are to be considered petty coins, the availability of which grew steadily between 1200 and 1260 culminating in vast quantities of petty denomination issues which swamped certain sites, while older tetartera and trachea were still very much available. 7.3 1260s–1350s For Greek monetisation, the 1260s were a highly significant decade since it was then that domestic tournois minting began. Nevertheless, its level was initially not much affected by these developments because the first wave of tournois production at Clarentza was based on silver which was already available and culled for the purpose of re-minting. In the further course of the 1270s and 1280s monetisation increased therefore only moderately, driven no doubt mostly by the arrival of new Venetian (and a bit later Serbian) grossi. For about a decade in the later 1280s and early 1290s, largely for political reasons, minting was very low indeed and monetisation stagnated or even declined slightly. The second half of the latter decade, until ca. 1305, imports increased dramatically, as did coin production not merely at multiple official mints but also at the hands of private counterfeiters. Then, output at Naupaktos, Neopatra, Clarentza, and Thebes, was either terminated or curbed, again politically motivated, and also counterfeiting was clamped down on. Production increased again at the latter three mints with the approach of the Catalans at the end of the decade. The subsequent conquests brought the downturn and termination of minting operations, and the large-scale thesaurisation of specie. Both resulted in a drop in monetisation for about a decade. Nevertheless, relative political and commercial stability soon brought an unprecedented amount of silver to Greece for a good 20 years, starting in about 1320. It is obvious from the hoards that some new issues were minted from silver already present in Greece, but at the same time especially the sites suggest generally low levels of culling and constant additions to the available stock of silver. This said, some monetary and political uncertainties and instabilities did lead to some withdrawal of silver specie from circulation, not enough, one may estimate, to counteract the general increase in monetisation marking the period ca. 1320–1340. While developments from the 1290s to about 1310 can be considered in general line with western European developments, this massive expansion leading to the highest levels of monetisation of medieval Greece in ca. 1340 occurred

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: QUANTITY AND QUALITY

181

exactly at the point when many parts of the continent had already been experiencing the first bullion famine for a good two to three decades caused by reductions in silver supplies and increases in wastage.445 Greece and Byzantium share a generally upward curve in silver coin minting during the first four decades of the fourteenth century,446 although Byzantium, like Greece, displays some idiosyncrasies in output caused largely by political and military events. In the years around 1340 a number of factors affected Greece which must lead one to conclude that the general levels of monetisation flattened (for Italian gold issues, which remain completely elusive and impossible to quantify, see below): Venetian grossi and silver coins of the southern Italian carlino tradition ceased to arrive. Debasement of the indigenous tournois currency, which had earlier supported its expansion, was now such that it must have caused problems for the overall standard of the hyperpyra of account, that is to say more tournois may have been required in some contexts to compute a hyperpyron. These tournois also caused older issues to be excessively hoarded. The new Venetian soldino arrived in good quantities, but it too resulted in additional thesaurisation. Finally, minting ceased altogether in Greece, certainly by 1353 at the very latest. On the level of petty coinages during the period 1260s–1350s, occasional issues at Thebes and Clarentza kept levels steady at some of the urban sites, which might otherwise have been affected by the absence of fresh supplies of copper coins of the Byzantine tradition. Few of the silver-based coins slid into the realm of petty coins, but areas of the eastern Mainland and Epiros witnessed newly minted inferior versions of the tournois, and somewhat earlier the Gulf of Corinth region was a hotbed of tournois counterfeits, all of which were almost immediately deemed petty. On the whole, levels of monetisation in petty coinages might have augmented during this century a little less steeply as compared to the preceding sixty years. 7.4 1350s–1430 The 1350s and 1360s saw the massive withdrawal of older tournois (and even of type 1 soldini) from the currency which, in combination with a lack of the usual high value silver currency imports, must have lead to a downward curve in monetisation. Even later types of the Venetian soldino, and the Venetian tornesello, could initially not avert this. The low point may have been reached somewhere between 1360 and 1370. Tournois usage came to a temporary end and soldino and tornesello imports were minimal until some point in

445  Chapter 1, pp. 63–65. 446  C  hapter 1, pp. 52–54.

182

Chapter 2

1370s, when the impacts of type 3 soldini and the tornesello issues of Doge Contarini (1368–1382) began to be felt.447 Tornesello production and importation was huge during the 1380s and 1390s, less so in the early 1400s, and this coinage managed to express some very high individual sums of money (as manifested in the hoards). To this picture one must add the re-appearance in the overall currency, just before the turn of the century, of tournois which had survived in a hoarded state for a number of decades. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that monetisation even around the 1400 high point managed to reach the levels of ca. six decades previously. This assessment is based on a number of considerations. Torneselli, and even soldini, were inflationary coinages in the sense that increasing numbers were required to make up sums in the hyperpyra of account. Soldini and torneselli were also consistently culled by the Venetian authorities (and others), so there would not have been the cumulative effect of different generations of issues in simultaneous circulation. Finally, because of their low values, torneselli were also prone to enter the sphere of petty coin usage. This overall negative assessment of the second half of the fourteenth century should come as no surprise whatsoever in the light of the general western European experience.448 Also the contemporary Byzantine mint of Thessalonike was declining,449 yet the Constantinople mint during these years may have continued to attract good quantities of western silver which it converted into stavrata.450 The collapse in monetisation in Greece after 1400 may have been more dramatic than anything experienced by the contemporary west, and by Byzantium, yet it is possible that this picture, drawn for the silverbased coinages, manages to tell only a part of the story. From the 1340s onwards until the end of the middle ages it is possible, though neither demonstrable nor quantifiable, that monetisation in Greece was increased by the presence of Italian gold coinages, ducats and florins in particular. We are informed on the one hand that such coinages were extensively used, but on the other that there might have been some significant supply problems. The last of our three phases arguably saw the greatest amount of private, and perhaps even politically supported, counterfeiting activities. This, in combination with the particular usages put to genuine torneselli, and the fact that the previous generations of petty coins (especially Byzantine-style copper 447  Ponomarev, “Silver in, silver out”, esp. pp. 1022–1023 (see also Stahl’s comments in the same volume, pp. 1048–1049) has sought to make a contribution to this particularly protracted monetary situation with reference to hoard «168». 448  Chapter 1, pp. 67–68. 449  Chapter 1, p. 55. 450  Chapter 1, p. 54.

COIN PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION: QUANTITY AND QUALITY

183

issues and petty denomination issues) remained available, ensured that there was in this period again an increase in this kind of monetisation. 7.5 Overall Trend The preceding descriptions of medieval Greek monetisation have resulted in Figure 2, below. One must obviously emphasise that we are dealing with ‘estimates’, since no truly reliable data are forthcoming and this graph will necessarily require revision once more work on this question has been undertaken. The graph is also an ‘aggregate’, because there would have been considerable regional variations, the differences in which being most acute in the first and the final quarters of the figure. The graph can only give ‘relative’ developments from one period to the next, since we are not in a position to contemplate absolute quantities. It is estimated that throughout 1200–1430 monetisation was higher than in the preceding and following periods. By the mid-fifteenth century the level may well have declined to that of 1200. At the highest point, in 1340, monetisation may have been four times the amount of the middle Byzantine period. During the twelfth century, monetisation will have peaked temporarily at the end of the reign of Manuel I,451 and after 1430 it declined rapidly to eventually leave Greece arguably with the lowest levels of monetisation since the crisis of the eighth century. This situation was only alleviated with the arrival of the second generation of Venetian torneselli at the very end of the century.452 Figure 2 represents the currencies underlying the hyperpyra of account. We have said above that in the last half century of the graph there was an ever increasing uncertainty as to the number of coins required for a current hyperpyron, and that there may well have been a larger discrepancy between the official and unofficial rates. Even when a rate was agreed upon and reached, the resulting hyperpyra would still have been at an increasing disadvantage to other more stable standards, especially those based on the Italian gold coinages. In this sense the overall decline between 1340 and 1430 in monetisation would look even more apparent if one were to devise a graph based on florin/ ducat values. The levels of monetisation contained in actual Italian gold issues, which are very difficult to measure, have not been factored into the curve but are represented by a hypothetical shaded area. Not considered at all in the present figure is the level of petty monetisation, which would have augmented dramatically towards 1260, flattened during the following century, only to rise again towards 1400 and beyond. 451  Chapter 1, pp. 16–17. 452  Conclusions, p. 497; Appendix II.4.F.1, p. 1329.

184

Figure 2

Chapter 2

Estimated aggregate relative levels of monetisation in the currencies underlying the hyperpyron of account in medieval Greece, 1200–1430 (x = relative level of monetisation 0–4; y = years) (the shaded area indicates potential monetisation represented by Italian gold issues)

Chapter 3

Storing Wealth, Paying Taxes, Services and Goods: the Issuers and Users of Coinage in Medieval Greece Coins were used for two overriding purposes, to store wealth and to make or receive payments. The aim of this chapter is to explore money in medieval Greece as it was conceived and used, by combining historical information with the numismatic data developed in Chapter 2, and the systems of account presented in Appendix III. The political and social systems in place in Greece throughout the period 1204–1430 had a number of fundamental features in common: autocratic governance, hierarchical social and political structures, the right to private property, an emphasis on land, and a pervading market economy. The divisions between public and private were increasingly blurred, as they were in the contemporary empire at Constantinople.1 If one wants to make any meaningful sub-divisions of the political and social systems of medieval Greece, with a view to understanding monetary trends, it is possibly best to do so chronologically. This chapter is organised therefore, after discussions of the geographical and demographic contexts, and of the money market in medieval Greece, according to the three chronological units that have already been used in the previous chapter, with fixpoints in 1200, 1259–1268, 1347–1348, and 1430. For each case the pertinent political and military events are described,2 followed by an analysis of the main socio-economic trends. The production of coinage was a political act, as were many of the other monetary interventions that have been described in the previous chapter. Each of the many polities of medieval Greece would have had a budget and monetary policy of sorts, with monies flowing in and out of their control, which contributed to some of their basic functions such as the keeping of internal and external security, and the enrichment at the same time of part of the population with a vested interest in the exercise of power.3 For this reason the political and military framework is fundamental. 1  Chapter 1, pp. 24–45. 2  On the identification of political and economic stimuli for monetary tendencies, see also the discussion on control and manipulation: Chapter 2, pp. 161–176. 3  On the topic of medieval public finance, see for instance Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe, p. 269; Miskimin, Economy of early Renaissance Europe, p. 147. The

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_004

186

Chapter 3

Underlying was the socio-economic component, that is to say the legal conditions according to which the Greek population laboured, and received and spent money, or the market forces and their legislative framework which moved produce and money around the region, and in and out of it. The land mass of Greece and its population, the topic of the first discussion, were fundamental alike to the acquisition of wealth as they were to the exercise of power, which was often militarily based. Each tract of land and the persons working it, each adjoining coastline, each habitation, each natural feature, therefore had values from more than merely one angle, and such values could often be expressed in monetary terms. As in many other spheres, monetarily medieval Greece adhered to general western and Byzantine tendencies which were outlined in earlier parts of this book, although some Greek experiences were marked by significant divergences. 1

The Geographical and Demographic Context

As mentioned in the last discussion of the previous chapter,4 the availability of money is one of the great economic factors which define an area and period. Another is the population using this money, which one needs to look at in terms of overall numbers, supplemented by further demographic and socioeconomic nuancing, such as settlement and even ethnic patterns. 1.1 Territory In the Preface, an outline of the territories covered in this book has been given.5 The geographical conditions of the territories under investigation provide the obvious setting for human habitation and pursuits, defining the potential and limitations of these territories, and the levels of communication and inter-action which they afford.6 This area is the most southerly outcrop of the Balkan peninsula, and comprises also some of the islands of the Ionian and Aegean Seas. The land, as has been frequently noted, is even more mountainous, with relatively few small plains, than other parts of Romania, and it

relationship of money and the exercise of political power, in the Byzantine and western traditions, is the focus of Chapter 1, pp. 1–72. 4  Pp. 176–184. 5  Preface, pp. xii–xiii and xv–xvii. 6  For overviews of these landscapes in Byzantine times, climate, exploitation, communication, and other features, see Koder, Lebensraum, pp. 29–31; 40–44; 55–61; 70–73; Hendy, Studies, pp. 21–25; 51–53; 57.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

187

is hotter and less well irrigated. It therefore has, on the whole, the possibilities of typical Mediterranean cultivation, combined with woodland and shrubland and some pasture, to quite a modest degree, and it also has relatively few natural resources. It might be said, however, that these territories were at times very intensively exploited with respect to their potential,7 and also that their strategic position outweighed some of these other drawbacks. Parts of our primary area – that is to say some of the expanses of land in Thessaly, Attica and Boiotia, or along the coastline of the Peloponnese – were nevertheless particularly productive and had since imperial times attracted monastic and aristocratic exploitation and had consistently supplied Constantinople with produce.8 1.2 Ethnicity and Population Transfers With respect to ethnicity and movements of populations, the political changes which occurred after 1204 brought with them some initial developments.9 There was a wave of exile, experienced by a part of the Greek political and ecclesiastical elites,10 and also by some urban, and even rural, elements in Byzantine society. The areas affected most no doubt would have been those closest to Constantinople, the city itself is said to have shrunk considerably around the year 1204.11 There was in this early formative period also a discreet movement within Latin-held territories, the case of Greek archons moving from Crete to the Cyclades being one of the more noteworthy examples.12 All these movements were linked to ideological and practical interests and concerns. The particular experiences of the formerly provincial Byzantine societies under discussion in this book, that is to say the ruling class of landholding archons and the paroikoi working the land, will be addressed in the next discussion. One may conclude that movements and displacements of Greek populations in the Peloponnese and the Mainland was after 1204 much more limited than in other areas which had belonged to Byzantium, and also 7  This point is also re-visited in the further course of this chapter, for instance pp. 291–297. Note how population, and the use and condition of the land, were intertwined: Geyer, “Physical factors”, p. 43. 8  See also, p. 296. 9  The present discussion on the ethnicity of our territories needs to be read together with the historical overviews below. 10  On this topic, see for instance Kordosis, Southern Greece under the Franks, pp. 29–36; Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204”; Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania”, p. 6. 11  See, amongst many of Jacoby’s contributions on this subject, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 221. 12  Jacoby, “Social Evolution”, p. 200.

188

Chapter 3

when compared to what these same Greek populations experienced especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the further course of the thirteenth century, as relations between Byzantine Lakonia and the empire at Nicaea intensified, especially after the Latin conquest of Monemvasia, there were some Greek population exchanges between the two territories.13 The conquests of Greece in the wake of the Fourth Crusade substituted the previous ruling elite with another, largely Latin, one. One should not underestimate this very serious break with the past, and the importance of the precise areas of origin of these new elites in the Peloponnese and the Mainland, hailing largely from Champagne and Burgundy.14 Nevertheless, early colonialism, for want of a better word, brought with it only very modest waves of settlements of Franks in very confined areas.15 The feudal system in Latin-held territories16 involved relatively few people. The heavy emphasis on landholding and military service, and the eventual co-option of local elites, all suggest this. During the first two-thirds of the thirteenth century, prior to the establishment of tighter Angevin and Venetian colonial systems, there were a few Italians in certain urban contexts. This included a relatively high proportion of nonVenetians from all parts of the peninsula, even in areas which were becoming increasingly Venetian in character, such as Negroponte.17 Between 1204 and the 1260s, more so than in subsequent periods, the majority of Italians to be found in Greece would have had commercial interests.18 In more marginal regions of our area, Epiros/Albania for instance, even fewer, again largely commercially 13   On Monemvasia and its Anatolian colony of Pegai, see for example Matschke, “Warenversorgung”, p. 209. 14  Longnon, “Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée”, p. 87. The ethnic components of Moreote feudal society are discussed in great detail in Ortega, Lignages nobiliaires dans la Morée latine. 15  This was the case even for Venetians in Constantinople and Crete: Jacoby, “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople”; Jacoby, “Colonisation militaire vénitienne de la Crète”. 16  Discussed below, pp. 237–239. See also Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 164–171, Lock, Franks, p. 292, Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece” p. 534, on the size of the French knightly contingent in the early Latin history of the peninsula. 17  Jacoby, “Italian migration and settlement in Greece”; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 226–227; Jacoby, “Génois dans le duché d’Athènes”; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 146; Jacoby, “Latins dans les villes de Romanie jusqu’en 1261”; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 236–237. The contribution by Tzavara, “Italians in 13thcentury Frankish Morea”, limits itself to the period from the 1260s onwards. The situation in Greece may also be compared to the Constantinopolitan one: Jacoby, “Minor western nations”. 18  This had been the case also before the Fourth Crusade: Chapter 1, pp. 3–4.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

189

oriented, Latins would have been present more or less permanently.19 In terms of overall numbers, the Latin families conducting trade in Greece were few, but these have left their traces in multiple sources, reflecting the consistent commercial strategies which they adopted and the wide geographical net in which they operated.20 In 1261 there may have been considerable Latin immigration from Constantinople to Latin Greece, an estimate of 3,000 persons having been put forward.21 This injection of what would have essentially been Italians into Greek urban areas in the middle of the century seems to have found an eloquent expression in some of the material culture recorded there through archaeological investigations.22 It has, however, also been suggested that some such interpretations are unjustified, being the result of forced projections onto the material evidence, since Latins had neither distinctive diets nor tastes in ceramics.23 Further, it should be borne in mind that the latter were only ever secondary items of international trade.24 In the further course of the middle ages the ethnic composition of Greece became more complex.25 The Venetian and Angevin empires were substantially formed as a result of the threats to Latin Greece in the 1260s and 1270s. As a consequence, many more Italians were introduced to our area, again from a range of geographical backgrounds.26 Within the Angevin contingent 19  Ducellier, “Présence latine sur les côtes albanaises”. 20  Tchentsova, “Commerce vénitien en Grèce”; Jacoby, “Migrations familiales et stratégies commerciales”. 21  See Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece” p. 535; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 153, amongst other discussions by the same author. 22  See Joyner, “Cooking pots as indicators of cultural change”, with reference particularly to the observations and conclusions of the excavator at Corinth, Charles Williams (Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, pp. 35–36; Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 249, n. 51). See further the Preface, p. xiv and Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”. 23  Gregory, “People and settlement of the northeastern Peloponnese” pp. 281–285. 24  Chapter 1, p. 37. 25  On the ethnic composition of southern Greece in the second half of the thirteenth century and the early 1300s, see for example Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 113; Jacoby, “Encounter”, p. 901; Jacoby, “Social Evolution”, pp. 217–218; Major, “Etrangers et minorités éthniques en Méssenie”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία”; Jacoby, “Italian migration and settlement in Greece”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Les ‘étrangers’”; Gertwagen, “Venetian Modon”, p. 125; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 210–212; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 155 and passim; Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée” pp. 155–156; Tzavara, “Italians in 13th-century Frankish Morea”. 26  From this period onwards, in the minds of contemporary Byzantines and their historians, Latins and Italians became synonymous: Laiou, “Italy and the Italians”.

190

Chapter 3

the French element remained substantial, although often with Italian links. Nevertheless, in terms of numbers the largest groupings of non-Greeks were now formed respectively by south Italians and allied Florentines, and by Venetians. Many of these were soldiers or civil servants, notable amongst these were those who oversaw the fiscal regime of the Angevin Morea and its mint at Clarentza.27 Others engaged in commerce or finance, which were both expanding during these same years. This involved transient populations, for instance the seafarers on the galley system,28 but also locally-resident representatives. The financial sector was mostly driven by central Italians.29 Other groups of new Italian arrivals provided different kinds of services (for instance legal or medical), or worked as artisans.30 These developments were the consequence of a number of related phenomena, for instance precise policies of settlement by the Angevins, especially Charles I, and by the republic of Venice; the expansion of Venetian families into the Cycladic islands; and a larger degree of urbanisation, which will be discussed below. From the turn of the fourteenth century the trade in Slav or Tatar slaves also brought new populations to Greek urban areas, either because they were centres of the trade, such as Thebes, or because slaves were used there in domestic contexts, as in the Venetian colonies of Coron-Modon. At the highest political and social level, the character and profile of feudal Greek society changed from French to Italian as a result of Angevin rule and the general sense of crisis which prevailed especially from the early fourteenth century onwards, leading older established families to abandon their Greek holdings.31 Some of the Ionian islands had been in Italian hands since the late twelfth century. Hohenstaufen and Angevin ascendancy there from the 1250s, and on the adjacent Albanian/Epirote mainland, brought with it some Italian settlement where previously there had only been transient traders, similar in nature to what we have described for the Morea. The Ragusan commercial presence in the same and other Greek areas was fostered by these political changes and a general economic upswing. In the early years of the fourteenth century, with the handover of Chios to the Zaccaria (1304), the eastern Aegean in particular 27  Appendix II.9.A.2–3, pp.  1385–1394. For more details, see Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 223–224, with references to older literature. 28  These were mostly Venetians until mid-century, but after the Black Death oarsmen on the Venetian galleys were mostly recruited from Dalmatia or Greece: Mueller, “Greeks in Venice and ‘Venetians’ in Greece”, p. 178. 29  On the money markets, see the discussions below in this chapter pp. 217–224. 30  In these respects see for instance Racine, “Hommes d’affaires et artisans de l’Italie intérieure en Méditerranée orientale”. 31  Topping, “Morea, 1311–1364”, pp. 119–120.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

191

received a stronger Genoese imprint, a process which had already accompanied the rise of the Palaiologan dynasty from the late 1250s.32 As Genoese trade with Chios, Byzantium, and the Black Sea augmented ever more, the Genoese presence in our area also increased,33 although it was not an altogether new development, as we have said. Already in earlier decades the Genoese had been particularly instrumental for the transfer of Greek silk to Lucca. The arrival of the Catalans in Greece, and their conquest of the duchy of Athens in 1311, was of great demographic importance. Catalans had been active in the trade of Romania since the thirteenth century, and in the fourteenth century they can be found there in many areas, including Venetian-held towns.34 But the events of 1311 precipitated significant settlements in Attica, Boiotia, and Phthiotis, not merely of Catalans (and Majorcans), but also and especially of natives of Aragonese Sicily.35 These processes were preceded by the elimination of the local Latin elites, who either perished in 1311 or returned to the west, and in some cases transferred to Euboea. In fact this island became the destination also for subsequent waves of immigrants, as the geo-strategic situation worsened almost everywhere in Greece. Amongst these populations were also Orthodox Greeks, and members of the Jewish community, who had a greater facility than others to move between different urban centres as a response to crises.36 The fourteenth-century crises were multifarious and deep: plagues, hunger, and warfare decimated the populations. Large tracts of Greek lands fell under Serbian and then eventually under Turkish/Ottoman domination. Economic, political, and military vicissitudes caused a decline in urban activities and led more Latin landholders to abandon Greece.37 Even at the highest level, the crowns of southern Italy, or the Byzantine Empire, were increasingly loath to commit manpower and other resources to Greece. These developments had important repercussions on the demographic situation of the latter, and led to ulterior diversifications.38 Serbian and beylik/Ottoman political expansions would temporarily have introduced, and subsequently retracted, a small core 32  This is described in detail by, for instance, Jacoby, “Thirteenth-century commercial exchange in the Aegean”. 33  Balard, “Clarence, escale génoise”. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία”, pp. 38–45. 34   35  On the demographic impact of the Catalans, see the bibliography cited on p. 315, n. 589. 36  On these themes, see Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, pp. 153–159. Compare also Jacoby, “Italian migration and settlement in Greece”, p. 110. 37  Haberstumpf, “Dissoluzione delle signorie latine in Morea”. 38  In general terms, the demographic composition of our area from the mid-fourteenth century to the early 1400s is discussed in Jacoby, “Italian migration and settlement in Greece”.

192

Chapter 3

of members of the elites, and rather larger numbers of combatants, to and from our area. Turks had been active as mercenaries in the Peloponnese already a century previously, and a pattern of assimilating them was in place. There was however in our area no settlement strategy as such as part of the late medieval Serbian and Turkish political expansions. Northern Thessaly, around Larisa and Trikala, was a significant exception in this respect, having been re-settled by the early governors with Turks from the area of Konya, and also Tatars from the Danube Delta, from the turn of the fifteenth century.39 The two Peloponnesian ventures by the Knights of St. John (1376–1381; 1397–1404) represented another significant political and military involvement in Greece by an outside force. The first Hospitaller stint in the Morea introduced also the Navarrese Company of mercenaries to the peninsula, many of northeast Iberian and southwest French origin. The Knights pursued more of a fiscal or monetary policy in the territories than other contemporary regional polities, and may thereby have fostered greater demographic stability in places around the Corinthian Gulf. But their main influence on the Greek populations lay likewise in the temporary introduction of members of an elite knightly class, hailing from the west via Rhodes. By the later fourteenth and early fifteenth century the Latin-controlled areas in the Peloponnese and the Mainland were much reduced. Yet, there is evidence that certain Italian landholders were able to exploit their resources effectively nonetheless, with the help of specialist technical staff which they introduced to their territories. By far the most significant demographic development in late fourteenth and early fifteenth-century Greece was the large-scale settlement of Albanians, mostly in rural areas, which was the direct consequence of a political crisis in their territories of origin, the general demographic crises, and official attempts to mitigate the effects of the latter.40 In the Peloponnese Albanians were present as early as the 1350s, and by the turn of the century the Albanian population there was substantial.41 According to the first Ottoman fiscal documents dating a century later the peninsula may have had more Albanian than Greek inhabitants.42 The other main areas of systematic Albanian settlement were Attikoboiotia and Euboia.43 In territories to the north the situation was somewhat different: Albanians were well established in certain parts of Epiros, 39  Chapter 3, p. 374. 40  Chapter 1, pp. 11–12. 41  Panagiotopoulos, Πλυθυσμός, pp. 68–100; Vranousi, “Présence des Albanais”; Sakellariou, “Latin Morea”, pp. 307–308. 42  Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest”, p. 12ff. 43  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 203–204; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 173; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 71–72.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

193

and there were waves of Albanian influxes there from the eleventh century until the period of the Ottoman invasions, in the most recent instance as part of the Albanian political expansion into Epirote and western Mainland Greek areas.44 Whether or not these Albanians of Epiros, and in neighbouring Thessaly,45 were transhumant has been hotly debated.46 The matter is less controversial for the Vlach populations of the northerly parts of our territories, who intermittently gave the whole of Thessaly its name.47 Also Vlachs were part of the population transfers towards southern areas of Greece, at the behest of the Venetian rulers.48 From the later fourteenth century Venice was the only power with the resolve and the means to face Ottoman expansion. Much of this history continued, of course, beyond the chronological scope of this book (1430). New direct Venetian control of parts of the Peloponnese, the Cycladic islands, the Greek Mainland, and especially of Albanian/Epirote and Ionian areas, would have fostered demographic stability,49 even though Venetian colonialism introduced very few actual Venetians to these territories.50 To summarise the present discussion, while there are plenty of very disparate sources describing ethnicity and population movements in our territories between 1200 and 1430, it would be difficult and controversial to attempt to make any empirical statements in their regards. The vast majority of the inhabitants of Greece remained Greek in our period, but it is equally clear that by its end some of the rural populations were to a large extent constituted by Albanians. Equally controversial would be to attempt to put numbers to the ethnic compositions or regional origins of the various political/feudal/administrative elites, of the main commercial protagonists, or of urban professionals. Suffice it to say that in all of these aspects the non-Greek elements were not merely substantial but in fact dominant.

44  Gasparis, “Carlo I Tocco”; Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, pp. 247–252. 45  Magdalino, “Between Romaniae”, p. 95. 46  Ducellier, “Albanais du XIe au XIIIe siècle: nomades ou sedentaires” believes that this impression is a reflection of frequent requirements to move. 47  Preface, p.  xvi. On the nature of Vlach activities, see Gyóni, “La transhumance das Vlaques”. 48  Năsturel, “Valaques balcaniques”; Năsturel, “Présences valaques”. 49  Following Turkish raids in the Peloponnese in the 1390s, the towns of the Argolis were systematically re-settled: Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, pp. 159 and 162. For the late 1400s, it is said for instance that Zakynthos and Kephallonia were largely uninhabited at the time of the Venetian take-over in the late 1400s: Papadia-Lala, Θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων, p. 25. 50  Schmitt, Albanien, p. 380ff.

194

Chapter 3

1.3 Overall Population Sizes The population of middle Byzantium, of which our territories comprised merely a fraction, has been estimated at 19 million.51 We can presume that the medieval Greek population52 augmented from this base until a certain point in the early to mid-fourteenth century, as it did in what remained of Byzantium.53 The older view that the overall Greek population figures suffered from the initial Latin conquests has now been discarded. Greece would in all likelihood have experienced a downturn later, in line with European developments more generally, at one point in the fourteenth century. However, it is rather difficult to estimate precise tendencies for the late medieval Peloponnese or the Greek Mainland, let alone for Thessaly, Epiros and the islands. This has a few reasons. Compared to contemporary Byzantine Macedonia, the extant land documents do not provide enough diachronic information for the key periods of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,54 which saw as many as nine outbreaks of the plague in the years 1347–1431.55 There were also intense movements of people, described in the previous discussion, and warfare and general insecurity were in the same period very high. It is clear from some of the narrative sources that populations in some rural areas were down in the wake of the 1347 outbreak of the Black Death.56 Scholarship has attempted to draw a much more nuanced picture of late, even in the absence of many hard data,57 for instance the deserted villages, so omnipresent in the sources as in the historiography a couple of generations ago, are now considered the result of restructuring measures in the countryside rather than overt downturns. All in all, from mid-century onwards our 51  Chapter 1, p. 2, n. 4. 52  Specifically for Latin Greece, see the older pessimistic views Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, I, pp. 90–91 and Bon, Morée Franque, pp. 27–28; 179–180; 227, n. 3. More recent works have usually used the information published in Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres: see for instance Panagiotopoulos, Πλυθυσμός; Lock, Franks; Sakellariou, “Latin Morea”, pp. 304–308; or the various works of Jacoby (“Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 203; “Peasant mobility”, p. 537; “Rural exploitation and market economy”; “The economy of Latin Greece”). 53  Chapter 1, pp. 30–31. 54  An attempt to extrapolate more precise tendencies from the available data was made by Carile, Rendita feudale, which was criticised in Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale, pp. 358–359. 55  Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 317. 56  Nicolas de Boiano speaks of acute population problems in Corinthia in the early 1360s: Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VIII (1361), p. 151, line 19ff. 57  Compare, however, some of the new archaeological information coming to the fore, discussed in the further course of this chapter, pp. 196–198.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

195

territories would have had very diverse and often rapidly changing fates.58 The island of Euboea is an interesting case in point, being exposed to regular population abductions by the Turks,59 while benefitting from intense efforts by the Venetian authorities to replenish the urban and rural populations.60 An act of the Venetian senate states that by 1363 the island had recovered from the population crisis and could again be expected to meet certain costs itself.61 A decade later, however, the town of Negroponte is said to be almost devoid of inhabitants.62 In the adjacent territories in Thessaly to the north and the Cycladic islands to the south the situation would have been even more dramatic, with only Ottoman or Latin rule ensuring that in certain areas there were any populations to speak of at all.63 1.4 Urbanisation In the absence of reliable data, very diverse opinions have been expressed on the urbanisation of medieval Greece. We have seen in our earlier discussion64 how commonplace views held on the developments of Greece in middle Byzantine and early Latin times have swayed interpretations of material culture. Byzantinists have found it hard to break out of a perceived picture of decline of both urbanism and Hellenism, and have naturally in the period after 1204 focused more on the remaining Byzantine towns of the Balkans and Anatolia.65 Also within the so-called Frankish period clear qualitative differentiations of the phases have been made in the historiography, and in general terms a prosperous thirteenth century is contrasted with a decadent fourteenth century, a state of affairs which is said to have impacted not least on towns.66 This may be contrasted with the position taken by historians focussing on economic relations and international commerce, for instance David Jacoby, who emphasises the increasing urbanisation of Greece in the course of the middle ages, initially as a result of Latin trade and settlement. In the specific 58  An interesting study of a related medieval landscape, Campania, describes high levels of disruptions (plague, violence, and hunger) to populations, but denies that overall there would have been a contraction of the latter: Feniello, Campagnes napolitaines. 59  On Turkish raids, see Zachariadou, “Holy war in the Aegean during the fourteenth century”. 60  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”. 61  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 105, no. 408. 62  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 145, no. 584 (1376). 63  Chapter 3, pp. 379 and 387. 64  Chapter 1, pp. 5–6. 65  See Chapter 1, pp.  32–34 and for instance Bouras, “City and village”, p. 616. See also Charanis, “Population and cities of the Byzantine empire”. 66  This general assessment is questioned in the further course of Chapter 3.

196

Chapter 3

case of Catalan Attikoboiotia, after 1311, we can also assume an increase in urbanisation. Some of this congregation of people in urban communities was the result of psychological needs and defensive requirements, more so as the period progressed. The towns of Latin Greece were preferred places to which material wealth was transferred for safekeeping, even by the Byzantines.67 In all of this, scale should not be neglected: in the Peloponnese in the closing fourteenth century towns appear particularly small: Coron is documented with 480 inhabitants, of which 80 Latins;68 Clarentza and Corinth will have had barely more: Amedeo of Savoy gave a figure of 300 households for the first of these in 1391.69 In about the same period Athens may have had 4,000 inhabitants, Negroponte maybe even more than 10,000, making it by far the most populous town of the area considered in this book.70 However, as we have just said, even this urban centre will have been prone to significant fluctuations. Similarly to population figures more generally, it is likely that we are witnessing for example at Coron and Clarentza the particularly strong affect which the Black Death had on urban areas. We may imagine that any of these towns, perhaps with the exceptions of Negroponte and Athens, had larger populations in the earlier part of the same century.71 In fact, it has been noted for the medieval west that the countryside had a tendency to re-populate faster in the wake of plagues when compared to urban centres.72 1.5 Archaeology and Population Developments Despite the fact that warfare, and even earthquakes,73 may be relatively prominent in some of the written evidence, the documentary sources are inadequate on relative or absolute population figures, and sizes of towns and villages. One would therefore wish to fall back on archaeology for some additional coverage and guidance, and especially on landscape surveys. For those areas where rural excavations and intensive and extensive surveys are available, and bearing in mind some of the problems of methodology and dating that have been mentioned,74 an expansion of the population during the so-called Frankish 67  Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”, pp. 465–466. 68  Jacoby, “Social Evolution”, p. 197. 69  Tzavara, Clarentza, p. 139. On Corinth see Baker, “Corinthe”, p. 36, with further references. 70  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 170. 71  See for instance Laiou, “Human resources”, p. 51, for higher estimates for Corinth and Monemvasia in earlier periods. 72  Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe, p. 234. 73  See Chapter 1, pp. 16 and 30; Chapter 2, p. 149. The earthquakes which are documented for our region are in the Corinth area in 1300 and 1402, and the Peloponnese in 1422: Evangelatou-Notara, Σεισμοί στο Βυζάντιο pp. 40–41, 97, 101. 74  Preface, p. xxii; Chapter 1, pp. 5–6.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

197

period, and an increase in number and size of small and medium-size settlements, has been universally attested.75 Some of the fortified sites, in the Peloponnesian, Euboian, and Mainland countryside, provide very strong testimony to the establishment of a feudal order, as discussed in the further course of this chapter. Settlement patterns are also interesting: some settlements reveal, through their plans and locations, that they are subject to the new Latin re-structuring of the rural resources, and could benefit from greater stability. Other sites, however, display security concerns by avoiding coastal areas, a relic of the middle Byzantine period,76 or are testimony to the renewed threats affecting Greece from the Aegean Sea beginning in the later thirteenth century. There is also an indication that diseases in late medieval times may have caused people to avoid settlement in certain areas.77 Landscape archaeology has proved itself to be particularly useful in areas for which Byzantine settlement history is very doubtful, for instance in the Cycladic islands, which have already been mentioned in this chapter.78 Even though many landscape surveys have struggled to provide any more detailed interpretations for some of the key settlement questions, for instance the impact of the Black Death, of new political constellations, or the ethnic changes in the later medieval period, there are some exceptions, and occasionally one can evince some useful meaning. Particular surveys, and some rare rural excavations,79 have for instance shed useful differentiated light on the generally troubled fourteenth century. Panakto («340») gives us a unique impression of a small settlement during the political and demographic tribulations of fourteenth-century Boiotia. In another part of the Mainland, in remote Aitolia, a survey has shown how a difficult geo-political situation during the fourteenth century can actually 75  See for instance the overviews by Bintliff, “The Frankish Countryside in central Greece”, and “Contribution of regional surface survey to Byzantine landscape history in Greece”; Vionis, “Archaeology of landscape and material culture”. Surveys which specifically describe, through the material evidence, this general expansion are the following (both located in the Argolis/Peloponnese): Hahn, “The early Byzantine to modern periods” pp. 440–443; Mee and Forbes, Methana peninsula, pp. 94–99. 76  Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 95. 77  Forsén and Forsén, Asea valley survey. 78  Sanders, “Melos”; Vionis, “Kastro of Kephalos”. Compare this to the painstaking fashion in which the population history of the islands needs to be assembled from traditional Byzantine sources: Malamut, Iles, pp. 125–179. Even the valiant attempt by Saint-Guillain, “Amorgos”, pp. 110–116, to describe the fate of the population of a smaller Cycladic island, between isolation and external intervention, has not produced more than some impressionistic episodes. 79  Chapter 1, pp. 80–81; Chapter 2, pp. 105–106.

198

Chapter 3

contribute positively to a settlement pattern.80 Fourteenth-century Messenia lends itself particularly well to combining survey information with the extensive Angevin and Venetian documentation, drawing a picture there of one of the most intensively regulated, settled, and exploited Greek landscapes.81 The same may well have been true for rural central Lakonia, in the wake of the Black Death and the new Byzantine focus on the area.82 Disappointingly, the most enigmatic late medieval landscapes of the territory under discussion in this book, Epiros and Thessaly, have so far not produced many usable survey data. 1.6 Communication Medieval Greece, more so than even other Byzantine or formerly Byzantine areas, because of the lie of the land and perhaps also for more bureaucratic or technical reasons, could rely on only a very rudimentary road system.83 On the whole, land connections were the same in ancient, medieval and modern times, precisely due to the geographical conditions.84 Some areas were relatively well integrated: for instance the plains of Thessaly and the Ambracian Gulf; or, in the Peloponnese, of Corinthia and the Argolis. In the eastern Mainland, the importance of Thebes, and its ability to communicate in the four main directions (Thessaly, Negroponte/Chalkida, Athens, and the Corinthian Gulf) were paramount. Changes in the geo-political and economic orientation of the empire had already placed greater emphasis on these areas in middle Byzantine times.85 In the mountainous regions of Thessaly, Epiros, and the Peloponnese passes were of great importance, connecting in particular the first two regions in a north-southerly fashion, providing alternative and parallel routes to the usual seaborne traffic. The routes between east and west were fewer and less reliable. The same topographical realities, particularly the long coastline of the area under investigation, and the prevailing currents,86 enabled comparatively more easy access from the sea to many of the areas of concern. 80  Bommeljé, “Lidoriki”. 81  Hodgetts and Lock, “Some village fortifications in the Venetian Peloponnese”; Gerstel, “Medieval Messenia”, with reference to the surveys and the documentary work of Topping. Further Kontogiannis, “Messenia”. 82  Armstrong, “The survey area in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods”, pp. 372 and 401; Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 314. 83  Koder, Lebensraum, p. 67; Hendy, Studies, p. 82; Avramea, “Land and sea communications”. 84  On this and what follows: TIB 1, pp. 90–100; TIB 3, pp. 88–94; Sanders and Whitbread, “Central places and major roads in the Peloponnese”. 85  Chapter 1, pp. 4–5. 86  See Pryor, Geography and technology, and war, on this (p. 14) and the other points of the discussion.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

199

The human factor in seaborne communication was still overriding: the main caesura in medieval times occurred in the years after 1300, and the changes were technological, organisational, and strategic.87 This was the period of transition from the traditional Mediterranean round ship, which went back to early medieval times, to cogs/carracks and new-style great galleys which increased the size and reach of seagoing vessels.88 In the early fourteenth century the Venetian system of seasonal armed convoys of galleys to eastern Mediterranean locations, and the accompanying system of public auctions, were also properly regularised.89 Tighter Venetian maritime control of the Aegean had initially been necessitated by the formation of its Aegean holdings, by Nicaean/Byzantine aggression in the Aegean, then by the rise in piracy in the wake of the downscaling of Byzantine naval activities in the early years of the reign of Andronikos II after 1284,90 and finally by more concrete Genoese, Turkish and Hospitaller maritime ambitions in the area.91 The sea routes and harbours used throughout the period of interest were also subject to natural conditions and politics alike. Most sensitive, and prone to changes, were the harbours and routes around the Corinthian, Saronic, and Euboian Gulfs.92 They could be affected during periods of conflict: for instance, following the arrival of the Catalans in Attikoboitia in 1311, maritime access to their territories was one of the key components of their treaties with Venice. Later, Byzantine inroads into Latin Elis and Achaïa tipped the balance in the area again, as did the particular emphasis placed on Negroponte by the Venetian authorities as a major stop en route to Constantinople, to the detriment of other places, and even to Thessalonike further to the north.93 Portalans are often useful in highlighting these subtle shifts, for instance in the relative importances of Clarentza and Patra in the early fifteenth century.94 In the western parts of our region, it was usually advisable to remain on the coastline, although the political situation sometimes necessitated a more westerly course around the different Ionian islands, while others would have altogether preferred inland communications. The most important harbour 87  Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. xlviii–il. 88  On the form of the ships see for instance Tucci, “Navi e navigazioni” and Stöckly, Incanto des galées du marché à Venise, pp. 28–36. 89  See the discussions below, p. 298. 90  Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, p. 376. On piracy see also below, pp. 281–282. 91  See Saint-Guillain and Schmitt, “Ägäis”, on how these factors shaped transport in the Aegean. 92  T IB 1, pp. 101–104. Regarding the Boiotian routes into the Corinthian Gulf, see also the fundamental re-assessment in Dunn, “Thisvi-Kastorion”. 93  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 150. 94  Jacoby, “Medieval portolan”, esp. p. 73.

200

Chapter 3

in the west, of international standing and quality (Corfu), was also located on an island.95 In general, it is now recognised that underlying these overall trends affecting the relatively well documented seafaring activities of the main historical protagonists, there were many levels of shipping in all parts of the Mediterranean carried out by different people and institutions in all kinds of vessels.96 While industrial products, especially silks, were convoyed, cabotage and tramping were very widespread for the small scale collection and transfer of people and goods. To gain a sense of connectivity which different routes provided, the material evidence is particularly important. How ceramics, in combination with more private kinds of commercial records, influence our commercial map of Greece is the subject of discussions in the further course of this chapter. Numismatics certainly has a role to play in this respect, as it does to questions of demographics and the frequentation of the landscape more generally, and this will be explored next. 2

The Geographical and Demographic Context: Monetary Implications97

2.1 Overall Population and Monetisation As we have seen so far in this discussion, there is little hope of attaining any remotely accurate figure for the absolute size of the medieval Greek population, just as monetisation could only be established in relative terms in our previous analysis. We must notice nevertheless with some interest that the overall trends in money (as set out in Figure 2) and population, at least for the period ca. 1200–1350, seem to converge. Even after that date these developments might have taken similar paths, since overall there would certainly have been some form of parallel diminution of population and monetary stock, with perhaps significant variations at a local level. One way to verify this would be to look at contemporary prices, and in fact at a superficial glance the basic data regarding, for instance, land and agricultural staples suggest the typical development whereby there were increases in prices towards the early fourteenth century, and a reduction in the later part

95  T IB 3, pp. 94–97. 96  Pryor, Geography and technology, and war, p. 141; Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”, pp. 208–211. 97  This discussion is largely based on the analyses which have been developed in the Preface, and in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, which are usually not specifically referenced.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

201

of the century.98 Nevertheless, there is also some suggestion that there was a significant degree of fluctuation, even if the data are not plentiful enough to give a year by year account.99 It may be believed, therefore, that there was up to a certain point in medieval Greek history, approximately the middle years of the fourteenth century, a harmonious relationship between population and money (and hence of prices), appropriate for the levels of production and trade, in line with the Fisher equation. As in middle Byzantine times, money supported the demographic trajectory of our territories. One cannot avoid the suspicion that after that point this may no longer have been the case, with certain areas in certain periods suffering from disturbances in one or more of these factors which brought relations out of kilter. This may have occurred in all directions: even acute lack of money may have alternated rapidly with superabundance, particularly in view of the uncertain mass represented by the gold currencies in Figure 2, and the sudden population collapses and augmentations that could have occurred as part of natural or political developments. It would be interesting to compare this picture to the single most richly documented part of the medieval Aegean, Venetian Crete,100 a quieter and better administered area than most others, which was apparently able to buffer fluctuations much better. Unfortunately, however, the numismatic data are not plentiful enough for this island. 2.2 Ethnicity, Population Movements, Communication, and Money Money and the population also stood in other kinds of relations. We have said previously that as a rule the kind of money a person used in Greece usually bore little relation to her or his origin, ethnicity, or identity. Nevertheless, there are contexts in Greece in which numismatics shows the presence and activities of particular populations, especially when these were moving either rapidly or persistently. Numismatically, for the twelfth and the earlier thirteenth century Corinth was the most prolifically foreign-frequented Greek location, in commercial 98  See for instance Zachariadou, “Prix et marchés”; Cheynet et al., “Prix et salaires”; Morrisson and Cheynet, “Prices and wages”. This impression is corroborated by the, admittedly meagre, information derived in this respect from a particular set of Peloponnesian documents which will be of importance to us in the further course of this chapter: Carile, Rendita feudale, table 2. Some key staples such as wheat and oil retain the prices of the 1330s into the 1370s, in hyperpyra, which constitutes a reduction in real terms. 99  Day, “Prix agricoles”, p. 19. 100  Gallina, Una società coloniale; Gasparis, Η γη και οι αγρότες στη μεσαιωνική Κρήτη, table 3; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 205.

202

Chapter 3

and crusading contexts (see «223», «263», «264», «265», «266», «267», «268», «269», «271», «275», «276»).101 Other eastern Peloponnesian, and eastern Mainland, locations might only have been marginally, if at all, influenced by such west-east and east-west movements: see the scant evidence from Troizina («81»), Argos («236»), Athens («238»–«239»), Delphi («284»), Sparta («351» and «352»). The extreme focus on Corinth is partially the result of scientific bias, yet represents undoubtedly the historical importance of this town. The coins in question link in this specific period Corinth and southern Greece directly to southern Italy, the Albanian seaboard (see from the Albanian area treated in this book merely «316. Mashkieza»), and in the other direction the Dodecannese, and western/southern Anatolia. The origins of the people involved might have been overwhelmingly, again according to the coin record, north-central France and the Low Countries. For the twelfth century Venetians and other north-central Italians are represented by only a few specimens from Lucca and Verona;102 in subsequent years the numismatic record also fails on the whole to do justice to the diverse origins of the Italians in Greece. It is particularly noteworthy that no domestic Genoese coin has to date been found in Greece.103 In most cases, technical monetary reasons may be partially responsible. Italian finds of trachea and tetartera make up in a small measure for this paucity in data from Greek soil.104 Interestingly, the Fourth Crusade does not represent a significant watershed regarding these kinds of movements of western foreigners into and across Greece. In other respects, of course, this event was cataclysmic. The evidence of coins underlines quite how significant the population movements were as a direct result of the events of 1204. Western combatants and their money (trachea and early short cross sterlings particularly105) entered Greece from Constantinople and the north in significant waves. The numismatic record, that is to say finds of the coins in question and hoards concealed as a result of the movements, suggests that the focus of these new populations was predominantly again the eastern Mainland/Euboia and Peloponnese, especially 101  Compare on this and what follows also Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206; Appendix II.3.A, p. 1286; Appendix II.5 and 6, pp. 1332–1353, passim. 102  Appendix II.5, p. 1335, n. 817. 103  The only entry in Appendix I with Genoese coins is «464. Samos 1932». 104  Appendix II.1.A.1 p. 1202; Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1238, n. 223. 105  See especially Appendix II.1.B, pp.  1207–1231, Appendix II.1.C.1, p.  1250; Appendix II.2, esp. p. 1280. The evidence for abbatial French tournois, referred to in the note above, is ambiguous since such coins may have reached Greece via Constantinople or directly from the west. The evidence for hyperpyra is also ambiguous, for chronological reasons: Appendix II.1.D.1, p. 1255.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

203

Corinth and Thebes. Yet, Epiros and the Ionian islands (see a possible hoard from Butrint, and one from the Albanian Vërzhezha,106 and «21», «28», as well as the unusual evidence of the later hoard «68», and the significant stray finds «237. Arta», «254. Berat», «292. Glyki», «299. Kaninë», «347. Plakoti»), Thessaly («4», «14», «22»–«24», «27», «32», «34», «301», «350»), the Cyclades («5», «6», «18», «20», «29», «30», «31», «330». Class 1–4 pennies at «58. Naxos ca. 1969», and even the Seljuq coin from the same island, «325», may also be of interest107), and the western Peloponnese («261», «310», and «380») were also affected. Relevant finds from the most minor of Cycladic islands, rather remote locations in Epiros and Thessaly, or, most surprisingly, the island group of Petalia off Euboia («344»), are possibly testimony to the thoroughness with which these newcomers moved through the Greek landscapes with the purposes of conquest and appropriation, and settlement. Thessaly was especially central to communications in this particular decade. Some of the numismatic manifestations may be secondary, that is to say the Constantinopolitan or other coins in question may have been transferred to the furthest reaches of our area in more than one single step, but they signify the extent of the movement and population transfers – possibly of displaced Greeks in addition to the more usual Latin newcomers – during the seminal first decade of the century nonetheless. It is possible that the twelfth-century gold hyperpyra in the slightly later western Mainland hoard «41» signify movement in this precise period, yet this would be difficult to prove. All 310 hyperpyra from the find may alternatively have been transferred from Constantinople to Greece in the 1220s or 1230s. During the long central chronological block of the same century population changes may have been complex and even contradictory. The hyperpyron hoard which has just been mentioned, and slightly later hyperpyron finds in Greece,108 may support movements of both Latins and Greeks between our area and Constantinople and northwestern Anatolia respectively. There is some supporting evidence from French tournois and sterling pennies (see «483», «485», «508»).109 These coins, in addition to some evidence from the realm of monies of account,110 prove that recent interpretations regarding such 106  Appendix II.1.B, p. 1209; Appendix II.1.C, p. 1246, n. 274. 107  We must add the unpublished hoard from the Panormos area of Tinos to this list of Cycladic finds from Appendix I: Chapter 4, p. 479. 108  The evidence is presented in Appendix II.1.D.3–6, pp. 1258–1268. 109  There is some even more scant numismatic evidence for this period suggesting that such movements may have continued into the Black Sea: see «489. Dolna Kabda 1961» and «522. Seuthopolis». 110  Appendix III.1 p. 1515.

204

Chapter 3

personal contacts during the central years of the Latin and Nicaean empires, especially by Jacoby, were on the right lines. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that there is no numismatic evidence supporting a supposed large-scale transfer of populations from Constantinople to the Latin centres of southern Greece in 1261 and subsequently. In fact, should there have been such a pronounced tendency one would have expected to find at least some characteristic numismatic manifestations amongst the material unearthed at Corinth, perhaps in the shape of Constantinopolitan or Magnesian coinages produced rather closer to that date. It should also be noted that the numismatic evidence for any stable population exchanges between, for instance, the Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland, with areas directly to the north (Thessaly, Macedonia), are rather one sided: there are some billon trachea, the significance of which is explored in the relevant appendix, yet no sterling or tournois movements in this relatively early period.111 Numismatically, there is no indication that Thessaly or Thessalonike may have had any Latin involvement or settlement spilling over from more southerly parts of Greece in the years before the 1260s. In fact, some of the numismatic evidence from the same period in southcentral Greece draws quite a static picture of populations, who were accordingly dwelling and moving in very confined areas: see the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ of tetarteron counterfeits,112 and the petty denomination coins of Achaïa and Athens.113 The area in which these coinages were present was the core of Latin Greek settlement and communication at the time. People evidently moved within it, regularly and sometimes irregularly in exceptional circumstances, for instance when a significant number of people of the Morea operated militarily in Attica and Boiotia in the second half of the 1250s (the potentially relevant finds are «55», «214», «238», «239», «242», «251», «252», «289», «290», «354», «357», «366»). There is little movement going beyond the area, with one unusual exception for the period 1249–1254, when a similar contingent of Peloponnesian origin was present in the crusader Levant («471», «472», «473», «476», «480»). By contrast, Epiros and Thessaly surprise us with their high levels of connectivity, and possible regular population exchanges, in northerly and easterly direction.114 The trachy coinages of the empires at Thessalonike and 111  Appendix II.1.B.6, pp. 1236–1240. 112  Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206. 113  Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374. 114  Compare also the assessments of the frequentation of the Egnatia during our period: Preface, p. xviii.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

205

Constantinople before and after 1261 are very significant, as are the trachea of Arta found in Macedonia and Anatolia.115 The issues contained in hoards «66»–«69» in particular, and the phenomenal series of finds from «237. Arta», supplemented by those from «254. Berat», «335. Nikopolis», «350. Skotoussa», «381. Trikala», and others, show us how over time, from the 1220s to the 1270s, these two regions increased their contacts with the empire and its populations. Some of the individual coins invite of course a military interpretation, and so do the hoards in terms of their concealment dates and locations: «62. Trikala 1949» and the five to six Epirote hoards may describe routes and communication during the offensives of the empire at times more accurately than the traditional sources. The expansion of Byzantium, into the Aegean and Lakonia for instance, which might again have involved populations, also finds numismatic manifestations: see «231. Andros» and «351. Sparta», and the Euboian hyperpyron («228»), for the evidence of single coin types. Hoards «58» and «63» may also have been concealed as a result of imperial pressure. Regarding the Latin populations of south-central Greece themselves, coin finds of French royal and feudal tournois and later sterlings (from short cross class 5 onwards) also enforce to some degree the French demographic orientation of the principality and of the Athenian state during the formative years (ca. 1210–1260s). It should, however, also be borne in mind that these gradually became the preferred southern Greek currencies which anybody settling or doing business there would have sought to procure. This is also the reason why the Venetian grosso cannot be used at all for this kind of enquiry into origins and ethnicities.116 Finds of smaller Venetian denominations have greater potential,117 yet are currently confined to Athens and Corinth, unsurprisingly given the statistical domination of these two locations. There are a few Hohenstaufen issues,118 and coinages which might have behaved in a similar manner (particularly those of Champagne119), which may be testimony to the movements of southern Italians in south Greece before the treaties of Viterbo of 1267. Compare also the petty denomination issue found at «443. Roca Vecchia». It is however possible that the same coins describe developments which post-date this year. From the 1260s southern Greek state formation and political constellations underwent streamlining, as did monetary developments as a result of domestic 115  116  117  118  119 

Appendix II.1.B.6 and 8, pp. 1236–1240 and 1243–1245. Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. Appendix II.5.B, p. 1338. Appendix II.5.A, pp. 1336–1337.

206

Chapter 3

Greek minting and the domination of the Venetian grosso. This tendency towards homogenisation does not facilitate the usage of the coin evidence for the present enquiry. Fortunately, this period was also the apex of Greek political and economic developments, and there are enough idiosyncrasies and regional tendencies that shine through the numismatic record to provide us with some data relating to populations and communications which we can analyse: Latin ascendancy in the northwestern part of our area began with Manfred’s campaigns of the later 1250s. Finds of billon trachea in the king’s name describe the penetration of his Germano-Italian troops into areas of what are now Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia, and Greek Epiros, in 1259 and subsequently, in some detail.120 As interesting as these developments may have been, Epiros and southern Albania were soon, under Angevin influence, to be largely monetarily indiscernible from any other parts of Greece, were it not for some of the Byzantine specimens which have already been mentioned. «237. Arta» is particularly disappointing in its very normal, even banal, distribution of issues of the dominant mints (Clarentza, Thebes, Naupaktos, Venice). It is not helpful that the other Epirote sites also suffered arrested developments, or are inadequately published (see notably «254», «256»–«257», «299»). The Epirote hoards of the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries can barely be distinguished from contemporary hoards in southern Greece. The latter was the main supplier of currency for Epiros, with no implications for population movements. One may not discern in the numismatic record the transfer of populations from Angevin southern Italy to Ionia and the Albano-Epirote seaboard after the 1260s/1270s, nor even the increasing Ragusan presence in the same area. Such demographic developments have, however, left some significant marks on the local systems of account.121 In southern Greece the local tournois was dominant and would have caused the remintage of many of the currencies which may have been demographically and geographically more enlightening. The single gigliato at «262. Clarentza», and other coins of the Regno,122 are indications of the potential of these many more lost numismatic data in terms of describing regular population movements of south Italians into Achaïa. Our analysis of tournois hoards in Chapter 2 has revealed that especially before 1311 within the principality and 120  Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. 121  A  ppendix III.4, pp. 1554–1563. Such coins range from florins to gros tournois to Venetian piccoli, and include domestic coins of the Regno at the basis of the gold ounce of account (carlini and denari). 122  Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1337–1340.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

207

further into the duchy of Athens there was a general west-east movement of specie and therefore also of persons. Such trends describe commercial communications, and the Gulf of Corinth was a particularly important artery. By land the different parts of the Peloponnese were evidently linked in a more sluggish fashion: witness the important differences between hoards «83» from the west and «81» from the Argolis. More decisive forms of communications by land obviously required a military context, such as when slightly later hoards from the same region («89» and «90») bear witness perhaps to an attempt by the Byzantine army to break through to the Saronic Gulf in 1308–1309, along routes which are still recognizable today.123 After 1311 the Corinthia and the eastern Mainland alter their monetary profiles as a clear result of changes in communication and population: coins chart the demographic and economic collapse of ‘central’ Corinth in the wake of Catalan aggressions, which will be dealt with in our later discussions. We do not have any clear numismatic evidence for the supposed rise of the Attic and Boiotian ports on the Corinthian Gulf within the new Catalan duchy,124 yet the parallel re-focus of the Corinthia away from the north and towards the Saronic Gulf and the harbour of Kenchreai, which was further accentuated when the Catalans were prohibited from navigating there, can be documented topographically/archaeologically and also numismatically.125 The appearance of gros tournois and carlini on the Mainland is linked to the initial conquests around 1311, as are multiple hoards which can also in this case demonstrate the meticulousness with which conquerors proceeded in covering the land (see «94» to «109» and perhaps ff). Notably, such data suggest a foray of the Catalans into the western Mainland, which is unrevealed to those relying on the more traditional sources. Gros and carlini were also subsequently imported into Attica and Boiotia in line with population exchanges with Sicily and Catalonia.126 The Iberian penny must be considered part of the same phenomenon.127 The closure of the local tournois mint (Thebes) in 1311 contributed to this particularly vibrant picture of population movements based on foreign coins. According to the combined evidence of the monies of account discussed in the two major merchants handbooks, the town of Thebes might again have communicated with Negroponte regularly from the third 123  Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. 124  Quite possibly the profiles of «290. Eutresis» and «340. Panakto» are partially testimony to this, although this is far from compelling. 125  See Gregory, “People and settlement of the northeastern Peloponnese”, and also the rise of «305. Kenchreai» from ca. 1320 onwards. 126  Appendix II.11.A–D, pp. 1500–1506. 127  Appendix II.5.E, pp. 1342–1343.

208

Chapter 3

decade of the century onwards.128 Catalan Greece is another area in which the numismatic and documentary data cannot always be harmonised. While it is quite likely that the presence of people of Catalan, Majorcan, and Aragonese origin increased in the second half of the century given their prominence and that of their monies and monies of account, there are no coin finds to vouch for this.129 During the later thirteenth and earlier fourteenth century the inter-regional and international stature of Greece, whether Angevin or Aragonese-dominated, increased considerably. Finds of Greek deniers tournois bear witness to populations moving between territories:130 the earliest hoards from the mainland territories of the Regno date from the 1270s and 1280s («387. Vibo Valentia» and «388. Filignano»). By the early years of the fourteenth century these personal contacts must have been intense, otherwise it would have been impossible to establish and maintain the Greek tournois as a viable domestic currency in Angevin Italy (consider the hoards and other finds listed «389»–«459»). Within the Italian territories in question there is a concentration in Puglia, which is to be expected, yet there are also many finds from Calabria, especially stray finds and especially from the south coast.131 This potentially reveals important lines of communication between Greece and certain points in Italy which the notaries, the merchants handbooks, or the diplomatic sources do not cater for.132 Such handbooks do however, via monies of account and units of measurement,133 emphasise just how close the relations were between Puglia and the Peloponnese.134 The southern Greek currency also enjoyed a certain degree of recognizability in Venice, and even in Florence, according to the same handbooks, no doubt in part because of personal ties. The importance of central Italians in this particular period of Greek history is underlined by a cluster of Greek finds of coins from Tuscany and surroundings, yet it needs 128  Appendix III.3, p. 1536. 129  Appendix III.3, pp. 1536–1540. 130  The Greek denier tournois in other areas is also specifically addressed in Chapter 2, pp.  99–100, also with reference to finds which have appeared more recently than the completion date of Appendix I. 131  Compare also the slightly earlier coin of Leo Gabalas in a collection in Crotone province: Appendix II.1.A.2, p. 1206. Also, the hyperpyra which were still recorded in the 1280s in the Angevin documents: Appendix II.1.D.2, p. 1256. 132  See Yver, Commerce et les marchands dans l’Italie méridionale (for instance pp. 139–140, 168), which minimises the importance of the southern Calabrian ports and denies any significant commercial or personal inter-action between Greece and the Regno. 133  Appendix III.3, pp. 1533–1534. 134  Also the Italian coin finds have more of an emphasis on the Achaïan issues than the Greek finds: Baker, “Apulia”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

209

to be conceded that the latter may be describing secondary movements via the Regno.135 One must add to this evidence the Italian jettons (reckoning counters) found at different Peloponnesian sites, the great majority of which are also Tuscan.136 Even if we must remain cautious about the precise chronologies especially of the Corinthian evidence, these finds provide very important indications of the actual presence of central Italians. Finally, the vogue for the gold florin in the 1340s and 1350s, in Greece and the wider area, may again point to personal/professional ties.137 The same personal relations also brought the tournois currency further to the north, beyond the Alps («528»–«540»). Once Greek tournois reached France and surrounding areas through French connections, such coins of course piggybacked their ways through the French landscapes on the indigenous French tournois issues. For this reason the geographical distribution of the thirteen hoards of Appendix I.12, which is extremely varied, has no ulterior historical significance. It is also rather disappointing that no northwestern European coins are present in Greece which date any later than the 1310s.138 Overall, tournois and western coins clearly support the supposition that the demographic orientation of Latin southern Greece gradually shifted from France to Italy. The movements of regular Greek tournois towards the southern Balkans, the eastern Aegean (and Crete), and the Levant (see «468», «469», «471», «473», «474», «475», «479», «481», «483», «484», «487», «488», «490», «491», «493», «496», «497», «498», «501», «506», «507», «509», «510», «512», «518», «521», «525», «526», «527»),139 were very complex. The coin finds there do not always signify direct personal contacts with Greece in the same straightforward fashion, but bear witness also to commercial or merely monetary networks. Regarding locations on the Aegean and Marmara coastlines, for instance Thessalonike, Ainos, Constantinople, Troy, Kyzikos, or Ephesos, tournois evidently became part of the local currency, to varying degrees and often because of the shortcomings of the locally available coinages. The stray finds from «526. Thasos» or the Constantinopolitan hoard «497» offer particularly impressive runs of issues associated with south-central Greece (tournois and also soldini), so much so that it would be hard to distinguish their profiles from 135  Appendix II.5.D, pp. 1341–1342. 136  Chapter 2, pp. 155, 159–160. 137  Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1314, esp. p. 1311. 138  Appendix II.5.A, p. 1332; Appendix II.11.A, p. 1501. 139  Consider also the single tournois of William II of Villehardouin found at Dispilio near Kastoria in Thessaly, which arrived too late to be integrated in Appendix I: Stavridopoulos, “Dispilio”.

210

Chapter 3

finds considerably further to the south. For such a picture to have taken shape, contacts between Greece and these areas would have had to have been multifarious and consistent. Also further inland, for instance beyond the Rhodope Mountains, certain tournois finds are again so harmonious (see especially «490» and perhaps «518») as to suggest regular contacts with these more maritime areas, and also with southern Greece itself. The later and inferior tournois currency of Arta (IGΓ) is a case apart.140 Initially it would have been carried by Greek or Latin combatants engaged in Epiros towards the southern Balkans in the course of the 1330s (Balkan finds with certifiable IGΓ issues are «492», «494», «495», «511», «519», «524», «525», although many of the other Artan finds from Bulgaria were undoubtedly also IGΓ varieties), but this was emphatically no longer true when, over the coming years and decades, this currency gradually migrated into Bulgaria. This secondary movement was entirely determined by contacts within the Serbian and Bulgarian states without the involvement of Greeks or Latins, and by the monetary requirements of Bulgaria. Whereas good quality tournois may have reached Bulgarian territories via Thrace, Constantinople, and the Black Sea, it is impossible that the tournois of Orsini would have taken any route other than the internal land route via Macedonia. With respect to locations further to the east, we are witnessing in the same period – the later thirteenth and earlier fourteenth centuries – the beginnings of Greece’s integration into the late medieval Levant trade. The numismatic evidence can be supplemented with the information gained from Pegolotti whereby the hyperpyron of Clarentza was known in Alexandria.141 Some of the finds of coins of foreign origin in Greece may be testimony to the overall increase in personal contacts between Greece and these various Balkan and eastern areas, yet the chronologies and semantics of these disparate numismatic data are not always so easily unlocked.142 More obvious is a concentration of Chiot issues of the Zaccaria in central Greece, despite the Moreote links of this dynasty and its tournois coinage:143 only one such coin has been found in the Peloponnese («168»),144 and there are two non-tournois issues of

140  Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1466–1476. 141  Appendix III.3, p. 1534. 142  The possible coins in question are from Trebizond (Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1275–1276), Hungary (Appendix II.5.F, p.  1343), Cyprus, Armenia, the Golden Horde (Appendix II.6.A–C, pp. 1343–1346. 143  An overview of finds of Chiot coins of the Zaccaria is also contained in Valakou, “Coins of the Zaccaria family (1304–1329)”. 144  Appendix II.9.I, p. 1464. The other non-Mainland Greek finds are from «397. Manduria 1916» and «490. Kărdžali».

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

211

the Zaccaria at Athens.145 This horizontal link across the central Aegean must be explained either with reference to overt Turco-Catalan activities, or to other kinds of personal contacts fostered by the political climate, commercial possibilities, and/or the directness and proximity of this sea route (see also below on the same links at the turn of the fifteenth century). The numismatic connection to the demographic collapse in the later 1340s will be discussed under the next heading. During the same period the ethnic composition of the Greek peninsula began its important late medieval changes, as a result of new conquests and large scale population movements. This may have had some influence on monetary conditions, although not always in the most obvious ways. We note, for instance, that only a handful of Serbian (all from one location) and two Ottoman specimens (before 1430) have been found in the territories treated in this book which can be linked to the conquests and any possible accompanying population movements (the findspots are Byllis, Larisa, and Athens. For a western Bulgarian coin from the Serbian monetary sphere found at Riziani, see here below).146 The evidence derived from the monies of account is in itself quite inadequate due to the idiosyncrasies of these monies and of the historical sources which reveal them:147 the “de cruce” accounting system based on Serbian coins, for instance, was most prominent in the area between Ragusa and Valona, and from there inland towards the heart of the kingdom, in a period which began slightly earlier than the major conquests themselves. Far from revealing primarily the movements of Serbs expanding into newly conquered areas, this money of account charts trading contacts at a precise moment in time. The Byzantino-Ottoman aspron is confined largely to one source and one rather early context (northern Epiros and Thessaly before 1400), whereas the documented introduction of Turks and related peoples to certain Greek locations occurred later. All in all, the monetary information available to date is variously either inadequate or suggests that any population movements caused by Serbian and Ottoman conquests were slight. Yet, we do know of course from other sources just how important the related impact of Albanians and Vlachs was on all Greek areas. The fact that there is not a single coin find with an overt Albanian connection, nor even the smallest adjustment in the prevalent accounting systems, must suggest to us rather unnervingly that this very significant historical development remained 145  Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 146  The finds of earlier Serbian coins dating around 1300 have no demographic implications whatsoever: Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1306. For the Ottoman coins see Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1351–1353. 147  Appendix III.4, pp. 1559–1560 and 1563–1564.

212

Chapter 3

entirely under the numismatic radar. Or did it? Might the general paucity of coin finds dating to the last eighty years treated in this book, especially strays and especially in the large continental areas of Greece, be in itself a manifestation of demographic change and the introduction of populations who were less inclined to use coins148? Large tracts of territories treated in this book – from Epiros and Thessaly southwards into the Mainland and the Peloponnese – suffered from devastating military events in the course of the final period. Numismatics is again well placed to offer some insights into the routes that were taken and the areas that were targeted: hoards,149 in combination with the single coin from Riziani (Doliani),150 reveal that the most intense focus of the Serbs may have been the area between the southerly parts of present-day Albania, Thesprotia and Ioannina, and the Ambracian Gulf. In so doing, the troops would have followed internal lines of communication through this mountainous terrain which have a long pedigree (that is to say avoiding the coastline between Corfu, Leukada, and Kephallonia). We have seen how, further to the south in Aitolia according to a Dutch survey certain marginal areas profited from the processes. The same may be confirmed by the recent evidence of the coins found during the Danish excavations at Kalydon, in a different part of Aitolia.151 As the beyliks and then the early Ottoman polity/sultanate began to establish themselves in our territories through various tactics, the area of Phokis, Euboia, and Boiotia can be seen, again according to hoards, as central to communications by sea and land. After Ottoman power collapsed temporarily in 1402, the two hoards from Delphi («196» and «198») may well underline the strategic importance that was felt in re-establishing a hold on the northern edge of the Corinthian Gulf. Finally, coin finds also suggest that the operations of the Navarrese in the northern Peloponnese were rather thorough: the invaders evidently explored not just the coastal strip, but also the adjacent mountain valleys.152 Overall, the prevailing monetisation of Greece after ca. 1350, in Venetian soldini and torneselli,153 offers only little scope in itself for insights into demographics and communication. The speed with which some of the monetary innovations took place in these two denominations confirms the pivotal positions

148  Preface, p. xiv and Chapter 3, pp. 417–424. 149  The hoards which may be linked to precise events are discussed in Chapter 2, pp. 144–149. 150  Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”. 151  Chapter 4, p. 472. 152  Compare Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”. 153  Appendix II.4.E and F, pp. 1317–1320 and 1325–1330.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

213

of Clarentza and Thebes in the communication networks. The Hungarian denars which are linked to the soldini have, however, no ethnic implications.154 Yet there are other minority coinages with more potential. The Knights Hospitallers occupied an increasingly important position in the Aegean as effective Angevin power declined. The political, and hence personal, connections between Rhodes and the Peloponnese became stronger, especially in the periods 1376–1381 and 1397–1400. Some Rhodian and Cypriot denier-type coin finds from Euboia, Athens, Corinth, Lakonia, the western Peloponnese and Kephallonia, may be seen in these precise contexts, especially the first of the two intervals of direct Hospitaller control in the peninsula.155 Rhodes seems to have enjoyed an important position in other respects too: many of the rare copper coins which Schlumberger had seen as issues of the Genoese occupation of the island seem, according to more recent considerations, better attributed to Thracian or Black Sea mints of Bulgaria, or local Genoese or Byzantine potentates of the second half of the fourteenth century.156 Rhodian findspots for some issues, which had contributed to Schlumberger’s initial interpretations, draw a vivid picture of seaborne communications along the eastern and northern Aegean coastlines during the later fourteenth century. Also the Constantinopolitan tornese found on Leipsoi can be considered an element in this chain.157 Greece itself fails to participate in this network. Even Lesbian issues of the Gattilusio rulers from 1355 onwards, which were actually minted in some quantities and in potentially useful qualities and denominations, are but rarely found on Greek soil.158 The cited later metropolitan tornese coinage is represented in all of Greece with only one specimen («271»). Some Chiot pennies of the period of the Maona, found again in the eastern Greek Mainland, provide an interesting exception and reinforce the aforementioned communications across the Aegean which may have existed whatever the political constellation.159 Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos also introduced new tornese types, first as governor in Thessalonike (1382–1387), and then as his interests turned to the Peloponnese from the 1390s.160 Finds of these issues describe specific routes of communication between Lakonia, Corinthia, the eastern Mainland and 154  Appendix II.4.E.4, pp. 1324–1325. 155  Appendix II.6.A and D, pp. 1343–1344 and 1346–1347. 156  Appendix II.6.D, p. 1346 n. 879. 157  Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1271. 158  For a soldino from Elis see Appendix II.4.E.5, p.  1325; for a slightly later aspron from Athens see Appendix II.6.F, pp. 1349–1350. 159  Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 160  Appendix II.1.E.3–4, pp. 1272–1274.

214

Chapter 3

Euboia, Thessalonike and Thasos at this moment in time, fostered no doubt by the political conditions (the Ottoman advances, the presence of the Knights of St. John, and the Byzantine resurgence in Thessaly and the Peloponnese). The Naxian tornesi which are datable in general terms to the period before 1383, convey a more static picture.161 The only known findspots for this coinage are from the island itself. This may be in part attributable to the relative backwardness of medieval archaeology and numismatics in the Cyclades and Crete, yet the total absence of this coinage from the Peloponnese, the eastern Mainland, and Euboia, is nevertheless striking and would suggest that the supposedly greater connectivity and demographic upswing of the islands may need to be relativised. Sudden Population Shifts as a Result of Natural Occurrences: Plagues and Earthquakes As we have just seen, when populations moved fast and in good numbers in political and economic contexts there was a higher chance of leaving a particular numismatic mark for modern scholars to consider. Significant natural disasters could also influence populations and result in numismatic phenomena. I have suggested that the Black Death of 1347 could have necessitated the closure of the Clarentza mint,162 should specialist staff have perished or been forced to leave, thereby speeding up developments in monetisation which might already have been underway. Death from the plague could prevent hoard retrieval, but we should note that none of the hoards dating to around 1347 (ca. «157» to ca. «163») can with any degree of certainty be attributed to this cause. «192. Corinth BnF» is the only hoard whose concealment can with some confidence be brought in connection with one of the earthquakes (1402), while «208. Morea 1849» is a second and less than certain candidate for the last of the documented earthquakes (1422). 2.3

Settlement Structures, Urbanisation, Land Occupation according to the Numismatic Evidence The monetisation of middle Byzantine and then Latin-period Greece was both rural and urban. The archaeological record is currently quite difficult to use: single and stray finds are skewed towards the latter, that is to say a high percentage of such coins are from locations which would in medieval times have constituted larger and smaller settlements. Hoards can derive from the open 2.4

161  Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494. 162  A  ppendix II.9.A.12, p. 1425.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

215

countryside, in fact, as we can see on Table 2 (pp. 129–130), some of the most valuable monetary assemblages of medieval Greece were rural. Yet also a great many hoards from Appendix I are urban. I refer once again to Map 1, which makes the uneven spread abundantly clear. If the methodologies of recovering historical coins in the Greek landscapes were ever to change, some time in the future, even if only for a restricted area, I am confident that a completely new picture of rural monetisation would emerge, for the medieval and other periods in Greek history. Money at certain sites and in the main Greek areas is treated further in Chapter 4. At this point we will focus on some general and qualitative considerations. One may suggest that in imperial times the Byzantine tetarteron had been purposefully introduced to our area, either by the state or by privates, specifically for usage in market contexts (though naturally with the final result of paying taxes). These markets would often have had an urban focus. Byzantine and sub-Byzantine trachea were added to this picture around 1200. The uncertain chronologies of many of these specimens, in terms of production, arrival and usage in Greece, and then loss, had caused archaeologists interpretative difficulties in the past and remain a problem. A general trajectory can nevertheless be laid out: according to the evidence of these denominations the urban sites of Greece did not stagnate around 1200 but in fact continued in their established forms. In the specific case of the main urban centres of Greece – Corinth and Thebes – it can in fact be postulated a relative stagnation during the twelfth century could be overcome as a result of the conquests, which brought on a new demographic impetus. For the time when these Byzantine-style copperbased coins became less useful and plentiful, around the middle of the century, other coinages are often at hand to allow us to consider further developments in urbanisation and urban monetisation – the so-called majority coinages of our earlier discussion.163 From Table 1 (pp. 112–117) we can see that the local monetisation at Argos, Athens, Corinth, Isthmia, Nemea, and Thebes was variously carried further to different degrees by petty denomination issues, tournois, soldini, and torneselli. Given that some of these coinages are considerably more valuable than tetartera and trachea we may conclude that more money was indeed available as a result of a demographic and/or economic upswing in these towns. For this reason, even the apparent downturn at Arta (60 Latin Imitatives as compared to 19 tournois, the latter around four times as valuable) needs relativisation. Sparta experienced the most significant upswing around the time of the trachy – petty denomination – tournois transition. All the more 163  Chapter 2, pp. 118–119.

216

Chapter 3

minor sites for which there is evidence, discussed again in Chapter 2,164 either maintained themselves in the transition period from middle Byzantine times, or established themselves in the first or second phases of the medieval period proper (first or second half of the thirteenth century). A very common tendency in all of these settlements, with some exceptions (the most notable are Acrocorinth, Athens, Isthmia, Sparta, and perhaps Karystos), is a contraction of different degrees during the tornesello phase. In the case of Athens the strong numismatic evidence for the Athenian Agora and surrounding areas in Catalan and Florentine times resonates well with the surprisingly high suggested population figure cited above. The late relative decline of another important town, Clarentza, in favour of Patra (which has no useful numismatic data), is confirmed again by the evidence of the same torneselli («262. Clarentza»). In summary, these various numismatic data relating to urban demography and economy during the various phases from the later twelfth to the early fifteenth centuries are invaluable: they rectify the image drawn by traditional sources and historiography, as we have seen, and they corroborate and complement some of the archaeological work which is currently being developed. With respect to the mentioned urban-rural dichotomy, it can be noted that some tetarteron hoards were indeed from rural areas (see for instance «1. Kaparelli 1927», «15. Oreos 1935», «16. Kastri 1952», and «25. Brauron 1956»165). The hoards of trachea have already been discussed earlier in this chapter as forming very important evidence for communications and the movement of people in early post-conquest Greece. Whether such finds constitute good evidence for rural usage is debatable. Quantitatively speaking tetartera and trachea have been mostly found in urban contexts. As we move through early thirteenth-century generations of billon trachea – Faithful Copies and Latin Imitatives166 – we can still notice that with increasing overall quantities more rural areas were accessed by this denomination: consider, for instance, amongst the body of stray finds «261. Chloumoutsi», «290. Eutresis», «330. Naxos», «350. Skotoussa», «382. Troizina», «385. Zaraka». Yet it must be conceded that single rural finds of such coins are disappointingly few and far between in Greece, as they are for the petty denomination issues of Achaïa and Athens which followed from the later 1240s onwards:167 the only rural location for such issues are «290. Eutresis», «311. Lakonia», «340. Panakto», and «378. Tigani». 164  Pp. 120–124. 165   Pre-1200 specimens have only been included in Appendix I insofar as they were included in later contexts, for example hoards. 166  Appendix II.1.B.2–3, pp. 1212–1233. 167  Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374.

ISSUERS AND USERS: GEOGRAPHICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

217

Interestingly, two of these places are in Lakonia, which ties in with the cited evidence from Sparta. The thorough monetisation of the medieval Greek landscape took place, according to the assembled, if still altogether slight evidence, after mid-century, initially in the form of silver grossi and tournois: there is a surprisingly large number of grosso stray finds, especially in northerly parts of our area which had hitherto been left particularly untouched by single coin finds.168 The number of stray tournois, and then of torneselli, are of course much higher. These two successive denominations are approximately represented at the same number of sites,169 which corroborates also our impression that Greek monetisation had in some way partly recovered by ca. 1400 (see Figure 2). Genuinely rural stray finds in Appendix I.4, which are admittedly quite rare, supported by some hoards, suggest that the most monetised landscapes during the last fifty years of this study were the Peloponnese and the Cyclades, especially Naxos (and only thereafter the eastern Mainland – Euboia itself does not have the right levels of data). It would be fair to conclude that this observation is also demographically significant. By contrast, it is particularly noteworthy that for the whole of Epiros and Thessaly, during the period ca. 1360–1430, there are only three rural numismatic manifestations (four if we go just beyond 1430): «186. Epiros», «190. Mesopotam», «341. Pantanassa» («209. Larisa ca. 2001B»). This picture provides again a convincing link with what is otherwise known about the populations of these areas. By contrast there are two hoards from the adjacent islands («195. Zakynthos 1978» and «197. Kephallonia») which, in combination, one may wish to consider symbolic for their ascendancy under the Tocco rulers before their apparent total demographic collapse in the further course of the fifteenth century. 3

The Money Market in Medieval Greece170

Byzantium had its own long history of monetary services provided by the state and by privates, whereas the increasing sophistication of the Latin west, and especially of Italy, in the later middle ages is very well known.171 These traditions have informed the situation in medieval Greece, and a money market associated itself quite naturally with the different systems of payments, fiscal 168  Chapter 2, p. 120; Appendix II.4.B, p. 1299. 169  Compare Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1330; Appendix II.9.A, p. 1377; Appendix II.9.B, p. 1428. 170  On this subject matter, see in the first instance Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns” and Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”, p. 205. A recent useful addition is Papakosma, “Ιδιωτικός δανεισμός”. 171  Chapter 1, pp. 23–24, 44–45, 69–71.

218

Chapter 3

or economic. For these payments to function, specie had to be checked and regulated, and currencies had to be changed. Related to these may have been the lending of money (and pawnbroking), and the transportation, storing, and investing of money on its owner’s behalf. Almost all members of medieval Greek society would at times have sought some of the services that have just been mentioned. As a result of the Byzantine collapse in 1204 financial regulations concerning the unfree peasantry were loosened, and in due course loans amongst paroikoi/villeins in feudal Greek society were catered for by the Assizes of Romania. Peasants often acted collectively and their financial affairs were managed by so-called curators.172 In Latin and Greek contexts of south-central Greece peasants are known as both creditors and debtors. Lending to the peasantry was evidently lucrative: some Italian capitalists operating locally, such as Gherardo da Parma in early thirteenth-century Negroponte, specialised in this business. Such money men can also be identified in commercial contexts: upfront payments to the purchaser/debtor (sale credits) for certain kinds of produce were a simple and, according to Jacoby, very common form of loan also in Greece.173 This is certainly the impression we gain from some acts: those recorded by Pasquale Longo for the period 1289–1293 suggest, because of the frequent repetitions of the names of the creditors, that also here moneylending was an integral part of the business of one family or firm.174 Usually, sums were tied up in goods (in these cases often related to the silk industry) in Coron on behalf of a debtor, the same goods were then transported to Venice through the initiative of the latter, often at the joint risk of both parties (‘sea loans’), where re-payments occurred. Documents of this precise nature are not extant in the later published notarial records of the Peloponnese, although this set of acts abounds in simple loans. In the later acts only in some individual cases can certain forms of business investments be seen at work.175 Even in the earliest 172  Compare on these points the later discussions in this chapter, pp. 244 and 263. On this and what follows see Jacoby, “Greek peasantry”, where loans within the peasant class are extensively discussed. See also Hodgetts, Modon and Coron p. 313, for Greek paroikoi in a Venetian colonial context. Schreiner, Texte, pp. 358–359 and pp. 406–411, offers some glimpses at different forms of petty loans at very diverse interest rates. 173  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 218. On this and what follows, see again Papakosma, “Ιδιωτικός δανεισμός”. 174  See Pasquale Longo, p. 5, under ‘prestiti’. 175  See Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata. Consider however: nos. 1.42, 43, 45, 46 (1333); nos. 4.9–11 (1372), in which substantial loans are specifically intended for investment in local business ventures, the profits of which are partially rendered to the creditor. In the first set of acts of 1333 this moneylender is called Marino Soranzo, who appears to be a cleric.

ISSUERS AND USERS: MONEY MARKET

219

notarial sources of our period it becomes clear that within the tight networks of Venetians which existed in certain Greek locations loans were quite common, many of which would be paid back in Venice.176 What is presently available for medieval Greece in the form of actual contracts is highly idiosyncratic and most certainly bound up with the individual specialisms of the various published notaries.177 The financial activities of other individuals are known from disparate but equally rare sources: for instance we have some information on a Florentine moneylender operating in Clarentza around 1380,178 and incidentally and exactly at the same time, on a Greek called Moscho who supported members of the local Catalan authorities with loans.179 We could draw perhaps on the comparative and more ample documentation from Crete, which testifies to a general readiness on the part of private individuals pursuing primary activities of different kinds (agriculture, commerce etc.) to engage some of their capital – often of very small magnitude – in loans and loan-like investments.180 We may also try to infer from less direct sources the level of monetary services available to the population of southern Greece, and especially in the Morea: there is the presence of Tuscan and other central Italian merchants and bankers in certain urban centres of the Morea,181 attested not least by the jettons (reckoning counters) found at Corinth and other sites.182 Next, there is the strong connection between the Angevin monarchy and the Tuscan companies in the realm of loans and minting rights,183 which may have set the pattern also for a similar symbiosis in Greece. The close relations of Catherine of 176  Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 108. 177  Some additional bodies of acts for the medieval Peloponnese are discussed in Saradi, “Acts of private transactions”, esp. p. 205: loans are nevertheless very rare. 178  Tzavara, “Un homme d’affaires du XIV eme siècle en Morée franque”; Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 213–214. 179  Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece”, p. 278. On the career of the Greek Ioannis Kormolisis (Cremolisi), who also lent money, see below in this chapter, p. 383. 180  Laiou, “Crète vénitienne”, Gallina, “Finanza, credito e commercio a Candia”, esp. pp. 25– 33, Gallina, Una società coloniale, pp. 95–139, are developments of the older discussions of Borsari, Dominio veneziano a Creta, p. 98ff. See additionally more specifically Tucci, “Prestito ad presam nell’economia di Creta medievale”. Some of this information is also of relevance to our own territories: see for example the case, recorded in Candia in 1280, of the people from Melos lending money to their local bishop: Appendix III.5, p. 1567. 181  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 211, 224–225; Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 208–211. Evidence for the presence of companies in the Morea, especially Clarentza, dates from the later thirteenth century to the middle of the fourteenth. Compare also this chapter, pp. 222–223. 182  Chapter 2, pp. 153 and 159–160. 183  See Chapter 1, p. 69.

220

Chapter 3

Valois and her son Prince Robert of Taranto with the Acciaiuoli seem to underline this.184 Finally, there is the rather strange account of Sanudo’s whereby, at the time of William II of Villehardouin “non solamente li cavallieri, mà anco li mercadanti andavano sù e giuso senza denari […] e con il semplice loro scritto di mano se li dava denari e facevansi spese abbondantemente”.185 The sense of this is not quite clear, and the chronology (i.e. the mid-thirteenth century) is suspicious,186 but the implications are possibly that bank accounts were common amongst the elites of Moreote society. We may conclude the following: while the lending and borrowing of money was part and parcel of everyday life in medieval Greece, banking in a contemporary medieval sense may have been available in certain urban parts of southern Greece, but this would have been mostly local in character.187 Larger transfers of money required the sophisticated networks of the Tuscan companies and involved mostly the highest princely echelons of medieval Greek society.188 Loans from these local banks and the practice of fractional reserves may have increased the money supply in a limited fashion, but always in proportion to the general availability of monetary specie. Therefore, “credit […] would not have been able to alleviate the later medieval bullion crisis”,189 even if it might have solved short-term problems of liquidity, as it did in Crete. Credit could also possibly have been given indirectly, through different investment opportunities. In this sense one may agree with Jacoby that “credit was a major factor stimulating a growth in export-orientated products, as well as short- and medium-range trade and transportation”.190 Storage of public or private wealth had been a perennial problem in Byzantine society:191 palaces and monasteries were preferred locations for 184  Appendix II.9.A.12, p. 1425; Chapter 3, p. 284. 185  Sanudo, p. 107. 186  Yet Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 225, n. 171 is quite willing to take this information at face value. 187  Mueller, “Bank money”; Day, “Monnaie et crédit”; Spufford, Money and its use, pp. 255 and 258. 188  Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 214–216 cites the examples of the dowry payable to Ferdinand of Majorca in 1315, transferred from Cyprus to Clarentza by the Bardi and Peruzzi (compare Appendix II.9.A.8–9, pp. 1413–1415; and the transfer of profits from the Morea to Empress Mary of Bourbon by the Acciaiuoli (compare Chapter 3, p. 365). 189  Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece”, p. 217. 190  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 233. 191  See Hendy, Studies, pp. 207–219 and some of the comments in Morrisson, “L’économie monétaire byzantine”. Further: Lefort and Smyrlis, “Gestion du numéraire” and Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 273; Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy”, p. 465 and Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, pp. 915, 939–940. See further Chapter 1, pp. 23–24.

ISSUERS AND USERS: MONEY MARKET

221

reserves of cash, with all the uncertainties that this entailed. As Byzantium broke up after 1204, huge amounts of wealth would have been variously lost or transferred to different locations.192 For the least secure phase in medieval Greek history, from the fourteenth century, we have some information which suggests that also wealthy Greeks entrusted their money preferentially to the Latin financial institutions in Elis, Messenia, and also in Attikoboitia and Euboia, for safekeeping and investment.193 Finally, it is clear from the numismatic record and the overall health of the currency of medieval Greece that money men would have been at work in the towns and landscapes of our territories in a much more consistent fashion – either in public service or motivated by private gain – than any of the written evidence is able to document.194 The area in which the monetary services were the most prized and sought after was that of high politics and warfare. The ability to command and delegate large quantities of money, to borrow and lend at ease according to immediate requirements, was absolutely vital to make military gains and to shape political constellations in one’s own favour. The historical narratives which follow in the present chapter have integrated such instances, and we will content ourselves here with some impressions: The need to raise extraordinary funds accompanied the history of the Latin polities in the Aegean from the time of the Fourth Crusade. The particular vassalic relationship between Achaïa and the Latin Empire, in combination with the differing economic fates of these respective territories, entailed money being transferred from the former to the latter in the course of the existence of this empire, some obviously in the form of loans.195 In this period, the barons of southern Greece, often linked to each other feudally and by origin, through geographical proximity and a common interest to safeguard their holdings, would provide monetary services to one another. For instance, in a well recorded episode, Andrea Ghisi, lord of Tinos and Mykonos, loaned Duke Angelo Sanudo 400 hyperpyra interest free for a year in 1243. The tardiness in the repayment provides the context for Ghisi’s hostile takeover of the neighbouring

192  The example of the ecclesiastical treasury of Corinth, transferred to Argos at the time of the Frankish conquest, may be given: Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 134. For the interesting case of the treasure of the monastery of St. John at Patmos, stolen in 1220 and subsequently sold to a number of Venetians, see Saint-Guillain, “L’Apocalypse et le sens des affaires”, pp. 768–770 and 783–786. 193  See Chapter 3, p. 386. 194  See Chapter 2, pp. 161–176 on the control over the monetary stock. 195  See Chapter 1, p. 45 and Chapter 3, p. 229.

222

Chapter 3

island of Andros.196 Also in this period, in Constantinople as well as in Greece itself, there was already a close symbiosis between political power and local, usually Venetian, business interests. The latter were another obvious source of loans, as was the case when Emperor Baldwin II mortgaged his own son Philip for 1,000 pounds tournois to the Venetian Ferro brothers in 1248.197 In 1269 we see that Prince William II of Villehardouin had a 500 hyperpyra debt with a Venetian.198 The origin of a 2,700 hyperpyron-loan taken in 1255 by Marco Gradenigo, head of the Venetian military contingent dispatched to Negroponte, is even more local: they are seven members of the town’s Latin bourgeoisie.199 In fact, for the Angevin and Venetian administrations which took shape in southern Greece from the second half of the century the taking of loans, usually from similar local sources, was systemic. This was no doubt built to some degree on domestic practices. The Kingdom of Sicily/Naples and its civil servants and feudatories in Greece took loans from different Tuscan, Neapolitan and Venetian bankers, and also from each other, until the earlier part of the fourteenth century,200 after which point many of the substantial military enterprises, for instance on behalf of John of Gravina and his nephew Robert of Taranto, were underwritten by the Acciaiuoli. Venice’s relationship with debt has already been discussed and will be further addressed when we look at the functionings of the colonial administrations,201 suffice it to say that year in and year out loans were sought from any number of sources. The so-called cambio system used by Venetian administrators and businessmen alike, whereby money was invested with a merchant and transferred to 196  Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204”, p. 255 (compare also Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce, p. 273ff). 197  Wolff, “Mortgage and redemption of an emperor’s son”. 198  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 33–34, no. xxxviii. 199  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 149. 200  Compare in Chapter 1, pp.  70–71 and in this chapter pp.  308–310. Consider for instance the case of William of Barre in the 1270s, captain general, who took loans from Venetian moneylenders and also from John of Neopatras, and redistributed the money strategically: Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 246; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 153; Appendix II.4.B, p.  1300, n. 593. In the face of the Catalan threat, the Athenian Duke Walter of Brienne received a loan from Sienese bankers in 1310: Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 224; Appendix II.9.B, p. 1438. Philip of Taranto, prince and despot of Romania, received the backing of the Bardi and Peruzzi for his ambitious campaigns in the southwestern Mainland: Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, p. 87; Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 91. In this period the same Florentine houses were beginning to support the Hospitallers in their expansionist ventures in the eastern Aegean: Luttrell, “The Hospitallers and their Florentine bankers”. 201  Chapter 1, p. 70; Chapter 3, pp. 298–307.

ISSUERS AND USERS: MONEY MARKET

223

another place, meant that in the systems of loans and repayments there was a fluid transition between the metropolis and the Greek colonies.202 One may suppose that the three main motivations of the Angevin or Venetian administrators to take loans were budgetary shortfalls, extraordinary expenditure, and liquidity problems which required upfront payments for incomes which would only gradually be recouped. Why the loans were granted be privates or businesses is even more hypothetical: beside profit through interest, coercion was certainly at times at play. It is also possible that families and businesses were following their political instincts and aligning themselves with the powers in place. Perhaps they may have understood such loans to be the price to pay, a kind of tax, for the entry into a certain economic and commercial environment, or a system of favours, but this is a hypothetical supposition. Such a rationale could also work across political boundaries.203 In some cases repayment took place in a precisely stipulated but indirect manner, involving risk but also the possibility of great profit, for example when a Neapolitan banker received the rights to the Naupaktos mint in exchange for a 31,000 hyperpyron loan.204 The later years of the period covered in this book, when the main Serbian, Catalan, Angevin and eventually Byzantine blocs began to unravel, the number of polities and potentates, and the conflicts between them, increased dramatically. In this context we can see the emergence of larger political paymasters hoping to forge the destiny of these lands in their favours. Notable amongst these was of course Venice, who over time gave loans – to cite merely a few examples – to what remained of the Latin patriarchate,205 to Thomas of Epiros in 1315,206 and then to many of the principal protagonists of Greek politics around the turn of the fifteenth century, Emperor Manuel II and his brother Theodore (1385), Charles I of Tocco (1395), or Prince Centurione II of Zaccaria.207 The Kingdom of France also intervened during the important attempt by one of its vassals, Louis of Evreux, to re-take Durazzo for the Angevins in the later 1360s, with a loan of 50,000 ducats.208 202  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron pp. 187–188. 203  Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece”, p. 247: in 1346 a private Catalan with political connections to the Catalan duchy of Athens loaned the Venetian bailo of neighbouring Negroponte 9,000 hyperpyra. 204  Appendix II.9.F p. 1451. 205  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 49, no. lxxxxii (1285). 206  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 78. 207  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 60, no. 28; p. 340, no. 170; and in this chapter p. 376. 208  See below in this chapter, p. 361.

224

Chapter 3

In summary, we must come to the conclusion that the available monetary tools underpinned the main historical streams which were underway, they reinforced the political systems, and also the feudal and proto-capitalist socioeconomic ordering in place. Virtual money aided business and commerce, but it did not counteract the current tendencies in the monetisation in a particular area of Greece, or during a specific period. In fact, also here it emphasised existing trends. Different sets of sources will allow one to delve more deeply into the financial services available to privates and governments in medieval Greece, and their workings and repercussions, or to chart complex histories and systems of payments and re-payments involving numerous protagonists and businesses. The notarial acts or the official decisions taken by Venice and the Regno, or even the narrative sources, have yet to be consistently searched for these aspects. This book is, however, not intended as a financial or fiscal history and we will use such information in the following discussions whenever it serves a historical and monetary narrative. 4

1200–1259/1268: Political and Military History

The political and military history of Greece from 1204 until 1259–1268, that is to say to the battle of Pelagonia, the Byzantine re-conquest of Constantinople, the treaties of Viterbo, and the death of Michael II of Epiros, has been extensively investigated by modern scholarship insofar as the sources have made this possible.209 209  From the vast amount of literature on this subject the following has been used for this overview: there are the successive works by Longnon, “Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée”; L’empire; and “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”; Bon, Morée franque, for a historical and topographical treatment; Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne and Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane for the early Venetian involvement. Bon’s work is extensively reviewed in Longnon, “Topographie et archéologie de la Morée franque”. The bibliography regarding the Cycladic and Ionian Islands, Epiros and Thessaly, and Thessalonike and Constantinople (in so far as the latter bore on Greek history) is cited individually. Brief overviews are provided in Shepard, The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, pp. 731–802. Likewise, the many relevant studies of Loenertz, Topping, and Jacoby, which are particularly important for the administrative and socio-economic histories of Latin Greece, and which have been re-printed in various volumes, are referenced below. More recent works which provide general overviews of the developments in the period 1204–1261 are: Kordosis, “Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας”; Ilieva, Frankish Morea; Lock, Franks; Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 222–232. Van Tricht, Empire of Constantinople, touches upon the early formation of Latin Greece

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: POLITICS AND WARFARE

225

4.1 Conquest and Resistance During 1204–1205 the western crusaders, coming from Constantinople through Macedonia, took Thessaly and the eastern Mainland and penetrated the Peloponnese rapidly, although the key castles of Corinth and Argos/Nauplio were only conquered in 1210 and 1211/1212.210 An important figure of the Greek resistance against the Franks was Leon Sgouros, who had commanded territories in Thessaly, Attikoboiotia, and the northeastern Peloponnese before 1204, but whose main contribution to jeopardizing Latin military progress and domination thereafter consisted in holding out on Acrocorinth until his suicide in ca. 1208/1209.211 Another, related, source of Greek resistance in the Peloponnee was Michael Komnenos Doukas, ruler in Epiros, which was then continued, especially in the Argolis, on his behalf by his half-brother Theodore.212 The role of Leon Chamaretos in these years is not entirely clear,213 but Byzantine resistance did evidently continue in the southeastern part of the Peloponnese, and the Latin conquest of the peninsula was not accomplished until 1248/1249, according to the traditional chronology, that is to say before William’s departure on crusade.214 Another interpretation suggests that Monemvasia was only finally taken in 1252/1253.215 4.2 Peloponnese and Eastern Mainland Pope Innocent III conferred the title of prince of Achaïa on William of Champlitte in 1205, but it was his successor, Prince Geoffrey of Villehardouin, who, at the parliament of Ravennika and through the treaty of Sapienza (both 1209) became vassal of the Latin Empire of Constantinople and of Venice, and who thereby averted a potentially fragile situation.216 The annual payments to the republic connected to this can be considered symbolic: two gold embroidered silk cloths to the church of St. Mark’s, another to the doge. The prince was very extensively. In the very last instance the reader is referred to the multiple-author volumes Gerstel, Viewing the Morea, and Tsougarakis and Lock, Companion to Latin Greece, and particularly the overview provided by Tsougarakis, “The Latins in Greece”. 210  See also Appendix II.1.A.2, p. 1204. 211  See Chapter 1, pp. 7 and 12. Regarding the life and death of Sgouros from 1204 onwards, the precise events and their dates are subject to interpretation. 212  On Michael and Theodore, see the discussion below pp.  229–230; see further Nicol, Epiros I, pp. 13, 24–25; Bon, Morée franque, p. 72; Kordosis, “Σχέσεις του Μιχαήλ Αγγέλου”; Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”, pp. 303–304. 213  Chapter 1, p. 7. See also Kordosis, “Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας”, pp. 126–136; Kalliga, Monemvasia I, pp. 78–79. 214  See below and Appendix II.8.B.2, p. 1369. 215  Kalliga, Monemvasia I, p. 91; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 139; Kalliga, Monemvasia II, p. 29. 216  See specifically Nanetti, Patto con Geoffroy de Villehardouin.

226

Chapter 3

also obliged to aid the doge in securing his possessions. The eastern Mainland, meanwhile, had apparently been ceded to the Burgundian de la Roche family by its original conqueror, Boniface of Montferrat, lord of Thessalonike.217 The holdings of this family, that is to say the lordship of Athens (to which areas of Boiotia, for instance Thebes and Livadeia, were added gradually and in different ways), and their relation with the empire might also have been formalised at Ravennika, although there is no direct testimony in this respect. It is possible that these arrangements were also the result of an accommodation between Demetrios, the son of Boniface, and the Latin empire in 1208–1209.218 It is likely that the newly-created kingdom of Thessalonike would no longer have received “tribute from Hellas and the Peloponnese”, which according to Choniates had previously been due to Boniface. The principality of Achaïa occupied most of the Peloponnese, eliminating in 1248 or somewhat later the last Byzantine-held territories (see above). Only the twin towns of Coron-Modon in Messenia had been held by Venice since 1207,219 and the Argolis was apparently beyond the control of the princes: Sanudo relates that Othon de la Roche “fu all’acquisto del castel di Coranzo e per esso ebbe Argos e Napoli e 400 lyperi nel commercio di Coranzo; ed è da creder che per questo fossero obbligati al detto principe”.220 The nature of the second accommodation, which is not known from other sources, seems to be that the de la Roche were to receive annually 400 hyperpyra from indirect taxes from the princes. The precise nature of the taxes (import/export, sales, etc.) is thereby not revealed, nor is it implied that 400 hyperpyra are the totality of such taxes farmed in a year at Corinth. With regard to Argos and Nauplio, Kiesewetter has argued that Othon’s efforts during the conquest in 1211/1212 were rewarded with the receipt of these territories, that this did not however imply homage to Achaïa.221 Despite Achaïan attempts in this regard, especially during the crisis over Negroponte (see below), a direct dependence of the rulers of Athens to those of Achaïa did not occur until the very last years of the century, with the exception of the specific cases in Thebes and Corinth.222 217  On whose supposed coinage see Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1228 On the Athenian state in this period, consider in particular Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”, where many of the apparent certainties are re-examined. Compare also Longnon, “Les premiers ducs d’Athènes”. 218  Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1228. 219  On Venetian decision making in this regard, see Nanetti, “Korone e Methone” and Patto con Geoffroy de Villehardouin, p. 14. 220  For the text see Sanudo, p. 105; for comments Longnon, L’empire, p. 115; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 228; Sanudo, p. 224; Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”, p. 304. 221  A  ppendix II.8.B.2, p. 1370. 222  A  ppendix II.9.B, p. 1434.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: POLITICS AND WARFARE

227

4.3 Cyclades (and Crete) The first central Cycladic islands were apparently taken by Venetian families during the first decade of the thirteenth century.223 According to the traditional pattern and chronology Marco I Sanudo left Constantinople with a considerable fleet as early as ca. 1205 in the direction of Naxos, which was followed by another expedition in ca. 1207 in which previous conquests were completed, consolidated, and expanded to neighbouring islands. On this occasion he is said to have acknowledged the suzerainty of the Latin empire. In the same timeframe the Ghisi are said to have assumed control over Mykonos and Tinos, Marino Dandolo over Andros. These entities formed a network of solidarity by virtue of their common Venetian origins and citizenships, their close links to the Venetian colonies in Crete and Negroponte, and their acknowledgement of imperial suzerainty. Nevertheless, they were independent not just from the republic but according to recent thinking also from one another, with the early Sanudi being designated dukes of ‘Naxos’ and only much later of the ‘Aegean’ or the ‘Archipelago’.224 There are significant moments in time when the lords of the various islands failed to maintain their supposed obligations to the republic and empire, for instance in 1212 and 1259, thereby underlining their sense of independence. The most serious re-assessments of the early history of Crete and the Cycladic islands regard the fashion and date in which they were incorporated into the Latin/Venetian orbit: quite apart from the fact that some of the smaller islands did not see Latin involvement until well after the initial conquest period, in contradiction to what writers such as Hopf might have maintained in the past, there are no firm indications, according Saint-Guillain’s assessment, that even the Ghisi or Sanudo acquired any of the central Cycladic islands during the first decade of the thirteenth century. The conquests occurred, accordingly, after 1212 and were intimately linked to the Cretan events. The integration of the Cyclades into the Latin empire would consequently have occurred later, too, some time before 1216. Saint-Guillain concedes, however, that the Cyclades may have been subject to a Latin raid in about 1204/1205. The same author also describes how Crete was gradually carved out by different Venetian interests (including, importantly, Marco 223  In addition to the general bibliography cited in n. 209 above, see particularly for the early years: Fotheringham, Marco Sanudo; Loenertz, “Marino Dandolo”; Loenertz, “Ghisi I” and Ghisi II, esp. pp. 26–30. 224  For recent work on these islands during the conquest period, see: Maltezou, “Mer Égée à l’Archipel”; Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204”; Saint-Guillain: “Seigneuries insulaires”; “Les conquérants de l’archipel”; Saint-Guillain, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète”. See further Moschonas and Panopoulou Ducato dell’Egeo, where one finds a collection of traditional and more innovative expositions of this topic.

228

Chapter 3

Sanudo himself) and only subsequently regularised as a direct colony, the accord of Adrianople of 1204 representing a general arrangement of dependency between Venice and Boniface of Montferrat in Romania which was only later utilised to justify Venetian domination over the island. 4.4 Negroponte (Euboia) The island of Negroponte (Euboia) had after 1204 also been conquered through the initiative of Boniface of Montferrat and given consecutively in fief to Jacques d’Avesnes, three Veronese lords (terzieri), and then to Ravano dalle Carceri (1208–1216).225 Settlements in 1209–1210 placed the island again between the two prevailing powers, the empire and the republic. Ravano became vassal of Venice and gave, similarly to the rulers of Achaïa, cloths to St. Mark’s and the doge, in addition to which he also paid 2,100 gold hyperpyra yearly (in later documents given as a third, i.e. 700, for the individual terzieri). The island capital of Negroponte (Chalkida) remained undivided, but already with the 1209 accord Venice had reserved itself considerable facilities there, and was to be represented on the island by a bailo, first attested in 1216. Overall, the republic had a much greater interest in Negroponte than it had in other places over which it was suzerain, for instance Achaïa. It also had more direct possessions which were consolidated to a proper quarter in the town by 1256, an administrative system, and exercised tighter control and arbitrated over the terzieri which ruled over the three parts of the island after Ravano. 4.5 Constitutional Constellations within Latin Greece Between 1240 and 1248 Emperor Baldwin II ceded the suzerainty over the Cycladic islands and of Negroponte to Prince William II of Villehardouin.226 In this period, William II was also involved in a significant foreign military venture, namely King Louis IX’s crusade in Egypt and Palestine which saw the prince away from Greece between the spring of 1249 and the spring of 1250.227 William’s authority in Negroponte was challenged by the terzieri over the succession in one of the fiefs, which led to a significant military conflict in Attica and Euboia during 1256–1258 between Achaïa on the one hand, Athens and Venice on the other. Throughout the 1250s–1260s there is no indication 225  On the early constitutional history of Negroponte see, for instance, Longnon, L’empire, p. 120; Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”, p. 245; Lock, Franks, pp. 150–151, but particularly Loenertz, “Seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont” and Jacoby, “Consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont”. See further Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”. 226  Appendix II.8.B.1, pp. 1366–1367; Appendix II.9.H, p. 1463. 227  Appendix II.8.B.2, p. 1369.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: POLITICS AND WARFARE

229

of Athens being constitutionally bound to Achaïa,228 and upon the Athenian defeat its lord, Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263), was sent to King Louis IX for arbitration on his actions,229 perhaps because both Guy and William were his vassals in the French context, and because the situation in Constantinople itself was becoming strategically difficult. In July 1261 Emperor Baldwin II finally left the city. While the constitutional position of the Latin Empire towards the different parts of Greece during the period 1204 (or at least 1209/1210)–1261 is clear enough, how this might have translated into working relationships is more difficult to gauge. During 1207–1210 Emperor Henry involved himself directly in the affairs of Latin Thessalonike and its various feudatories in Thessaly, the Mainland, and the Peloponnese. He campaigned in all these areas: in particular, he rallied the various social elements towards the acceptance of the new political constellations in the Eastern Mainland, especially in the important town of Thebes; and he forced the Byzantines in Epiros into nominal submission.230 The outcomes were the various settlements of 1209. Notably, Geoffroy of Villehardouin received the title of ‘seneschal de Romanie’. Thereafter, the empire’s main concerns lay in its relations with Nicaea, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Thessalonike. While Thessaly was soon largely lost (see below), the empire considered Achaïa mainly as a strategic point in its communications with the west, a dynastic ally, and one of its main sources of financial aid, with notable grants in 1231 (when, according to Alberic de Trois-Fontaines, Geoffrey II de Villehardouin assigned an annual subsidy of 22,000 hyperpyra to John of Brienne for the hire of mercenary troops), 1236, 1238, 1243.231 In 1235– 1236 Geoffrey intervened personally in the defence of Constantinople with a substantial force, and again on two further occasions (1238, 1243). 4.6 Epiros, Ionia, Thessaly, and the Nicaean Empire in Greece In 1204 Michael Komnenos Doukas, perhaps one-time governor in the Peloponnese and companion of Boniface of Montferrat, established himself at Arta and soon expanded his fledgling polity, particularly along the

228  Appendix II.9.B, p. 1434. 229  Appendix II.8.A.1, p. 1362. 230  Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 137; Hatzidimitriou, Decline of imperial authority, pp. 182–183. 231  Longnon, L’empire, p. 173; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 149; Lock, Franks, pp. 63 and 89; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 218–222; see also Chapter 1, p. 45 and the earlier discussion in this Chapter 3, p. 221.

230

Chapter 3

Ionian/Adriatic coast,232 although he also sought to secure his interests in the Peloponnese in the years after 1204 as we have seen. This occurred against the direct and indirect interests of Venice. As elsewhere in Greece, the republic sought to create a vassalic dependency for this new state with a treaty in 1210, which similarly to the other cited cases also involved the annual payment of money (42 Venetian pounds), and one gold embroidered silk cloth for St. Mark’s and the doge.233 Prior to this, Michael had already settled with the Latin Emperor Henry (1209). However, these bonds remained purely theoretical, and already shortly after 1210 Venetian Corfu and Durazzo were menaced and then incorporated into Michael’s state, to which he added Latin Thessaly in the course of the same decade. While Zetounion, modern Lamia, became Greek,234 to the south Bondonitsa (modern Mendenitsa near the Thermopylai) remained Latin.235 This severed the land route between Latin Thessalonike and Thebes. The islands of Kephallonia and Zakynthos had been Latin-held since 1185,236 and remained so through the early thirteenth century. Count Maio (Matteo) Orsini recognised Venice’s suzerainty in 1209, and his son of the same name (or even he himself) became a vassal of Prince Geoffrey II of Villehardouin in 1236.237 In Epiros, Michael was succeeded in ca. 1215 by his half-brother Theodore, who conquered Thessalonike in 1224. In 1225 a feeble attempt was made by the Montferrat family, sponsored by Hohenstaufen Sicily, to re-take the city and to re-constitute the kingdom.238 Thereafter, the Thessalonican state was at the height of its power and territorial expanse, and a clear border between Latin and Byzantine territories was established around the Gulf of Corinth.239 In an easterly direction, meanwhile, expansion was severely 232  Preface, p. xvii. For Epirote history in this period, see Nicol, Epiros I; Loenertz, “Origines du despotat d’Épire”; TIB 3, pp. 59–64; Prinzing, “Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung I” and “II”; Hatzidimitriou, Decline of imperial authority, pp. 192–291, and some of the other bibliography referred to below in relation to the administration of this polity: p. 240, n. 291. 233  See Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 44, no. 140. 234  T IB 1, p. 283. 235  Haberstumpf, “Marchesato di Bondonitsa”. 236  Chapter 1, p. 1. 237  See for instance Longnon, L’empire, p. 175; Carile, Impero latino, p. 230; TIB 3, s.v. Kephallenia, Zakynthos; Kolyva-Karaleka, “La penetrazione della repubblica veneta nella contea palatina degli Orsini”; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 149. 238   On this episode see specifically Wellas, Königreich Thessalonike; further Longnon, L’empire, pp. 163–164; Bredenkamp, Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike, pp. 104–105 and Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1238. 239  On the empire in general see Bredenkamp, Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike; specifically on the new border, see pp. 120–121. On the ecclesiastical component, Prinzing, “Quasi patriarch in the state of Epiros”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: POLITICS AND WARFARE

231

curbed by a heavy defeat at the hands of the Bulgarians (1230). Theodore’s brother Manuel had already been created despot sometime beforehand and he remained outright ruler of Thessalonike during the period of Theodore’s Bulgarian captivity (1230–1237). At the latter’s return to the city, and during the rule there of two of his sons, Manuel established himself in more westerly territories, where he was in direct conflict with an illegitimate son of Michael Komnenos Doukas, Michael II. The second Michael was active in Epiros from the early 1230s, from where he managed to expand his authority over Corfu and Thessaly against Manuel (†1241), and in more southerly direction against another uncle, Constantine, who died approximately at the same time.240 In the 1230s and 1240s, therefore, Epirote and Thessalonican politics were increasingly disengaged from southern Greece, becoming intermittently internalised or orientated towards the southern Balkans. At the same time Nicaea gained in relevance for territories of concern to us, since it was not merely active in the north, but also in the Aegean islands (the troops of John III Vatatzes and William II of Villehardouin confronted each other directly at Rhodes in 1249), while perhaps increasing its influence also in the Byzantine Peloponnese.241 John III also entered an alliance with Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1244). Two years later he took Thessalonike,242 and Michael II of Epiros was forced to submit to him in 1249.243 The ascendancy of Nicaea might well have induced William II to conquer the remainder of the Peloponnese (see above). In the following decade western Macedonia and northern Epiros were threatened not merely by Nicaean but also by Hohenstaufen troops, which required Michael to find new solutions and alliances. In the case of Manfred of Hohenstaufen, bastard son of Frederik II, who first took possession of territories in the islands and coastline of Ionia in 1257, the matter was handled pragmatically and he was offered Michael’s daughter Helen in marriage (June 1259).244 A year previously William II, the most powerful ruler of Greece after his victories in the Peloponnese and the Mainland, had married another daughter of Michael’s, Anna/Agnes. These alliances within Greece and the parallel westward expansion of the Nicaean empire under 240  Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243. 241  On the Nicaean empire in general: Angold, Byzantine government in exile; on the expansion into the Aegean: Savvides, Βυζαντινά στασιαστικά και αυτονομιστικά κινήματα and “Rhodes from the end of the Gabalas rule”; on Nicaea’s role in the Peloponnese: Kordosis, “Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας”, pp. 150–155; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 138–139. See also the discussion for «464. Samos 1932» and Appendix II.6.D, pp. 1346–1347. 242  Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1239. 243  Preface, p. xvi; Appendix II.1.B.7, p. 1241. 244  Appendix II.7, p. 1353.

232

Chapter 3

the new Palaiologan dynasty brought matters to a head and led to the battle of Pelagonia in July 1259, which significantly shifted the balance of power in the entire region towards Nicaea. In its wake, Greece was directly threatened by the armies of John Palaiologos moving southwards from Macedonia. Arta and Ioannina were conquered, and after 1261 the re-established empire also sought to make its claims felt in the Aegean islands.245 The Lakonian strongholds of Monemvasia and Sparta/Mystras were ceded to the empire in 1261, upon which William II returned to the Peloponnese from Byzantine captivity. 4.7 Venetian Proto-Colonial Networks For Venice the loss of Constantinople in 1261 was also a severe blow. Recent scholarship, particularly by David Jacoby, has re-evaluated the political and economic benefit which the republic had reaped from its position in the city.246 The second important Venetian theatre of action was Crete, where during the first half of the thirteenth century a duchy was established, which controlled the island militarily, and fostered permanent settlement and direct exploitation of the (landed) resources.247 During the period 1204–1260s the Venetian approach to different parts of Greece – we have seen references to Epiros, the Peloponnese, the Mainland and the islands – was variegated and above all pragmatic. The territories over which suzerainty was established afforded above all custom-free trading and other practical provisions, while allied political entities were held to maintain a secure, stable, and generally favourable environment.248 Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the attempts made by Venice herself, or after their establishments by the representatives in Constantinople, Negroponte, and Crete (podestà, bailo, and duke respectively), to maintain a diplomatic unity for Venetian Romania in its different guises, to establish structures wherever required, and to provide military assistance.249 245  See the comment for «58. Naxos ca. 1969». Compare further Angold, “Michael VIII Palaiologos and the Aegean”, p. 31. 246   See the following works by Jacoby: “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople”; “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople”; “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece”; “Venetian quarter of Constantinople”; “Economy of the Latin Empire of Constantinople”; “Venetian government and administration in Latin Constantinople”. 247  For the character of this colony, see for instance Lock, Franks, pp. 151–154, and especially Jacoby, “Colonisation militaire vénitienne de la Crète”. On the early history of Latin Crete see also above and the new interpretations of Saint-Guillain. 248  And as such the situation was not dissimilar to that of the twelfth century: Chapter 1, pp. 3–4. 249  For a vivid picture of the early Venetian proto-colonial structures, see also Dennis, “I rapporti tra Venezia, i suoi domini diretti e le signorie feudali nelle isole greche”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: POLITICS AND WARFARE

233

This was the case during the early conquest period especially in the face of uncertainties surrounding rights and possessions of the different parties,250 and of Genoese ambitions.251 Towards mid-century Nicaea/Byzantium was again on the ascendancy and counter offensives were launched from Negroponte and Crete respectively, and the republic sought again more direct involvement with the threatened island polities of the Aegean.252 It is also clear that the territories which came under Venetian control constituted a strategic network which secured maritime access to and through the Aegean and to the Levant, “An empire of naval bases” according to Frederic Lane.253 Kythira, controlled directly under particular circumstances after 1236/1238 from Crete, was an important addition to this maritime Venetian network.254 This area of influence was above all dominated by sea, and was increasingly convoyed by the state.255 Latin Empire, Achaïa, and Byzantium, 1259–1267 4.8 The events of 1259–1261 altered the geo-strategic orientation of the principality of Achaïa, away from the Corinthia-Lakonia axis westwards, a likely outcome of which would also have been the foundation of the town of Clarentza at the extreme western point of the peninsula.256 Subsequent events amplified this tendency: from its Lakonian base Byzantium began to threaten what remained of Latin Morea, but the situation became more stable in 1264.257 The principality faced the possibility of a female succession and the problem of owing its allegiance to the Latin empire, which de facto had ceased to exist. This, in addition to the demise of the Hohenstaufen dynasty in the kingdom of Sicily and the ascendancy there of Charles of Anjou, provide the context for the 250  The treaty of Adrianople in 1204 being an important milestone in this regard: Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 21; Saint-Guillain, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète”. 251  Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 38–40. 252  Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204”, p. 257; Balard, Latins en Orient, p. 231. 253  Lane, Venice. A Maritime Republic, p. 42ff. 254  Koumanoudi, “First Venetian lords of Kythera”, with reference to the pertinent bibliography by Maltezou. On the routes and the importance of this island, see also Lane, Venice. A Maritime Republic, p. 39, map 4. 255  Luzzatto “Navigazione di linea e navigazione libera”; Buenger Robbert, “Venice and the crusades”, pp. 448–449. On the technicalities of these convoys, see Lane, “Fleets and Fairs”. For some technical matters regarding shipping, see above, pp. 199–200. 256  Appendix II.8.B.3, p. 1373. On this town see especially Tzavara, Clarentza; on its dating (in the 1260s) see in the latest instance Jacoby, “Medieval portolan”, p. 73; on this part of the peninsula under Latin rule, see particularly Athanasoulis, “The triangle of power”. 257  On these military events, see the latest bibliography by Wilskman (“The battle of Prinitsa in 1263”; “Campaigns on the Peloponnese in 1264”).

234

Chapter 3

two treaties of Viterbo in the spring of 1267, the outcomes of which were Charles’ suzerainty over Latin Romania and an Angevin succession in Achaïa upon the death of William, which was to occur in 1278, and in general terms the establishment of close ties between the Greek and Italian peninsulas.258 According to some of the typical assessments one finds in the secondary literature, Greece, and particularly the Peloponnese, was at the highpoint of its historical developments under the Villehardouin dynasty, and more precisely in the first years of the 1250s, when William II was already suzerain over much of Latin Romania, had just completed the conquest of the peninsula, and aided King Louis IX on crusade, but before the damaging military events on the Greek Mainland and in Macedonia in the second half of the decade.259 5 1200–1259/1268: Socio-Economic Trends The wide-reaching political and constitutional changes in the period after 1204 obviously affected the governance, administration, and social and hierarchical structuring of Greece.260

258  On these treaties see, in addition to the general bibliography which has already been cited, Longnon, “Le rattachement” and Longnon, “Traité de Viterbe”. The literature is also assembled in Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 209, n. 14. 259  For such assessments, see for instance Bon, Morée franque, p. 75: “De 1210 à 1255, la principauté  … connaît une période de calme et de prospérité  … alors que des aventures et des revers compromettent après 1255 la situation …” Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”, p. 245; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, p. 33; Lock, Franks, pp. 8 and 41; Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας, p. 29; Balard, Latins en Orient, p. 222. It has, however, also been noted that during the 1230s, thanks largely to the fact that Balkan politics engaged most of the other powers, there had already been a short period of respite for the principality: Longnon, L’empire, p. 176: “L’histoire de la Morée sous Geoffroy II est celle d’un peuple heureux”. 260  From the bibliography already referred to in n.  209 above, see for instance Longnon, L’empire, pp. 187–216; Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”; Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, pp. 85–132; Bon, Morée franque, pp. 83–89 and 102–115; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 34–42; 141–239; Lock, Franks, pp. 161–192; Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας, pp. 67–148; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 222–225. Consider also Carile, Impero latino, pp. 239–262; Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée” (even if primarily concerned with the post-1267 situation); Hiestand, “Nova Francia – nova Graecia”, and the following contributions to the recent Tsougarakis and Lock, Companion to Latin Greece: Gasparis, “Land and landowners in the Greek territories under Latin dominion”; Papadia-Lala, “Society, administration and identities in Latin Greece”; Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”; and to Gerstel, Viewing the Morea: Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy”. Specific contributions to the matters of rural society are cited n. 295

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

235

General Trends: Economic Policies and Governance, Hierarchies and Law The established polities would have had economic policies, if only in line with the simple system of household government which many of their leaders were accustomed to.261 Most of the former were during the initial years of the century, sometimes merely theoretically, in varying ways integrated into the twin structures of the Latin empire and the Venetian republic, organised according to a strict feudal system in which oath, and military and financial obligations, were central.262 Some polities were governed from their respective courts/ proto-capital territories, principally Arta for Epiros, Athens (later Thebes), and what has recently been termed the ‘triangle of power’ for the principality of Achaïa.263 The courts that came to rule Greece, with the exception of certain territories administered differently such as the Venetian colonies, took their lead from the western and also the Constantinopolitan traditions. In the latter case, as we have seen, the court was central to the attribution of wealth and privileges,264 and also accommodated sporadic acts of largesse which were designed to placate larger parts of the population: these are also documented in our region, so when in the early years of the fifteenth century Charles I of Tocco established himself in his Ioannina palace he distributed ducats and florins and cloths.265 Medieval Greek feudal society was more hierarchically ordered than earlier or contemporary Byzantium. For instance the princes of Achaïa, as vassals of the empire and Venice, were in turn suzerains over their feudatories, and there was a clear hierarchical order of lordships based on the number of fiefs they contained, and the kind of homage they made to the prince. At the same time this society was given a clear legal framework through what is referred to as the ‘Assizes of Romania’ or the ‘Libro dele Uxanze’, a collection of laws which evolved in the course of the thirteenth century, and was codified in French 5.1

below. Ortega, Lignages nobiliaires dans la Morée latine represents an exhaustive treatment of Moreote feudal society. 261  For the experience of a similar state and society, see Grivaud, “Peut-on parler d’une politique économique des Lusignan?”. See also Lock, Franks, pp. 184–189. The work of the most prolific medieval economic thinker in relation to our area, George Gemistos Plethon, needs to be viewed in the early fifteenth-century context: pp. 385–386. 262  Hendrickx, “Contrat féodal”; Van Tricht, Empire of Constantinople, p. 183. 263  Athanasoulis, “The triangle of power”. This said, the chronological profile and importance of this western area of Elis is not entirely clear for the period before the 1260s and the foundation of Clarentza. 264  Chapter 1, pp. 1–2, 26 and 41. 265  Maksimović, “Despotenhof von Epiros”, esp. p. 99. See also below, p. 373.

236

Chapter 3

in the 1330s or 1340s,266 although all surviving manuscripts are more recent Italian translations necessitated by the establishment of the later medieval Venetian empire in formerly Frankish territories.267 These laid down the relationships between lords, liegemen, and other vassals, between landholders and villeins, and the handling of baronies and other fiefs. Judicial and political powers in the feudal system were exercised by different assemblies, for Achaïa the twelve high barons (liegemen) in the first case, the parliament of vassals, into which bourgeois elements might be integrated, in the second. Certain decisions regarding the attributions and exploitation of fiefs and the villeins attached to them were taken by the prince on his own, others through counsel. The prince was also the military leader and the military service owed to him was systematically laid out according to the numbers of fiefs that were held (in terms of footsoldiers, knights and their sergeants), and its fulfilment taken very seriously in this society in which the element of conquest was constantly emphasised. In addition to feudal law, territoriality provided another strong framework for the entities and their divisions, for instance the rulers and their polities (of ‘Achaïa’/‘Morea’, of ‘Athens’, etc.), and each lordship, were identified with a territory. In the Byzantine system the main defining factor of a pronoia remained always its revenue. In Latin areas so-called money fiefs are also occasionally documented from the thirteenth century onwards, and more so later, that is to say the receipt of a simple payment (rent) from a lord to a vassal, usually in exchange for (military) services.268 Officials and administrators of different ranks and different levels of importance were also at hand, and again this is best documented in the case of Achaïa thanks to the Chronicle of Morea:269 the high constable (‘connestable’) undertook formal, often symbolic, functions in the exercise of power; the marshal (‘marechal’) represented the prince militarily. The chancellor (‘chancelier’ or ‘logothetès’) was most closely associated with the daily 266  In addition to the cited bibliography see specifically: Topping, “The formation of the Assizes of Romania”; Topping, Feudal institutions as revealed in the Assizes of Romania; Longnon, “Les Assises de Romanie” (= review of the previous two items); Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce (particularly important for the application of the law code and its constitutional context); Parmeggiani, Libro dele Uxanze (on the manuscript tradition, and particularly useful for the edition and index). 267  Jacoby, “Les ‘Assizes de Romanie’ et le droit vénitien”. 268  For examples, see Leduc, “13th-century Euboea”. 269  See also Parmeggiani, “Funzioni amministrative del principato di Acaia”. On the redaction of the Chronicle, at the heart of the Moreote political establishment and drawing on documents of an official nature, see Shawcross, Chronicle of Morea, pp. 47–49. On the usage of Greek and Latin to designate ranks and technical terms relating to the land regime: Hiestand, “Nova Francia – nova Graecia”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

237

functions of the prince; the chamberlain (‘protoficier’ or ‘protovestiarios’) was in charge of the household in the widest sense, that is to say the administration of the domains and their produce; the treasurer (‘thesaurier’) took stock of the monies that flowed in and out of the princely coffers. The princely domains themselves, the territories and castles, were administered by captains and castellans. 5.2 Feudal Structures While the princes held significant domains directly – in the case of Achaïa in some of the most favoured areas of the peninsula such as Corinthia, Elis, and Messenia, estimated at a quarter of all land –, the remainder of the territory and its resources were in the Latin tradition devolved – even if central authority retained ultimate control –, with rights to justice, rent and direct taxation, and other privileges such as the right to mint coins, being ceded in exchange for services (mostly military), or money in their lieu. The end of the first decade of the thirteenth century was fundamental in the establishment of the feudal – and related ecclesiastical – organisation of the Morea, as it had been for the Latin political ordering in Greece in general.270 Precise judicial competences and all other privileges, and in return the extent of the obligations, depended on the status and the kind of homage that was made, and on the different categories of fiefs (for instance ‘conquest’, ‘new’, ‘casaux de parçon’ and other jointly held villages and territories). The twelve high barons, who held baronies of between four and 24 fiefs, were in some respects on a par with the princes. In the context of this highly militarised society, only they had the right to build castles according to the information provided by the Assizes, something which would have been a very major area of expenditure.271 In terms of feudal hierarchy, we find next fiefs held by ecclesiastical landlords and by the military orders,272 followed by those of simple homage. It has been estimated that the princes of Achaïa held some 200 knightly fiefs, the high barons again this many. Altogether, there may have been 1,000 fiefs in Frankish Greece, and 500–600 vassals.273 Relations between lay and ecclesiastical landlords were at times conflictual, often the result of the pre-conquest 270  See for instance Coureas, “The establishment of the Latin secular church at Patras” and Houben, “Wie und wann kam der Deutsche Orden nach Griechenland?”. 271  See Lock, Franks, pp. 75–80, on the extent and chronology of castle building. 272  The recent specialist literature includes notably Opsahl, Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights in the Morea, and Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine teutonico”. For more bibliography, see p. 76, n. 15 in Kiesewetter. 273  Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”, p. 248; Jacoby, “Social Evolution”, p. 196; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 211.

238

Chapter 3

church and monastic possessions which variously the Latin church and temporal lords saw themselves heirs to. The rights to particular properties were guarded well and transferred meticulously, and the Assizes were accepted by all parties.274 Regarding this particular Latin system of exchange of resources and services, a number of additional pieces of information from the sources are relevant for the writing of a monetary history. According to Robert of Clari upon the partition of the empire in 1204, a fief was evaluated at 300 pounds of Anjou.275 One may assume that these pounds are what we term pounds tournois,276 that is to say 240*300=73,000 tournois. The oft-cited value of a fief of ca. 1,000 hyperpyra was established by Longnon with reference to a document of 1269.277 We know neither the precise identity of the tournois which were presumably at the base of Robert’s pound, nor the specification of the 1269 hyperpyron or its relation to tournois. However, 73,000 tournois (of account) would in a slightly later period have been the equivalent of 912 hyperpyra of the Peloponnese or 730 hyperpyra of the Greek Mainland.278 We are unsure how the late abbatial or early royal tournois279 of the time of the Fourth Crusade may have related to the hyperpyra of the time. The latter would in themselves have been more valuable then than in later times. Nevertheless, the fact that these figures are of the same order of magnitude establishes the general veracity of these two pieces of information. In later Angevin acts 20 gold ounces of the Regno is the sum required for a vassal to buy himself out of the usual services that he owes.280 This establishes, at rates from the 1330s, 320 Peloponnesian hyperpyra.281 This may not actually represent the full value of a fief at the time. It is clear that the incomes from fiefs and larger units were quite readily calculated and could therefore be conveniently transferred to somebody else willing to pay the right yearly sum, provided that such an arrangement was 274  Saradi, “Acts of private transactions”, p. 196; Papadia-Lala, Θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων, p. 26. 275  See for instance Longnon, L’empire, p. 64; Lock, Franks, p. 47. 276  Compare in general, Appendix III.3, p. 1528. 277  See for instance Carile, “Sulla pronoia nel Peloponneso bizantino”, p. 59, n. 23, with reference to Longnon, “La vie rurale dans la Grèce franque”, p. 346, n. 20. See further Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce, pp. 60 and 192; Jacoby, “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople”, p. 189; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 205. 278  A  ppendix III.3, pp. 1525–1526. 279  A  ppendix II.3.A–B, pp. 1285–1289. 280   Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας, p. 100; Gasparis, “Land and landowners in the Greek territories under Latin dominion”, p. 106. 281  Appendix III.3, p. 1540. See further Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale, p. 357, on the values of some fourteenth-century fiefs.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

239

acceptable to the relevant authority. From the countless instances in which this occurred one may cite, for instance that, according to the account of Marino Sanudo, Duke Marco II Sanudo finally agreed in 1289 to pay Nicholas Querini 5,000 pounds of grossi over five years for control over half of the island of Andros which the latter had, rather dubiously, claimed282 (= 5,000*240 grossi / 12 = 10,000 hyperpyra of Crete, common in the Cyclades,283 by all accounts a surprisingly high sum); or that in the second half of the thirteenth century the barony of Patra was sold for 16,000 hyperpyra of Morea.284 After 1204 the feudal legal and social system was rigorously applied to all parts of Latin Greece, including evidently the Cycladic islands, whose geography and demography were particularly difficult, and whose early history is particularly obscure, as we have seen in this chapter.285 Byzantine Tradition in Epiros, Thessaly, and Lakonia 5.3 In our region, Achaïa is the most obvious and best documented polity of a western feudal character, while in the Byzantine entities in Epiros (later in Thessaly) and the Peloponnese the imperial tradition continued. Here ultimate control of jurisdiction and taxation was maintained, although both could be ceded to privates, together with control over the nominally free paroikoi.286 In fact there is enough evidence from the chanceries of church dignitaries to suggest that the pronoia was present in the Epirote state already in the first half of the thirteenth century.287 By contrast, the relative wealth of ecclesiastical landholding and exploitation may have been quite modest,288 but in some cases metropolitan fiscal privileges were in place,289 and the tradition of great monastic landholders in medieval Epiros and Thessaly was only

282  On the episode see Sanudo, pp. 117–119. Compare Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce, p. 280 and Saint-Guillain, “Andros et Lemnos au 13e siècle”, p. 585. Compare also above, p. 221. 283  Appendix III.5, pp. 1567–1568. 284  Gerland, Neue Quellen p. 16; Saradi, “Patras”, p. 220. Compare Appendix III.3, p. 1527. 285  See for instance Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204”, p. 259ff, and on the social structures in Cycladic islands; also Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires”. 286  See Chapter 1, pp. 27–29, and the discussion below on the land regime. 287  Bartusis, Pronoia, pp. 228–240. On the social structures see also Hatzidimitriou, Decline of imperial authority, pp. 192–291. 288  Hendy, Studies, p. 240: the revenue of the whole see of Naupaktos was only 180 hyperpyra in the second decade of the thirteenth century according to Apokaukos. See further Angold, Church and society, p. 219, on the controversy surrounding the revelation of this information. It is possible that the metropolitan deliberately deflated the real figure. 289  Angold, Church and society, pp. 232–239, for the Corfiot situation under Bardanas, an apparent renewal of twelfth-century privileges.

240

Chapter 3

gradually established from the later thirteenth century onwards.290 The political and administrative system of the Epirote polity was therefore firmly built on the Byzantine imperial tradition:291 much of the landed wealth, one imagines more so than even in the previous middle Byzantine period, would have been held by the ruling dynasty as a result of the particular process of state formation, built on conquests and strategic dynastic policies, which were especially vigorous and extensive under Michael Komnenos Doukas and his half-brother Theodore. The European conquests of John Vatatzes and later the Palaiologoi further reinforced the position of the state as a major landholder. This newly emerging polity might still have had a rather slender central administrative structure, with some powers, including fiscal, devolved to the themes and their heads. The island of Corfu and its urban community resident in the ‘kastron’ seem to have enjoyed a privileged position.292 Conditions in Byzantine Lakonia to 1246, and then again after 1262, were quite different: as we have seen, imperial control, whether from Epiros/Thessalonike or Nicaea, was at best nominal and the driving forces in the area’s administrative and economic developments may well have been the three archontic families (Mamonas, Eudaimonoiannes, Sophianos) who negotiated with Prince William of Villehardouin over their property rights, and perhaps some others who departed for Pegai in Asia Minor upon the Latin conquest of Lakonia.293 Evidently, these landholders used the port of Monemvasia (see also below) to export the agricultural produce of the region, substantially olive oil and wine. Constitutional and Administrative Character of the Venetian Network Venice and its local representatives in Romania, especially the podestà in Constantinople, maintained a network which was woven together and administered in different ways, including indirect or joint suzerainty with the Latin empire, direct control over certain territories, which were also exploited along

5.4

290  Generally: Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères. Hatzidimitriou, Decline of imperial authority, p. 273, for some monastic privileges given by Michael II. 291  On these questions, see substantially the contributions by Prinzing (“Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung I” and “II”; “Das Kaisertum im Staat von Epeiros”; “Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Umbruch”) and Savridou-Zaphraka (“Aξίωμα του ‘δεσπότη’” and “Political ideology of the State of Epiros”). On the administration of thirteenth-century Byzantine Thessaly, see Magdalino, “Between Romaniae”, pp. 95–97. 292  Lemerle, “Trois actes du despote d’Epire Michel II”. 293  Kalliga, Monemvasia II, pp. 26–30; Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy”, pp. 239 and 253.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

241

traditional lines,294 and urban communities which entertained their own relationship with Venice and benefitted from their own systems of decision making and administration. Many non-Venetians were integrated into Venetian domains in Romania, while individual Venetians could be variously feudatories of the podestà and emperor in Constantinople for certain Romaniot territories, and concurrently citizens of the republic. A complex system of allegiances and obligations was therefore in place. Many Venetian administrative ventures serviced seaborne economic activities. This means that in the case of the Venetian network a much less direct relationship of financial investment and reward was in place than, for instance, for Byzantine Epiros or the Latin Peloponnese. 5.5 Holding and Exploitation of Land With regard to landholding (whether in ownership or more often in fief/pronoia), and the exploitation of landed resources, whichever area of thirteenthcentury Greece we look at, each with their diverse political traditions, laws and governance, one will find similar structures in place.295 One of the main debates has regarded the equivalence, or not, of the Byzantine pronoia and the western fief, and the legal status respectively of the paroikoi and their 294  On the experience of Venice as feudal landlord in early Romania, see for instance Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, pp. 107–132; Jacoby, “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople”. 295  Much of the bibliography cited on p. 234, n. 260 is relevant also here, for instance Lock, Franks, pp. 245–309. This section on the land regime draws particularly on the work of Peter Topping and David Jacoby: see the specific bibliography relating to the Assizes (p.  236, n.  266) and the following: Topping: “The Co-existence of Greeks and Latins”; Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie gréco-franque en Morée”, “Les archontes grecs et la féodalité en Morée franque”, “Encounter”, “Les états latins en Romanie: phénomènes sociaux et économiques”, “From Byzantium to Romania”, “Social Evolution”;, “Changing Economic Patterns”, “Greek peasantry”, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, “Peasant mobility”. See further Longnon, “La vie rurale dans la Grèce franque” and Carile, “Sulla pronoia nel Peloponneso bizantino”. The remainder of Antonio Carile’s work on the land regime concerns later periods and will be considered below. Michael Kordoses has devoted himself more specifically to the conquest and the relationship of Greeks and Latins in the legal and social sphere: Kordosis, Southern Greece under the Franks, pp. 25–57; “Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας”, pp. 156–160; 165–169. See also Hatzidimitriou, Decline of imperial authority. Additionally, Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, deals mostly with Byzantine areas in the northern and eastern Aegean, though touches also upon Latin and Byzantine Greece. Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, Petrescu, “Vie rurale en Morée”, Sakellariou, “Latin Morea”, deal also mostly with the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but make some points which are relevant to the anterior period.

242

Chapter 3

equivalents in the Latin-held areas, the villeins or villani.296 The views of David Jacoby which have evolved and crystallised in the course of his many expositions, emphasizing the differences between the two systems, have come to the fore. He also denies more vehemently than other writers the existence of the pronoia in the Byzantine Peloponnese before 1204. With the mass of the population in Latin-held territories being turned into a fully dependent peasantry, with generally increased fiscal burdens resulting from the standardisation of direct taxes and obligations which had largely been imposed since Byzantine times, and their archons participating in the new feudal structures only on a lower level, as non-aristocratic lords of simple homage, initially without military obligations, post-conquest society looks, according this strand of interpretation, divisive and a raw deal for the indigenous Greeks. The fate of the villeins seems particularly harsh, with a rigorous subjection to land and lord. This picture needs to be balanced by a number of considerations. In territories that passed to Venetian denomination a half-way situation existed, where villeins prevailed, but where control over them and their taxation and jurisdiction remained state prerogatives. There – one may cite the case of Corfu in 1207 – social changes could be much less far reaching than in Frankish Morea, with all previous structures of landholding and fiscality being simply confirmed once the feudal superstructure had been latinised.297 However, even the Venetians in their early possessions could suppress the rural population particularly harshly when confronted with revolt or Genoese rivalries.298 In certain Latin areas, the archons, previously far away from central power and presiding over an unstable provincial political situation towards the end of the twelfth century, had actually welcomed Frankish conquest.299 Regarding the peasantry, the legal differences between paroikos and villeins often had very marginal practical repercussions. The new superstructures often left the traditional village unit intact, with its social network and collective 296  Compare this to Chapter 1, pp.  27–29. See also the overviews on this debate provided by Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 34–41, Kazhdan, “State, feudal and private economy in Byzantium”, pp. 90–91, Maniati-Kokkini, “‘Χρονικό του Μορέος’ και η βυζαντινή πρόνοια”, Bartusis, Pronoia, pp. 287–288. 297  Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation”, p. 96; Gasparis, “Land and landowners in the Greek territories under Latin dominion”, pp. 75–76. Regarding possible continuity in the Athenian territories, consider the praktikon which was perhaps drawn up for a pious foundation before the Latin conquest and the fact that it was copied in the thirteenth century: Grandstrem et al., “Praktikon de la région d’Athènes”. 298  Maltezou, “Greci tra Veneziani e Genovesi”. 299  See Chapter 1, pp. 7–8 on the collapse of provincial Byzantine society in the late twelfth century.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

243

responsibilities.300 Greek archons and villeins alike were all able to enjoy the relative stability and increasing prosperity of the thirteenth century, and the new organisational vigour of a market-orientated agricultural system.301 Yet, as we shall see, many technological innovations had to await another century or so. Social fluidity seems to have increased marginally in the course of the thirteenth century. The cultural outlook of these groupings and their level of identification with the system, obviously a product of the legal and economic conditions, are particularly difficult to pinpoint and have been the subject of much of the literature.302 Much as the late Byzantine areas of Macedonia and Thrace, medieval Greece was increasingly dominated by large estates, which were divided into the landholders’ demesne lands and smaller peasant holdings, the former being farmed by the same peasants, either through the labour which they owed (corvée or angaria) or as hired hands. In Latin Greece there was a tendency to replace services and gifts owed by peasants with cash payments. At ca. five hyperpyra, the labour service was large, and could make up a substantial proportion of a lord’s income, in addition to the basic land tax (demosion), and the hearthtax charged on the peasant holding (kapnikon), in the Latin sources ‘acrosticum’ and ‘capinicum’ respectively.303 The latter might be applied as a considerable flat rate, levied for instance in early fifteenth-century Euboea at 50 soldi or two hyperpyra.304 It is not always clear which was more favourable to the landlord, making use of the labour service or commuting it into a cash payment and hiring labourers. The latter could evidently be paid in a combination of cash and kind. There is evidence that in the thirteenth century there was a surplus and ready availability in the rural workforce, certainly more so than in the fourteenth. The basic land tax might also not always be rendered in cash but in kind, for instance wax or eggs. The main administrative and fiscal unit was the peasant household or ‘stasis’, consisting of land, people, and other assets, to which the land taxes and personal taxes and dues were applied. Other landed resources, as we have seen, were exploited directly by landlords, and there were additionally 300  See Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 318. 301  Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, pp. 225 and 228. 302  See also the Preface, pp.  xiv–xv, and Jacoby’s review of Shawcross, Chronicle of Morea in BZ, 104/2 (2011), pp. 780–783, which reiterates some of his views on the Chronicle already expressed in previous writings. 303  C  hapter 1, p. 21. 304  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 174. On the accounting system, see Appendix III.3, pp. 1549–1553. The hyperpyron of Negroponte was valued at 25 soldi/sterlings, or 100 torneselli/tournois.

244

Chapter 3

various mixed forms in the case of vineyards, olives or other trees, in which shares were taken by lords and villeins. The interests of the landlord amongst the villeins could be ensured by paid members of the latter (‘curators’), who in turn represented the villeins, often financially/fiscally. Likewise village elders performed certain functions, again with financial incentives. The relation of fiefholder/pronoiar and villein/paroikos also became quite complex in other ways in the course of the thirteenth century. For instance, certain processing facilities (mills, presses, etc.) were owned by the former and used by the latter upon payment of money. The landholders were also central to the commercialisation of agricultural produce, and again a system of reliance and exchange of goods and cash was in place, which worked no doubt mostly in their favour. In some contexts, for example the island of Euboea, non-landholding urban Latin middle-men also played a role in the distribution of agricultural produce. The key importance of villeins’ rights and obligations to the entire social and economic ordering can be gleaned from the many stipulations in their respects in the Assizes. These also lay down their economic activities, and limit their right to buy and sell agricultural produce and livestock, to marry off their offspring, or to take up loans, lest they alienate assets pertaining to the stasis or jeopardise their ability to fulfil their obligations. Treasure trove worked in the favour of the landholder and the prince. Even the administration of justice, which lords of different categories enjoyed within the lands they held, was financially profitable. 5.6 Middling or Marginal Social Classes Between the prince and the feudatories/archontes/pronoiars, and the (dependent) peasantry, there were some particularly ill-defined and elusive groups of persons whose position in feudal society was more marginal and who were for this reason seldom considered in our main sources such as the Chronicle of Morea or the Assizes.305 These could be for instance independent landowners, the existence of whom is controversial. They might also be urban dwellers, in professional/administrative, artisanal, or commercial pursuits. Some of these people were distinctly non-noble,306 on other occasions noble persons may have combined certain urban occupations with an otherwise feudal economic 305  Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce, p. 31. Jacoby, “Inconnus du fisc, éleuthères ou étrangers”: most persons characterised according to these terms, depending to some extent on whether they were in Byzantine, Venetian, or Frankish parts of Greece, enjoyed no greater privileges than dependent peasants, if anything their existence was even more wretched (see also Chapter 1, p. 28), although there are exceptions. 306  See for instance: Jacoby, “Greek peasantry”, p. 251; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 142 (Negroponte).

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

245

existence. There are also cases for instance of Latin vassals holding additionally some ‘bourgeois’ lands,307 or of Greek archons holding certain lands nonfeudally and according to the Byzantine tradition, in addition to others in fief. 5.7 Trade and Production: the Byzantine Context Commerce held an important place in the socio-economic ordering, whether in Greece or Byzantine and formerly Byzantine areas. We have seen Greek raw products, notably wine, wheat, oil, cheese, raisins, honey and wax, in addition to wool and raw silk, sent westwards and also in other directions, already in the middle Byzantine period. Likewise, there was export-orientated manufacturing.308 Byzantine commerce after 1200, the roles of the state and of foreign and indigenous merchants, products and manufacture, and the balance of payments, have all been extensively discussed.309 These are to some extent controversial topics. In general one may want to agree on a few fundamentals for the early parts of the thirteenth century: a combined emphasis on raw and manufactured goods and a general increase in the volume of trade, both regionally and internationally, resulting from demographic expansion and the fledgling commercial revolution.310 Nevertheless, this period has been termed ‘lost’ by Laiou, in the sense that developments were far from linear in all Byzantine and formerly Byzantine areas, but are generally difficult to pinpoint for lack of information.311 Also the relative importance of Constantinople during the period 1204–1261 as a commercial hub is far from clear. The most recent bibliography proposes a compromise: while acknowledging the relative decline in the city’s population and purchasing power, and in its legal and logistical position, it still underlines its economic and demographic importance for Latin Romania.312 5.8 Trade and Production: Latin Greece In Greece, especially feudal Greece, the new political and social realities after 1204 heightened an emphasis on commerce: the new elites, French or Italian 307  For bourgeois lands held by a person of bourgeois status, see Perrat and Prawer, “Une ‘tenure en bourgeoisie’ de Morée au XIIIe siècle”, with reference to an Angevin act from the later thirteenth century confirming an earlier tenure. 308  On both of these accounts, see Chapter 1, pp. 3–5. 309  Chapter 1, pp. 34–38. 310  On these topics, see for example Chapter 1, pp. 30–32 and 58–60, as well as the current chapter pp. 187–195. 311  Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview”, pp. 1156–1158. 312  See here above, n. 246.

246

Chapter 3

feudatories and even Greek archons, pursued an urban style of life,313 and the land regime was very purposefully set up for commercialisation, with the same landholders holding key positions in the processing and dissemination of rural produce. The system of direct taxation and tribute which underpinned the entire social order relied on sale, and eventual export.314 According to the interpretations put forward strongly and consistently in the many writings of David Jacoby, what might be termed the feudal and capitalist sections of the Greek economy and society after 1204 formed parts of one and the same system. This was very obviously one oiled by cash, as will be further underlined in the next discussion. It was also a system which was essentially dominated by Latins, whose involvement in Greece was primarily of economic motivation, and who had all the incentives to exploit their privileged political, social, and legal positions. The new market-led structures in place affected very strongly our territory, for instance its settlement and communication, while being at the same time conditioned by the technological and organisational parameters of international trade. The early thirteenth century in Greece is accordingly characterised by an increasing volume of trade, by the shifting of emphasis towards certain products (for instance acorn cups – ‘valania’, and kermes – ‘grana’, both used for dyeing, or samit, used in church furnishings), and by a general maintenance of traditional manufactured products (especially silks; for other products one relies on the material record: see below). The silk industry is 313  On the demographics and urbanisation of Greece, see here above pp. 187–196. 314  On commerce in thirteenth-century Greece, one may consult the general works on Greek society already cited earlier on in the present discussion, and on late Byzantine trade referred to on p. 35, n. 187. However, much like the classic works of Heyd and Thiriet, the bibliography treating the late medieval period often has little to say precisely about Greek commercial life in the early decades after 1204. Hrochová, “Commerce vénitien”, is an ambitious attempt to describe Venetian commercial involvement in Greece, but largely ignores the Venetian and local political/social/administrative structures that enabled it. Since it also considers the entire period from 1204 to the Ottoman invasion, at times anachronistically, and because it seeks to document particularly less-known provincial centres, for instance in Thessaly and Epiros, it certainly inflates the level and reach of this trade for much of the thirteenth century. For more measured approaches, see for instance in Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, pp. 107–132; Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie: phénomènes sociaux et économiques”, pp. 46–47; Tchentsova, “Commerce vénitien en Grèce”; Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece”, p. 540; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 206–207, 218–232; Jacoby, “Génois dans le duché d’Athènes”; Jacoby, “Migrations familiales et stratégies commerciales”; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 224–237; Jacoby, “Thirteenth-century commercial exchange in the Aegean”; Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy”; Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

247

particularly interesting and socially instructive since it combined agriculture (the cultivation of mulberry trees) with manufacturing (the rearing of cocoons and the reeling of silk). This industry was centred on a number of towns and regions, Thebes, Corinth, Andros, and Euboia, but it was actually present in all parts of south-central Greece, also Byzantine-dominated areas.315 Commerce revolved in some respects around a tight network of Venetian families, who naturally profited from the structures that had been put in place by the republic. It is said that some of the early Venetian expansion, into the Cyclades for instance, was substantially driven and supported by private Venetian trading interests. In some areas, notably Crete, the Venetians continued the previous monopolistic policies of the Byzantines. The demise of Venetian Durazzo and Corfu shifted the attention of Venetian traders further south, especially the Peloponnese, where the post-1204 arrangements were in their favour, especially the establishment of Coron-Modon and the exemption from indirect taxation also in the remainder of the peninsula. These early Venetian traders used fledgling financial and commercial instruments, as we have seen already in this chapter. In this early period there was a diverse number of Italians from different parts of the peninsula involved in Greece.316 Genoese activities centred on the eastern Mainland: a consul is attested in Negroponte in 1236 and a treaty is concluded with the de la Roche of Athens in 1240. Greek trade was not limited to exports: the new aristocratic and bourgeois classes were also importers of high class products. 5.9 Trade and Production: Epiros Away from the Peloponnese and the Eastern Mainland, the other main territorial unit of our study, Epiros and surroundings, seems to have undergone a slightly different commercial development in this early part of the thirteenth century. Together with other, arguably more important, areas in southern Italy (especially Puglia) and Albania (centred on Durazzo), its main contribution was to supply Venice and Ragusa with important foodstuffs, notably grain, and other products (cotton and wool). This was done in accordance with varying treaties and privileges worked out between the different partners (Sicily, Epiros, Venice, Ragusa) in the early years of the century, although the success of these and the intensity of the ensuing commerce are difficult to measure.317 315  The very extensive bibliography on silk in Byzantine and Latin Greece is assembled in Balard, Latins en Orient, p. xlvii. 316  See the earlier part of this chapter, pp. 188–189. 317  On these subject matters, see principally Dorin, “Adriatic trade networks in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries”. Ducellier, “Présence latine sur les côtes albanaises” plays down the economic importance of the Albanian/Epirote coast in the early thirteenth

248

Chapter 3

5.10 Trade and Production: Indirect Taxation and Fairs The rulers and elites of most early thirteenth-century polities under consideration here, be they Greek or French, were in many respects very similar in their economic outlooks, farming estates, disseminating produce, and supplementing their incomes through rent and direct taxation. In all of this indirect taxation was of marginal importance or concern. Clearly a system of dues on commercial exchanges would have been inherited from the Byzantine period.318 There is also some evidence, mostly from later sources, that the farming of certain indirect taxes would have been part of a fief or pronoia. In the earlier part of this chapter we have already mentioned one such concession, the much-cited kommerkion of early thirteenth-century Corinth, although one should be cautious not to read too much into this passage of Sanudo’s with respect to the nature and representativeness of the charge, or of its magnitude and significance. Overall, there is a general lack of evidence for the early period of Latin rule, and we will revisit the matter in a later discussion, with particular reference to Venetian taxation in Greece which was generally more developed. Indirect taxation could also theoretically have been exacted from internal exchanges within a given territory, and the latter could have provided very important occasions on which the authorities controlled and filtered the currency. The most convenient way of doing this would have been through organised, officially sanctioned fairs, which combined commercial and other, for instance religious, aspects. Such fairs are marginally better known for Latin than they are for Byzantine times, and progressively more so in the course of the medieval period, largely due to the nature of the sources. We gain some ideas that they could be also rurally based, some very regular, others once a year, and there is also some suggestion of specialism, for instance in the kinds of products on offer. Nevertheless, we have no real way of gaining statistically viable knowledge on their locations, frequency, importance, developments over time, and so forth.319

century, as he does for the twelfth; but in the thirteenth century the political situation is even less favourable, caused by inconsistencies and hostilities which are more pronounced than the previously unified political empire. 318  Chapter 1, pp. 22, 38–39. 319  Asdracha, “Foires en Épire”; Lambropoulou, “Πανηγύρεις”; Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 227– 229; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 214–2016; Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 780; Sakellariou, “Latin Morea”, p. 314; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, p. 229.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

249

5.11 Archaeology: Production and Trading Relations Evidence for all kinds of commercial relations can easily elude us in the traditional documentation: this applies, as we have just seen, to fairs and other occasions in town and country at which produce might have changed hands; to maritime cabotage and tramping; and also to regional land-based trade;320 but even to aspects of inter-regional and international trade. For this reason it is vital to fall back on material sources, foremost amongst which ceramics, to document commerce. I will leave aside the qualitative assessments that have been made of pottery and its distribution, relating to domestic production vs. imports and their implications for manufacture more generally and the prevailing balances of exchange, the standard of living, taste and fashion, and even to ethnicity, since these are all very protracted subjects which are difficult to prove conclusively in any one direction even by the experts.321 Also, to my knowledge no so-called productive sites at which commerce might have taken place have been positively identified for medieval Greece on the basis of ceramics.322 Nevertheless, the number of studies now available of fine and glazed wares is such that one can at least begin to describe relations existing between different localities, in terms of chronology and relative intensity, and perhaps direction.323 Thebes (and Boiotia), and Corinth (and Isthmia), hold central places in our area during the first half of the thirteenth century, although they are otherwise quite different. The first provides particularly strong links 320  Already noted in an earlier discussion of this chapter, pp. 198–200. 321  The reader is referred back to some earlier remarks in these regards: Chapter 1, pp. 5–6 and 37. 322  Compare: Preface, pp. xxi–xxiii and Chapter 2, p. 109. 323  For specific contributions regarding Greece and Greek wares abroad in the earlier part of the thirteenth century, see, amongst many others, Armstrong, “Byzantine Thebes”; Gelichi, La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, with essays for instance on Argos, Arta, Corinth, Isthmia, and Thasos; François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance”; Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish period”, pp. 403–413; Vroom, After antiquity, pp. 164–169; Williams, “Frankish Corinth: an Overview”; François, “Réalités des échanges”; Clarence; Vroom, Byzantine to modern pottery in the Aegean; Dimopoulos, “Sparta”; Kontogiannis and Arvaniti, “Andros”; Vroom, “Byzantine garbage and Ottoman waste”; Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”. References to other publications can be found particularly in the last two citations, and in François, Bibliographie, which is a very useful indexed inventory of finds. Skartsis, Chlemoutsi offers useful discussions of many Greek pottery finds. An overview of the Greek types in the transition from the twelfth to thirteenth century is to be found in Laiou, “Regional networks in the Balkans”, pp. 28–32. Waksman et al., “Main ‘middle Byzantine production’ and pottery manufacture in Thebes and Chalcis” provides a major point of departure regarding the place of production of many of the wares (Chalkida) and their distributions.

250

Chapter 3

towards the north (Macedonia) and south (Peloponnese), and further afield much less intensively to southern Italy and Cyprus, but interestingly neither to Crete nor to Constantinople. Corinth, by contrast, in the shape of the local (?) painted and sgraffito wares, and some slightly later imports of Byzantine-style (see below) and Italian wares (in small quantities from the 1230s), is revealed as a truly Mediterranean centre with strong links to the west, to Constantinople, the eastern Aegean, and the Levant. Corinth and its region is for instance the only part of Greece for which significant finds of thirteenth-century Islamic wares have been made, which are otherwise quite common, for instance, in Constantinople. Chalkida is only now emerging as the main centre of production and distribution during the transition period around the turn of the thirteenth century (and perhaps until ca. 1250). This recent scholarship is important to our own monetary concerns in that it identifies strong links between this location and many points in the Aegean and beyond, and puts relatively little emphasis on the events of 1204. The northern Aegean itself, centred no doubt on Thessalonike although the most ample documentation is from Thasos,324 appears from the early thirteenth century onwards to have had equally diverse and far-reaching ceramic relations, particularly towards the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Levant, the nature of which have to date not been explained in a satisfactory manner. The Cycladic island of Andros in our main area of interest is, by contrast, most closely related to the adjacent Mainland and Peloponnese, and is not part of any discernible international network. There are some other Peloponnesian centres for which some useful data are available: Sparta and Lakonia, Argos, Clarentza/Chloumoutzi and Elis. These sites all have a certain degree of early Italian imports, those of Elis and the Argolis more so than Sparta (and Thebes). These are testimony to the centrality of Brindisi and Otranto in particular in communications with Greece, especially in this period the Peloponnese. From the latter, distribution was continued towards the east, since it has been noted that Apulian Protomaiolica is consistently found there beside two significant wares of the thirteenth-century ‘Byzantine’ orbit, first coined by Megaw, namely Zeuxippus and Aegean wares. Outside of Peloponnese, we have some meagre evidence from two more minor commercial centres of the earlier thirteenth century, Athens and

324  See the last note and François, Céramique byzantine à Thasos. There are a few smaller contributions by Papanikola-Bakirtzi on Thessalonike, which can be found in François’ bibliography.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

251

Arta.325 These have surprisingly different ceramics, the former having a very light inter-regional/international profile, whereas the latter is virtually entirely dominated by Italian imports. In this it seems to be similar to Butrint, evidence for which in the earlier thirteenth century is only now coming to the fore.326 6

1200–1259/1268: Money

The intense period of state formation and the crystallisation of the new socioeconomic ordering between 1204 and the 1260s which have just been described had a very distinctive impact on the monetary affairs of Greece.327 Lack of Official Monetary Production in Greece: Byzantine and Western Legacies The relative lack of monetary production in Greece itself – limited initially to a distinct wave of counterfeiting (see below) – was to some degree the legacy of the previous middle Byzantine system, which had limited itself most likely to merely one metropolitan mint for the entire empire.328 There was also still plentiful Byzantine and Byzantine-style monetary specie available in Greece, minted before and after 1204, and a strong tradition was in place whereby fundamental payments in the public and private spheres were made within the Byzantine coinage system, even if certain alien coins were already accessible.329 The prevalence of the gold hyperpyron and electrum trachy of account are testimony to this.330 These monies of account may have represented actual

6.1

325  On the first of which see Frantz, “Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens” and Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish period”, p. 420; on the second, see François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance”, p. 10, with reference to the 1991 conference in Siena. 326  See Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”, p. 414. 327  The historical overviews can be found in the previous two discussions. A general numismatic treatment of the period is Chapter 2, pp.  86–92. Also Chapter 2, pp.  105–124 discusses pertinent single find data; pp. 124–148 relevant information on hoards of the period. There are a few grave finds dating to the same: pp. 149–152. See further pp. 153–157 on ingots; pp. 161–166 on direct signs of the manipulation of the currency; pp. 177–180 and 183–184 on monetisation. The discussion on money in its geographical and demographic context in this chapter is also of relevance: Chapter 3, pp. 200–217. References to particular points which have already been made in all these passages, and in the appendices, is sparing. 328  Chapter 1, pp. 9 and 11. 329  Chapter 1, pp. 18–20. 330  Appendix III.1–2, pp. 1511–1515 and 1522.

252

Chapter 3

Byzantine gold or electrum specie, but (as in the previous twelfth century) they may also have referred to other Byzantine denominations in lesser metals. Lack of substantial fresh minting might also be a reflection on the general outlook of the new ruling elites, and on the inner workings of the administrative and fiscal structures: most exploitation took place in a household style, and the new French feudal rulers in particular are said to have had little sense of what may be termed a national economy or monetary system; and the administration, as much as the military and judicial arrangements, were embedded in the feudal system. Even on the ground, in the traditional village units which had great bearings on money and fiscality, little evolved during the conquest period. In the years immediately after 1204, Venice also had a very disparate policy to the Aegean world and a very light administrative system, and the profit it may have reaped from the area was less tangible than was the case for more traditional feudal lordships. Many of the same Venetian and Veronese pennies that were circulating in the twelfth century within areas of Venetian domination or frequented by Venetians retained their relevance in the thirteenth.331 Neither the proliferation of courts and bureaucracies in Greece, nor the right to mint as an apparent feudal privilege, managed to induce new minting. There was apparently little emphasis placed on indirect taxation, of which seigniorage on coin production is one.332 The lack of regular minting of good quality specie defines therefore this initial period of medieval Greek monetisation. Rapid Monetary Developments and Innovations in the Early Thirteenth Century Despite of these conclusions, money reveals itself at the heart of some political, and especially military, and economic endeavours. Some of the key polities which initially succeeded Byzantium to the north and east of our area after 1204 had very intense monetary policies and rivalries.333 Nicaea eventually became the most prolific coin producer amongst this group, but initially the Latin empire itself emitted vast quantities of billon trachea which were disseminated rapidly, precisely in the period in which the Latin emperors and their vassals contributed to the political formation of Greece. This is testimony not so much to the inherent fiscal health of this political construct, but to the sheer wealth and resources of the city and former empire, combined with an 6.2

331  Compare again Appendix III.1, p. 1514. 332  Chapter 1, pp. 39–40 and 55. 333  Chapter 1, pp. 48–49.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

253

organisational force to harness it,334 and with the significant number of people on the move.335 It is possible that the rapid political changes in this period also managed to bring to the fore bullion supplies which had previously been thesaurised in private and public contexts, a very prominent feature of the middle Byzantine period.336 Warfare on Byzantine and formerly Byzantine territory increased dramatically as a direct consequence of the events of 1204, and remained consistently high throughout the medieval period. Whether or not one can easily correlate coin production with military intent has long been debated for ancient societies. In some cases such as Republican Rome there were apparently no connections, in others (for instance the Hellenistic kingdoms) they were manifold.337 In times of war, money may have been used to supplement the regularly available military duties with additional service, or to employ mercenaries. It was also required to pay tribute. But beyond this, warfare was also a key element in the transfer of monetary specie and in the monetisation of a given area. In the last couple of decades of the twelfth century, coinage in general may well have been increasingly employed by the Byzantine state to cater for its multifarious military endeavours.338 Crusading armies had already been in receipt of billon trachea, and also the electrum trachy coinage may have been used for similar purposes in middle Byzantine times, a usage which may again have been extended beyond 1204.339 In our own period, the described military context pervades our appreciation of the main billon trachy coinages of the first decade of the thirteenth century: they were clearly designed to pay combatants, who also disseminated them. These trachy issues soon left a mark on Greece itself, increasing monetisation dramatically and rapidly.340 There was a string of hoards along the main axes of communication.341 There are also very poignant hoards which illuminate the often obscure early formation years. It is not certain whether the concentration of hoarding in ca. 1205–1207 in rural Thessaly can be explained with reference to communication alone, or whether they are testimony to a more 334  See also Van Tricht, Empire of Constantinople, p. 134. 335  See in this chapter, pp. 201–203. 336  Chapter 1, pp. 23–24. 337  Howgego, Ancient history from coins, p. 12ff. 338  C  hapter 1, p. 22. 339  C  hapter 1, pp. 15–16. 340  On this contrast between the twelfth and thirteenth century, see also Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 119ff; Turnator, “Coin circulation”. 341  On matters of geography and communication, see also the discussion above, pp. 201–203.

254

Chapter 3

intense conflict between the fledgling Latin and Greek polities in Macedonia and Epiros respectively than the traditional sources reveal. The multiple billon trachy hoards of Thebes «9»–«13», still to be properly studied and dated, and some of the concentrated numismatic evidence for Corinth,342 also suggest a rather intense first decade of the century, and put into focus the extent and nature of the respective campaigns of Othon de la Roche and Emperor Henry. In the Cyclades, the hoards lend a much more traditional picture of Latin conquest in these same years than recent historiography has made us believe, namely multiple and early campaigns centred on Constantinople rather than Crete.343 The fact that there may have been intense military activities in the central Cycaldes in the early years after 1204 may still be compatible with the view that final political subjection occurred from 1212 onwards. The same hoards also deny the existence of minting at Latin Thessalonike, which had established itself as a numismatic fact since Hendy’s first postulations in the late 1960s, even in some of the broader historical literature. This re-adjustment changes our picture of the conquest period, in monetary and military terms. Some of the hoards in the extreme corners of our area, away from the main lines of communication leading from Constantinople either to Thessaly, Attikoboiotia and the northern Peloponnese, or directly to the Aegean islands (for instance northern Euboia: «15. Oreos 1935»; Epiros and Ionia: «21. Kephallonia 1932» and «28. Metsovo 1979»;344 central and southern Peloponnese: «33. Arkadia 1958» and «35. Sparta 1957»), may in fact testify to movements of combatants which are difficult to reconstruct from other sources. In a very similar vein, the relative dearth of similar material from great parts of Epiros (see merely the stray finds from «347. Plakoti» and «237. Arta») and the western Peloponnese suggests that these areas were relatively untouched by conflict and mass movements of fighters.345 Hoards and site finds emphasise the Saronic Gulf as the key region of violence in the first decade of the thirteenth century. This position is underlined by a local coin issue which takes its name from the area.346 These tetartera, which probably emanated from territories under Greek control but whose connection with Leon Sgouros is spurious, were neither minted to propagate 342  «3», «36»–«37», «217»–«218», «263»–«278». 343  «5»–«6», «18», «20», «29»–«31». 344  See Appendix II.1.B, p. 1209 on a potentially post-1200 trachy hoard from Butrint. 345  On this intense period of conquest and population movements, underlined by multiple coin finds, see already in this chapter p. 203. 346  See Chapter 1, p. 12.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

255

a new ruler, nor to generate profit through minting, to facilitate everyday exchanges, let alone foster international trade, but were quite clearly produced and disseminated in a military context. The distribution of this coinage at sites such as Corinth (see above), Argos («28», «59», «236»), Nemea («334») and Athens («17», «238», «239») runs entirely in parallel with Latin imitative billon trachy issues (even at the last of these sites, contrary to some of the literature). This pattern lends meaning to these two respective coinages and testifies to the centrality of the area. The monetisation of a few sites away from the Saronic Gulf also increased as an immediate if indirect result of the events of the first decade: we have seen some rare hoard evidence from Epiros, Lakonia, the eastern Mainland, and the Cyclades, to which one may add some equally sporadic stray data, namely «254. Berat», «257. Butrint», and «299. Kaninë»; «351. Sparta»; Thebes («354»–«373»), «229. Amphissa», «259. Chalkida», and «290. Eutresis»; «325. Naxos» and «330. Naxos». At most of these sites the main issue is Latin small module type A, which dates to the initial conquest period 1204/1205, or a little bit later. This dominance is a reflection of production at Constantinople as well as the actual chronology of the Greek events. Corinth is one of the sites where some of the find units display a larger spread in the Latin imitative series and the earlier so-called Faithful Copies, and this variety may be testimony to more prolonged or variegated activities. The Greek finds have made a substantial contribution to the identification of the Faithful Copies proposed in this book, namely that they were metropolitan dating to around 1204, rather than Bulgarian. Nevertheless, their rareness in Greece underlines that they belong to the immediate conquest period which affected areas further to the north and east within the Aegean region. The profile of Arta is close to that of Corinth for coins of the first decade of the thirteenth century, although the formation process there would have been radically different, informed one might say mostly by certain dynastic developments and geographical proximity. By contrast, Sparta, also still Byzantine in this period, was evidently supplied by coinage through confined and relatively early Latin military activities not dissimilar to what was occurring in the adjacent Argolis. In the Cyclades the single finds, in line with the hoards, suggest a different chronology and character of the early Latin involvements than elsewhere. The particular evidence of trachea there underlines more than anywhere else the closeness of military events and monetisation. The Seljuq coin find from Naxos is a rather suggestive and different, although limited, piece of information: it hints at early and direct communications between the islands and Anatolia, perhaps in a context other than military.

256

Chapter 3

Warfare and Monetisation after ca. 1210: Byzantine-Style Coppers and Other Coinages Hoarding and other losses of trachea and tetartera were therefore widespread, and they are instructive to us about politico-military formation processes and developments in Greek monetisation. They were also arguably, together with breaks in supply, one of the causes for a sharp decline in monetisation after ca. 1210. This highlights the exceptionality of the events of the conquest period. Coinages other than the Byzantine-style trachea and tetartera, as we shall see, lent a more nuanced impression to the Greek monetary conditions in the years around 1204, and increasingly so in subsequent decades. Nevertheless, in parallel hereto, the trachy denomination (and to some extent tetartera) continued to constitute a strong local strand of monetisation until the 1260s, invariably as before in military contexts, in what proved to be the last significant presence of Byzantine-style coins for all of medieval Greece. Greek finds of Thessalonican issues of the Komnenoi Doukai are heavily concentrated in the years 1224–1237, with a few additional finds in the subsequent decade. Many of these are usually constituted by a limited number of consignments from Thessalonike, and at the same time there is a complete lack of the smaller series III coins of the same mint. This pattern calls for specific interpretations, and this was precisely a period of major conflict, as we have seen. As with Latin trachea previously, Thessalonican issues contributed substantially to the monetisation of parts of our area, especially Epiros and Thessaly, but also neighbouring Phthiotis and Boiotia. The failed attempt of the Hohenstaufen dynasty (1225) to reconstitute the Latin Thessalonican state, and perhaps also the alliance between Frederick II and John Vatatzes (1244), may also have carried some south Italian issues to Greece. Subsequent losses of pennies of Conrad I and Manfred may be the product of closer dynastic relations between Epiros and the Regno in the runup to the battle of Pelagonia (1259). It is also possible that the prolific gold hyperpyron coinage of John III Vatatzes was partially brought to Greece through similar warfaring channels. However, neither the concealment of the impressive «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», nor that of the two trachy hoards «44» and «48», can be confidently brought in connection with any of the documented events. The bulk of the trachy finds from «381. Τrikala», which have a slightly different and later pattern to the remainder of Thessaly, may perhaps be seen in the same politico-strategic context from the 1240s onwards. The new Palaiologan dynasty was increasing the pressure on Greece, already before Pelagonia, and then with greater vigour on numerous fronts following this battle and the imperial restoration of 1261. Billon trachy (and one 6.3

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

257

hyperpyron: «228») finds of Emperor Michael VIII testify to this, and numerous hoards of the period ca. 1258 to ca. 1264, in Thessaly, the Cyclades, and Epiros, can be placed with some confidence in precise theatres of war. In particular the hoards from Arta («65»–«67») add information on the military history of the town and its area which one can otherwise only infer from the sources, as does perhaps «62. Trikala 1949», and in a different manner «58. Naxos ca. 1969». These finds will be addressed again below, from pp. 332–335. Warfare and Monetisation: the First Official Indigenous Coinages of Medieval Greece The other main protagonists at the battle of Pelagonia, Michael II of Epiros, Manfred of Hohenstaufen, and William II of Villehardouin, were all responsible for coinages which bore the metrological hallmarks of trachea, respectively so-called large and small modules. Direct connections between these mintages are possible but difficult to establish. The Artan issues were typologically more complex, produced over a longer period, possibly from the 1230s to the 1250s, and were most akin to a regularly conceived coinage. The choice of Manfred in the later 1250s would certainly have been informed by the local Epirote monetary tradition, if not immediately by knowledge of the coinage of his father-in-law. The limited finds of Manfred’s issue may tentatively be brought in connection with the movement of the Siculo-German troops and their Byzantine adversaries. In this way, also this coinage issue adds detail to the historical record. The Achaïan issues of the Corinth mint, meanwhile, were inspired by the previous Peloponnesian experience with the trachy denomination particularly during the foundation period in the Saronic Gulf area, which has just been discussed, and were themselves arguably the inspiration for the marginally later Theban coins emitted by the Athenian state. The petty denomination issues of southern Greece of the later 1240s and 1250s strike us because of their size and their organisational implications. They also fall within a period in which, as we have seen, the political make up of the area was gradually crystalizing, with the retreat of the Latin empire, the ascendancy of Byzantium, and the re-orientation of Latin Greece. Achaïa had supported the empire for some time, financially and militarily. A Levantine venture cemented its position internationally, especially with regard to the French monarchy. Achaïa was still able to curb Byzantine power during these two decades, in the Aegean and the Peloponnese. Distributions of type 9 petty denomination coins confirm the traditional chronology of the Lakonian campaign of William II. The subsequent conflict with Athens may have had broader causes, but was triggered by the growing might of the Villehardouins and the newly developing 6.4

258

Chapter 3

constitutional arrangements in the Latin empire. Even a heavy military intervention by Achaïa, and an eventual arbitration by King Louis IX, did not manage to put a lid on the matter. Again, numismatic evidence adds very powerfully to our picture of the Achaïan venture in Attica, and in Athens itself. The ensuing stalemate, together with the regained strength of Byzantium, dampened the period from the battle of Pelagonia to the treaties of Viterbo (1259–1267). The petty denomination coinage was surely an element in William’s military designs in the Peloponnese, the Mainland, and the Levant in the 40s and 50s, but already less so in the run-up to Pelagonia (1259).347 It is also quite a distinctive initiative especially because it sat beside better imported coinages that were also available. The apparent absence of coin production not merely at Thebes, but also at Corinth/Clarentza for one or two decades after the end of the petty denominations, is also very striking particularly in the light of the high levels of output in the preceding decade. At a superficial glance, one may well concede that this monetary evidence coincides with the golden period of Achaïan and Latin Greek history which historians locate in the years before 1259. Newly Minted Coinage – and the Lack of It – in the Political and Ideological Map of the Aegean Stahl has written: “Had the Latin emperors of Constantinople enjoyed the opportunity to establish stable government and at least a reasonably solid economic base, they would probably eventually have issued coins in their own names on the model of those of the empire they took over, supplemented perhaps by deniers …”.348 This may well be a correct assessment, in the light for instance of what happened in early Lusignan Cyprus where such a monetary transition was made. All the newly minted coins of the Aegean region of the first half of the thirteenth century were concerned with specific aspects of the military and political formation processes. Significant other functions were carried by higher value imported coins. As we shall see, the fact that a coinage was not indigenous does not imply the absence of a monetary policy by the authorities towards it. The economic development of the Latin empire has recently undergone a re-evaluation, and also other areas, Byzantine Macedonia or Anatolia, or Latin southern Greece during the present period, did not entirely lack political or economic sophistication. The identification of Latin gold hyperpyra post-dates Stahl’s assessment. The likely existence of more than one mint in Latin Constantinople, one perhaps commercial, is suggested in this book and

6.5

347  Compare Ilieva, Frankish Morea, pp. 149 and 151 on the costs of William’s campaign in the Levant and Macedonia. 348  Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 206.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

259

adds complexity to the coinage of the Latin empire.349 In the overall spectrum of the Aegean in the first decades of the thirteenth century the Latin empire was perhaps not quite as distinctive as Stahl puts it, monetarily or politicoeconomically. The lack of gold hyperpyra from Byzantine Thessalonike or early signed higher value deniers from the mints of the principality of Achaïa or the Latin empire, to give but a few examples, are all equally distinctive monetary manifestations. Entrenched patterns whereby indigenous coin production catered only for some aspects of monetary requirements may have been the result of numerous factors, not merely lack of political will or economic inability. What may we deduce from the overall physical appearances of trachea and petty denomination issues, and especially their iconographies? Trachea of Constantinople do not bear any reference at all to the newly established empire, nor to individual emperors. Even though the Latin empire’s refusal to display its own status through coinage is particularly marked, the other pretenders to the empire were also reluctant to break too radically with the twelfth-century imperial past, even if the new monetary conditions necessitated a constant rotation of types to accompany re-coinages.350 For the billon/ copper series at the mints of Thessalonike and Magnesia we find that most innovations were rather subtle, with the gradual introduction of personal or regional saints. This is true also for higher value coins: we note for instance that the highly prolific and successful main hyperpyron type in the name of John III Vatatzes, minted at Constantinople and Magnesia, was modelled directly on an earlier imperial precedent, so much so that problems of modern numismatic attribution have arisen. In our area the mint of Arta issued sporadic silver coins which may be deemed symbolic because of the very small survival rates of these specimens. Even then, or in fact precisely for this reason, the overall iconography remained firmly rooted in the twelfth century: Michael I and Theodore refer back to a Manuelian electrum trachy type (DOC IV, type 5), and only Manuel and Michael II break the mould by introducing saints to the silver trachy coinage. The extensive billon trachy coinage of the latter is also laden with different categories of saintly figures, until we reach the issues which symbolise the subordination to Thessalonike and the Nicaean dynasty. Overall, the issues of Thessalonike and Arta bear more civic references than imperial coinages of the preceding period of Byzantine history. The coinage of Michael’s sonin-law, Manfred of Hohenstaufen, is also epigraphically and iconographically rather simple and pragmatic. The parallel issues of Achaïa and Athens bear

349  Chapter 1, p. 39. 350  C  hapter 1, p. 49.

260

Chapter 3

no dynastic references and on the whole confine themselves to definitions of territoriality and rulership. There were some added civic elements, in the form of mint signatures and symbolic towers. Even the Genoese gate, minted concurrently in Thebes and Corinth, must be interpreted as a basic civic symbol for want of a more precise connotation.351 Only the Negroponte issues of William II of Villehardouin contain a clearer and more contentious statement, namely his domination over the terzieri. All in all one gains the impression that in the first period of state formation in medieval Greece, as in the remainder of the Aegean, coinage managed to disseminate messages which underpinned matters such as dynastic legitimacy or state ideology not directly and explicitly, but rather more subtly by suggesting that a polity existed in an established celestial and imperial tradition, or according to a regular feudal order, and was stable and militarily successful. Latin feudal southern Greece began to produce coins from the later 1240s, as we have just seen, largely to service military conflict. It is nevertheless possible that a more abstract rivalry between the two main protagonists of Achaïa and Athens played itself out in monetary terms. Quality and Quantity of Greek Monetisation in their Political and Economic Contexts Despite the continuities from the twelfth century one should not underestimate the significant socio-political and demographic changes352 affecting Greece in the period after the Fourth Crusade. In fact demographics are in themselves strong economic indicators. Greek monetisation apparently collapsed precisely at the moment in time when the intervention of Emperor Henry and of Venice managed to clarify the constitutional arrangements for much of the area. Nevertheless, as we have said, this was also the point at which major hostilities came to an end. It remains possible that one aspect of monetisation which was important to administration as much as to commerce in this very early period – the usage of ingots – remains inaccessible to us.353 The pattern of coin importation into Greece was far from random. A concentration in French abbatial tournois and short cross pennies emerged during the conquest period. Subsequently, concerted efforts were made to augment this stock with later sterling emissions and then with French royal and feudal issues. The existence of a regulating ‘hand’ in these imports can be detected in the fashion in which grossi 6.6

351  Compare the Preface, p. xv. 352  Compare also the earlier discussion in this chapter, pp. 186–200. 353  See Chapter 2, pp. 153–157 and Appendix III.7, p. 1584.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

261

and sterlings seamlessly took over from one another, and also in the particular nature of French imports and their relations with domestic French monetary developments. The rate of importation rose especially in the 1230s and 1240s, when hoarding also sets in again. In these years the indigenous Greek accounting systems, based now on these coins after a few decades of being arguably pegged to what remained of the Byzantine currency, also came to the fore.354 These developments at this precise moment in time may be viewed in the light of some of the more general historiographical appreciations of the principality to which we have just alluded, that is to say the increase in Achaïan political and economic stature during the so-called golden period, which began during the princeship of William II’s brother, Geoffrey II Villehardouin. Nevertheless, in response to this interpretation one must also point out that the patterns of both silver imports and of hoarding actually increased steadily all the way until the end of the period currently under analysis (ca. 1268), also through the supposed crisis years of the 1260s. The control of all circulating specie in Greece, even of the discussed trachea, was tight, as it had been under the previous Byzantine administration.355 Counterfeiting was also reduced in this period: a very limited number of hyperpyron, sterling, French tournois, and grosso counterfeits are known to us.356 It would be difficult to pinpoint whether these significant monetary developments can be traced to the public or private spheres, although, as we have amply underlined already, it is anyhow often impossible to separate neatly these two. Some hoarding choices, for instance in the cases of «70. Corinth 8 May 1934» and «75. Salamina», show us very graphically how individuals or groups dealt with the multiplicity of available specie. Even the copper/billon (and electrum) coinages of the turn of the thirteenth century can be interpreted more than merely in military terms. We must observe that since the eleventh century there had been a progressive process of debasing the copper coinages, by making them lighter and/or increasing their face values. In other words these coins were made less unwieldy for the population to use, and easier to reach a given money of account expressed in terms of the gold coinage.357 The new trachy and tetarteron issues of the years around 1200 are the culmination of this tendency, and the process of debasement in itself further increased the potential of this denomination by allowing production to rise. While we can be certain that monetisation increased in general 354  355  356  357 

Appendix III.1 and 3, pp. 1512–1515. Chapter 2, pp. 162–166. Chapter 2, pp. 162–163. Chapter 1, p. 48.

262

Chapter 3

terms in the early thirteenth century as compared to the twelfth, we are as yet unable to quantify how much of the middle Byzantine archaeological record (and with it numismatic) which is currently available actually reflects thirteenth-century developments.358 Other earlier tendencies also continued after the conquests, a diversification of coin usage away from the previously dominant sites of Thebes and Corinth as far as the southern and eastern part of our territory is concerned, and an integration of entirely new areas in the west and northwest into the monetary system. But of course the general Saronic Gulf area was still dominant, for instance during the early Latin phase of trachy and tetarteron usage (1204–ca. 1210), and the picture drawn by these coinages naturally has implications for the fiscal and commercial sectors. This is borne out by the fact that the new Byzantine and Latin coinages after ca. 1210 initially gathered and were hoarded in the same region. The invaders of Greece were acutely aware of the potential of the territories they had conquered, or on which they had their designs, and financial worth was readily discussed in the documents which accompanied the political formation process of the Latinokratia.359 This awareness is no doubt reflected in the very extensive way in which Greek lands were surveyed upon the conquest, for which there is also numismatic information.360 This worth related to the productivity of the land, the contributions and labour of its inhabitants, as well as less tangible matters such as strategical considerations. To this we may add a secondary consideration, the control over commercial exchanges as witnessed in the cited episode involving the kommerkion of Corinth. We have to assume that the new polities were financially successful – it has for instance been noted that construction work and aid sent to Constantinople from the 1220s and 1230s onwards were manifestations of the growing wealth of the princes of Achaïa.361 These new polities also maintained bureaucratic and administrative mechanisms, which were much more extensive than under the previous administration, oiled by money. The investment which went into conquest and maintenance of Latin Greece perhaps speaks in itself of the profitability of the venture. The numismatic evidence for the period from the 1230s onwards supports this overall picture of wealth generation and the desire for well-regulated monetary affairs. Although profit reaped from the landed resources was perhaps expressed in monetary terms, the storage and transfer of wealth did not by 358  Chapter 1, p. 6. 359  Compare also Appendix III.1, p. 1513. 360  See in this chapter p. 203. 361  Lock, Franks, p. 246. See also in this chapter p. 221.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

263

necessity always involve money. Nevertheless, there is some indication that the monetisation of the land regime was on an increase, as a result of the commercialisation of profits, the stipulated payment of certain taxes in specie,362 and of the flexibility which feudal labour gained through monetary commutation and the rise in wage labour.363 The vassalic relationships which were introduced to Greece also entailed the regular transfer of goods – often symbolic – and money. This was the case not merely for Achaïa and Constantinople, as we have seen, but also the tribute which might have been paid for a short while from southern Greece to Latin Thessalonike. Hyperpyra of the Latin empire were minted in Constantinople during the period of Geoffrey of Villehardouin’s interventions, and subsequently gain prominence in Greece itself (see «45»– «47» and a few smaller and later hoards). The feudal order also necessitated investment into a given fief, to maximise profitability and security. Negative evidence may contribute to the overall impression of the importance of Latin feudal relations to the monetisation of a territory: there is a relative dearth of monetary manifestations in Thessaly for a number of decades after the early 1210s and the conquest of this region by Michael Komnenos Doukas. The other non-Latin territories in this period, Epiros and Lakonia, also initially display rather more simple monetary developments. This is not to deny that middle Byzantium was in itself a thoroughly monetised society,364 but in comparative terms developments in the cited areas, especially initially and in the countryside, lagged behind the new conditions that were taking hold in the more dynamic parts of Greece. The increasing necessity of using money within the land regime and in the maintenance of feudal relations would certainly have induced the new Latin polities above all to ensure a good level of monetisation. We may surmise that money was used in thirteenth-century rural Greece as much as it was in the contemporary Latin world in general.365 The Greek peasantry, as we have seen, as well as being catered for with all kinds of cash could also call on financial services such as loans.366 This increased monetisation of the rural sector of the economy was to put Greece in rather bad stead once the monetary conditions

362  Saradi, “Acts of private transactions”, p. 209. 363  On the latter point, compare Chapter 1, pp.  24 and 29; Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”, p. 196. 364  Chapter 1, p. 13. 365  Dyer, “Peasants and coins”; Bompaire, “Monnaies dans les villages”; Moesgard, “Monnaies à la campagne”. 366  See above, p. 218.

264

Chapter 3

declined again. This is the kind of scenario which in later times Plethon sought to remedy with a return to a payments in kind.367 Money was also required by those interested in acquiring Greek produce or to import products into Greece, and by those who within these territories sought to exchange goods and services. The general increase in available coinage for the period 1204–1268 can certainly indicate that there was more activity in all three contexts as compared to the pre-conquest period. The years after 1204 may also in this respect have represented a continuation of trends from the previous century, with western traders using high quality coin issues in gold and silver to purchase Greek products, while trachea, tetartera and some lower quality pennies represented a subsidiary and secondary form of monetisation, indicative of wider trends and therefore numismatically valuable. The ‘lost’ period according to Laiou’s assessment is fleshed out by some of these numismatic data, and even for the problematic years from 1204 to the 1220s we manage to gain some insights which are more vivid than suggested by more traditional sources. This information relates not merely to the activities of different Italians in the most obvious trading areas of Greece, which is also suggested by the ceramic data for instance, but to direct and commercially inspired communications between Greece and Macedonia/Thrace/ Constantinople, Anatolia, and the Levant. For subsequent periods, the 1230s to the 1260s, the monetary situation is clearer and quite distinctive, and in many different ways: there cannot be much doubt that the generally negative balance of payments which Europe had with the east can now be applied specifically to the Italian and Greek peninsulas, i.e. that money was flowing from the former to the latter in increasing quantities, and that this was to some degree commercial in character.368 The area which became the focus of this activity was initially the Saronic Gulf, which had also in the earlier period been so central to monetary developments. From there, strong links to Crete, the Cyclades, and Anatolia are suggested. The further monetisation of the islands, still admittedly patchy, seems also to have been due to trading relations. This was, very importantly, also the case for the Byzantine-held areas of the Peloponnese which faced the same seas (compare «50», «221», «225», «351»). In general terms, the Mongols may have fostered a greater degree of monetary connectivity between the Aegean, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Black Sea. The land route between Thebes and Thessaly (and on to Macedonia) may not have been as strong as it had

367  See below in this chapter, p. 404. 368  Compare Chapter 1, pp. 18–20 and 34–38.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1200-1259/1268: MONEY

265

been previously,369 but all areas of Greece were to be integrated into wider sea-based commercial networks in this period 1230s–1260s: in fact, Thessaly provides us perhaps with the single most striking image during this phase, a tight network of grosso finds in hoards and as strays.370 A distinct ‘grosso phase’, which affected certain areas in a precise period before the inauguration of indigenous Greek tournois issues, is also suggested by the monies of account of southern Greece.371 It was in this phase that the monetary emphasis within the Peloponnese shifted gradually towards the western part of the peninsula. By contrast, Crete, the Cyclades, and Macedonia, followed suite only in later decades of the same century with the full integration of the grosso.372 Epiros is not dissimilar to Thessaly in producing an augmented number of grosso finds, but the really surprising evidence relating to this area, which contradicts some of the traditional assessments of its commercial vibrancy or lack thereof, is derived from the monies of account. These suggest even more so than the coin finds a very early presence of grossi, initially in parallel to electrum trachea.373 Perhaps the corresponding finds of Italian ceramics need also to be re-considered in a new, less reductively technical light? Grossi were initially neither overtly and primarily colonial, nor commercial, in character. Yet, in the years leading up to the middle of the thirteenth century they are particularly important indicators for both of these spheres. Another significant development during this central phase of the period under discussion is a move away from the traditionally urban focus of the material culture relating to commerce. Also the coin finds dating between the 1230s and 1260s show a greater rural character.374 Currently our evidence in this respect is still very limited, since the general methods of gathering numismatic data are not yet sophisticated enough to allow for greater nuancing, for example by identifying productive sites. In the years around 1200, and then for a number of decades after, electrum trachea and hyperpyra provide a strong link between Greece and Constantinople. This cannot always have been military or administrative in character, and especially in the 1240s it coincides with the favourable commercial developments in all these areas. Increasing hyperpyron mintage in the imperial capital and western Anatolia may well have relied to some extent on 369  Compare in this chapter p. 203. 370  Chapter 2, p. 120. 371  Appendix III.3, pp. 1524–1532. 372  Compare this again to the evidence from the accounting systems, in these cases rather more sporadic: Appendix III.5, pp. 1564–1573. 373  Appendix III.2 and Appendix III.4, pp. 1522 and 1555. 374  Compare in this chapter, pp. 215–216.

266

Chapter 3

gold culled from Greek circulation. This information, as well as that of other and lesser coinages previously, points to multifarious cross-Aegean commercial relationships. These were not present in such a way in previous imperial times, nor subsequently when colonial and commercial empires operated in a more streamlined fashion and when piracy and warfare were soon to weigh more heavily on the Aegean. The ceramic and numismatic evidence is again complimentary. Throughout the years 1210–1268 monetisation was on the rise, and an increasing number of silver issues continued to be supported on a day-to-day basis by lesser and older tetartera and trachea. Certain contexts eschewed these – monastic Zaraka or the castle of Andros («230» and «385») – and the character of these currencies, more so than the contemporary silver ones, remained urban. Also here, unfortunately, we lack information on some of the more intriguing commercial towns for this period which have been discussed in the above sections, for instance Monemvasia or Corfu, or on potentially important rural locations. In summary, when casting our minds back to our descriptions of the demographic, topographic, political, military, and socio-economic developments affecting Greece between 1200 and the 1260s, the monetary evidence begins to fall into place: the great novelty of the specific situation of conquest, polital genesis, and fragmentation, the Byzantine and Latin heritage, combined with general European trends, resulted in a highly distinctive monetary constellation. For each of its constituent parts, some precise interpretations of the numismatic data can now be offered. 7

1259/1268–1347/1348: Political and Military History

Subsequent to the battle of Pelagonia (1259), the death of Michael II of Epiros in 1266–1268, and the treaties of Viterbo in 1267, a new phase in the political history of Greece began. In many respects the new constellations can be termed colonial since a number of greater or lesser powers fundamentally controlled the fate of Greece until the end of the medieval period: Byzantium, Venice, Angevin Italy, subsequently Aragonese Sicily, Serbia, and the Ottomans. The present discussions end with the period of the Black Death (1347/1348), which saw not merely groundbreaking social developments but inaugurated new political eras with the invasions of the Serbs and the establishment of a despot in the Byzantine Peloponnese.375 In monetary terms, this was also the 375  Compare also the earlier discussions in this chapter, p. 194.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

267

point at which domestic Greek minting ceased. From the 1260s to the 1340s the biggest caesura affecting Greece was the establishment of the Catalans in the eastern Mainland with the defeat over the Franco-Italian rulers of Athens in 1311.376 7.1 Angevin Expansion The house of Anjou became involved in Greek affairs in the 1260s, as we have seen, as the result of particularly fortuitous circumstances, but it was soon to be the main political protagonist of our area of concern, beside the newly established Palaiologan dynasty and the republic of Venice. After 1267 King Charles I of Anjou (†1285) and his son King Charles II were suzerains over Latin Romania, as well as becoming in due course lords of Corfu and kings of Albania. They were also princes of Achaïa during 1278–1289, that is to say from the death of William II of Villehardouin to the re-investment of the house of Villehardouin in 1289 in the person of William’s daughter Isabelle and her new husband Florent.377 After 1289 the role in Romania of the Sicilian kings of the 376  Regarding the political history of Greece during this century, see the bibliography given earlier in this chapter (n. 209), particularly the works of Longnon (“Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée”; L’empire; “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”). See on the Venetian empire: Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne and Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane. Also relevant are some contributions in Shepard, The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, especially: Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece”; Laiou, “Palaiologoi”; Balard, “Latins in the Aegean”. Useful remain equally the broad overviews that can be found in Balard, Latins en Orient; Lock, Franks; and Tsougarakis and Lock, Companion to Latin Greece. Specifically on the Peloponnese, see Bon, Morée franque (and its review Longnon, “Topographie et archéologie de la Morée franque”); Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας; Gerstel, Viewing the Morea. Looking specifically at bibliography beyond the 1260s, there are two contributions in the History of the Crusades which relate to the present discussion: Topping, “Morea, 1311–1364”, and Setton, “Catalans in Greece”. See further Setton, Catalan domination of Athens 1311– 1388. Especially for the period from the later thirteenth century onwards, when diplomatic sources from different Italian archives become more relevant to Greek historiography, Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands” remains fundamental if controversial (consider for instance Gerland, “Bericht über Carl Hopfs literarischen Nachlass”, or the work of Loenertz, who was particularly critical of the German historian). The position of Byzantium within Greece was also gaining in stature in these years, and hence Laiou, Andronicus II and Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, and especially Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, I and II, are of relevance. The northerly and westerly areas of our primary area have been the focus of a number of regional studies, see the older Ducellier, La façade maritime and Nicol, Epiros II, or the work by Asonitis (Κέρκυρα and Νότιο Ιόνιο) which can be supplemented with a specific consideration of warfare (Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο). On adjoining Thessaly see Ferjančić, Tesalija and Magdalino, Thessaly. More specialist treatments will be referred to in the further course of the discussion. 377  Compare also Appendix II.9.A.2–4, pp. 1385–1399.

268

Chapter 3

Angevin dynasty was not always clear, owing mostly to the complex changes in titulature conferred on Philip of Taranto, son of Charles II, upon his marriages in 1294 to Thamar of Epiros, and in 1313 to Empress Catherine of Constantinople. Philip’s brothers John and Robert, and his sons by Thamar and Catherine, were all to be relevant to the Greek political scene in different capacities (see below). During the initial period we are concerned with here, the Angevins faced a number of strategic challenges: just over a decade elapsed between the final suppression of the Hohenstaufen claimants to the kingdom of Sicily in the late 1260s, which involved also Prince William himself,378 and the Sicilian Vespers of the early 1280s when the great island fell to the Aragonese successors to the Hohenstaufen. Early on in his southern Italian venture, Charles I also aided his brother King Louis IX on his Tunesian crusade, which came to an end with the latter’s death in the summer of 1270. The war of the Vespers, leading intermittently to the imprisonment of important Angevin protagonists such as Charles II (during 1284–1289) and his son Philip of Taranto (from 1299), lasted until the peace of Caltabellotta in August 1302. The decade during which the Angevins were able to dedicate themselves to Greek matters directly and with maximum attention and resources was therefore the 1270s and the very early 1280s. Overall, whether one can discern in the sporadic Angevin interventions beyond the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, even during the reign of Charles I himself, any serious and extended desires for a joined-up colonial presence in Romania, or indeed imperial pretensions in Constantinople, as postulated in some of the older historiography, remains difficult to establish.379 The Angevin phase in Greek history is often dismissed by general historians as politically and economically stagnant. Nevertheless, however disjointed their policies, the interventions of the Angevins clearly averted the almost total annihilation of Latin Greece during the central period of the thirteenth century, and also subsequently furthered the Latin cause in different theatres of conflict. An economic assessment of the Angevin-controlled areas is quite difficult to achieve given the disparate sources and circumstances, and the different parameters which one may wish to apply (see the discussions below). 7.2 Byzantium in Greece Byzantium was resurgent following the re-taking of the imperial city and the defeat of the Achaïan-Epirote coalition and, as we have seen, Michael VIII (1259/1261–1282) launched campaigns in Epiros, Thessaly, and the Cyclades 378  Kanellopoulos and Lekea, “Tagliacozzo”. 379  These considerations are weighed up most recently in Sakellariou, “Οι Ανδεγαβοί και η Ήπειρος” and “Il principato di Taranto e l’oriente latino”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

269

in the early 1260s. In the further course of his reign certain diplomatic ventures appeared to offer stability to the empire: negotiations for church union with the Latins, peace with the Mongols, marriage alliances especially in the Balkans, and eventually the support for the Aragonese cause in the Sicilian conflict. Contemporaneously, in the 1270s and early 1280s Michael also successfully pursued an aggressive stance against the Latins in the Peloponnese, in Epiros/Albania, and in the Aegean. For much of the second half of the thirteenth century Epiros and Thessaly, ruled respectively by two sons of Michael II, Nikephoros and John the Bastard, maintained a fine balancing act between Byzantium and the Angevins, thereby contributing in a significant manner to the survival of the major Latin holdings in the Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland.380 Nevertheless, independent Epiros and Thessaly were much smaller during the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos than they had been at the height of the power of Michael II Angelos Doukas, since the restored Palaiologan empire held a significant territorial strip westwards of Macedonia in Thessaly and Epiros/Albania, with a substantial Ionian and Adriatic coastline. Angevins, Byzantines, and Venetians in Albania, Epiros, Peloponnese and the Aegean After 1267, the Angevins gradually attempted to strengthen their positions in the Morea, and in Corfu/Epiros/Albania, where they acted as heirs to the defeated Manfred and his deceased local representative Chinardo, as Charles had already outlined in the treaties of Viterbo. In Prince William II of Villehardouin they had an important early ally, who was active in both areas in tandem with newly dispatched Angevin staff. In Epiros/Albania the Angevins expanded their domains in earnest after 1270, during a transitional period for the Epirote state following the death of Michael II.381 From their holdings in Corfu and around Valona and its castle Kaninë they moved northwards along the coast. Charles styled himself King of Albania from 1272 and provisioned the area, and especially his newly-designed capital Durazzo, with administrators and soldiers, arms and foodstuffs, and money.382 Military and diplomatic moves brought Angevin power also inland, in the direction of Kruja and Berat, but also the Byzantines positioned themselves in this central part of Albania.383 A 7.3

380  Magdalino, “Between Romaniae”. 381  In addition to the cited works, see Lala, Regnum Albaniae. 382  Compare also Appendix II.4.B, p. 1300; Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1311; Appendix II.5.A, p. 1338; Appendix III.3, pp. 1528–1529; Appendix III.4, pp. 1556–1558. 383  See Oikonomides, “Andronic II Paléologue et la ville de Kroia”.

270

Chapter 3

major attempt made on the latter town under Captain Hugh of Sully from 1279 proved unsuccessful and the Byzantines emerged victorious in early 1281, and subsequently rolled back the Angevin kingdom, to the area around Valona in the south, and to the town of Durazzo. This also had repercussions for the territories effectively ruled by the despots in Epiros: Charles had been able to take control of certain mainland areas opposite Corfu in the period of transition between Michael II and his son Nikephoros, but the latter had re-asserted his positions only to see them fall to Emperor Michael VIII, as was the case with Butrint in around 1276.384 In 1279 an alliance was forged between Charles and Nikephoros.385 This period saw the permanent unification of Angevin Corfu and Butrint. In the Peloponnese, after the aforementioned campaigns of the mid-1260s a balance and temporary truce between Latin and Byzantine territories of the peninsula was achieved, the latter initially still largely confined to Lakonia and certain adjacent areas.386 From 1270 the Angevins also turned their attention to the Morea and contemporaneously to Euboia. The island had benefitted from a peace accord between William II of Villehardouin and the Venetians (1262), but its stability was seriously threatened by the actions of Licario, a minor local Lombard knight who offered his services to the Byzantines.387 In 1270 a captain general was appointed by the Angevins to co-ordinate the military activities, which were first concentrated on Euboia. The Venetians themselves, represented locally by their bailo, also mounted a maritime defensive,388 while turning their attention simultaneously to the town of Negroponte.389 The latter maintained its position as the most significant urban centre of Greece through this and later crises precisely through this sustained Venetian support. Negroponte, together with Coron-Modon, were the key ingredients to the Venetian military strategy.390 384  On the history of this town, see also Soustal, “Butrint”. 385  Nicol, “Charles of Anjou with Nikephoros of Epiros”. 386  On broadly political and strategic developments in the Morea under the influence of Charles I and II see, in addition to the already cited literature, Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 220ff; Wilskman, “The conflict between the Angevins and the Byzantines in Morea in 1267–1289”. 387  On the Byzantine designs in the Aegean, and on the actions of Licario and Michael VIII and the centrality of the island of Euboia in these years, see now Angold, “Michael VIII Palaiologos and the Aegean”. 388  Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 66ff. 389  On the developments of Venetian Negroponte, see principally Jacoby, “Consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont” and Kontogiannis, “EuriposNegroponte-Εğriboz”. 390  Major, “Le complexe militaire vénitien en Grèce: Méssenie et Eubée”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

271

Also in the peninsula military preparations were underway, but on land a stalement prevailed between the Latins and the Byzantines, now commanded by a dispatched ‘kephale’. A greater danger to the Angevins and Venetians was in many respects the imperial fleet which threatened the coastline continuously. Outright Angevin efforts in the Peloponnese were particularly concentrated in the early 1270s and then just before William’s death in 1278, but the prince received other more permanent forms of assistance such as food supplies, tax breaks, and mercenaries, who supplemented the feudal armies. After William’s death, the Peloponnese was administered on behalf of the Angevin monarchs by bailos, who were also in charge of commanding and paying the mercenaries which continued to be dispatched from the Regno. The treaty of Orvieto signed between Sicily, the Latin empire, the papacy, and Venice, in July 1281 signalled a change in Charles’ approach to Romania, given the aggressive Byzantine stance which he encountered in areas into which he sought to expand (Epiros/Albania, the Peloponnese and the Aegean). The projected major naval expedition to the heart of the Byzantine Empire had to be abandoned because of the events of the Sicilian Vespers the following year. For the remainder of the period until 1289 an official state of war between Byzantines and Latins in the Peloponnese was in place, but the rulers Charles I and II and Andronikos II and their resources were inevitably drawn towards other theatres of action. 7.4 Athens and Thessaly In the same period in southern Greece the Athenian polity was gaining in stature, in view of the decline of the Latin empire and the house of Villehardouin, the inconsistent attention which the Angevins were able to give to Greece, and also the threats to Athenian territory from the Byzantines. In 1280, the new de la Roche ruler of Athens, William, was created duke by Charles I, and under the imprisoned Charles II from 1285 he was bailo and vicar general of Achaïa on behalf of the king’s regents.391 In these years also the Latin rulers of Bondonitsa (modern Mendenitsa) were bound more tightly to the Angevin rulers of Romania/Achaïa.392 Athens also intervened in Mainland Greek affairs, both for itself and its Italian overlords.393 John, bastard son of Michael II of Epiros, who had gradually assumed rulership of Thessaly, was positioned 391  On the possibility that William emitted coinage at Thebes, see Appendix II.8.A.2, p. 1362 and Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1433–1434. Specifically on Athens, see Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”; on the period of the regents Kiesewetter, “Die Regentschaft”, especially pp. 511–512 with respect to Greece. 392  Haberstumpf, “Marchesato di Bondonitsa”. 393  Compare Appendix II.9.B, p. 1430.

272

Chapter 3

between Byzantium and Athens.394 He had been in receipt of the title of sevastokrator, but was threatened by Michael VIII in 1272–1273 and later excommunicated.395 As a response to this pressure he called on the help first of John de la Roche of Athens, and then forged an even closer alliance with the latter’s son William, who received John of Thessaly’s daughter Helena as a bride in 1275, even before becoming Athenian ruler and duke himself.396 In about 1276 the Athenians contributed to the famous defeat and demise of John Palaiologos, Emperor Michael’s brother. Emperor Andronikos II pursued similarly aggressive policies to his father and continued confronting John the Bastard after 1282, while the situation between half-brothers John and Nikephoros deteriorated, and the Angevin and Athenian position towards the area became convoluted around the time of the deaths of King Charles (1285) and Duke William (1287). 7.5 Latin Greece, Epiros, and Byzantium during the 1290s and early 1300s Duke William de la Roche was succeeded by his son Guy II, with Nicholas of St. Omer of Thebes being created bailo in the Peloponnese.397 John of Thessaly died in 1289 and was succeeded by two of his sons. In July of the same year the first steps were taken by the Angevins to re-structure their Greek holdings: Isabelle of Villehardouin, daughter of Prince William, was granted Achaïa upon her marriage to Florent of Hainaut, who became prince in lieu of the recently released King Charles II.398 Florent acted on behalf of the Angevins, becoming involved in Corfu early in his princeship and renewing the alliance with Epiros. Even though the period after 1289 was marked by an increasing desire to be at peace with the empire of Andronikos II, this could not always be achieved: Florent campaigned with Epiros against the Byzantines (notably defending Ioannina in 1292). Although the Angevins had pressed for some time for a subordination of Athens to Achaïa, it was only in 1296 that the prince managed to receive the homage from the duke of Athens and his mother Helena.399 1294 was a decisive year for Latin Romania: Philip of Taranto was married to Thamar of Epiros, daughter of Nikephoros, upon which he received fiefs in Epiros and Aitoloakarnania, the enormous sum of 100,000 hyperpyra a year, 394  On this phase of Thessalian history, see also Savvides, “Splintered medieval Hellenism”. 395  A more detailed historical outline is given in Appendix II.9.G, pp. 1458–1459. 396  On her coinage at a later phase of her life during which she had been widowed from William and was in receipt of a half-fief in Karytaina, see Appendix II.9.C, p. 1441. 397  On Theban coinage from Guy II onwards, see Appendix II.8.A.2–3, pp.  1362–1364 and Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1434–1439. 398  The Achaïan tournois coinages from Florent to the mid-fourteenth century, and their historical contexts, are treated in Appendix II.9.A.4–13, pp. 1395–1427. 399  Appendix II.9.B, p. 1434.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

273

and was promised the eventual receipt of the title of despot of Romania.400 Previously in the same year, he had been created overlord of Latin Romania, and ruler over the Angevin holdings in Albania and Corfu. Initially, Philip’s ample direct and indirect claims in Romania amounted to very little indeed. It is all the more noteworthy that an early coinage was launched in his name at Corfu, one of his few possessions where this would actually have been possible. The Latin rally around Epiros also brought into the equation the ruling Count Richard Orsini of Kephallonia, vassal of the prince of Achaïa, who fought beside Florent. This resulted in another dynastic alliance, again of great consequence, for Nikephoros, whose other daughter Maria married John (I) Orsini, son of Richard. Florent’s princeship also witnessed another important episode in 1292, the arrival in Greece of Admiral Roger of Lauria, in the service of the crown of Aragon. He laid waste to Corfu, Monemvasia, and a number of Aegean islands, before proceeding to the southwestern Peloponnese, where an unusual skirmish took place which finally enamoured him to some of the local Frankish-Italian establishment. This episode has been interpreted within a general framework of Aragonese ascendancy at the time.401 In 1296 war with the Byzantines resumed and Florent died a year later. His widow Isabelle’s short princeship was characterised by further moves towards Athens, which saw her daughter Mahaut elope with Guy II de la Roche in 1299, and a rapprochement with the Byzantines.402 In 1300 Isabelle met Philip of Savoy in Rome, and married him in 1301.403 Philip’s princeship in Achaïa was short but complex. He aroused strong opposition from the Angevins, who proclaimed his rule to be unlawful in 1304, but he also furthered the Latin cause in Epiros and the Peloponnese. The Mainland and Epirote interests of Philip of Taranto, styled despot of Romania since the death of his father-inlaw Nikephoros, which occurred in the period 1296–1298,404 had preoccupied the Angevins even before Philip’s release from Aragonese captivity in the 400  The episode is also narrated in our treatments of his coinages in Corfu Appendix II.9.D, pp.  1442–1443 and Naupaktos Appendix II.9.F, pp.  1449–1450. On the new alliance see specifically Berg, “Dowry of Thamar of Epiros”. On the close relationship of Taranto and Albania/Greece since the time of Prince Philip, see also Asonitis, “Ο ‘δεσπότης Ρωμανίας’ Φίλιππος”; Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”; Sakellariou, “Il principato di Taranto e l’oriente latino”. 401  Airaldi: “Roger of Lauria’s Expedition to the Peloponnese”. 402  Appendix II.9.B, p. 1431. 403  On the historical outlines, see also Appendix II.9.A.6, p. 1407. On the petty coinage of Philip of Savoy, see Appendix II.8.B.3, p. 1373. 404  Nicol, “The date of the death of Nikephoros I of Epiros”.

274

Chapter 3

summer of 1302.405 Princes Florent and Philip of Savoy, as we have seen, were active in the area, either in collaboration with the local Angeloi Doukai or, especially after the death of Nikephoros, against them. The rulers of Thessaly of the same dynasty before and after 1303, Sevastokrator Constantine and his son John (II), backed intermittently by Athens and informally allied with the Angevins themselves, provided another element of uncertainty in the region to the north of the Corinthian Gulf in the wake of the 1294 settlements.406 The presence of Savoy in Achaïa further impressed on the Angevins the need to clarify the geo-strategic situation of the area. The important town of Naupaktos was particularly threatened, first by the rulers of Thessaly, and then by Anna, widow of Nikephoros, and her son Thomas, and its political allegiance at any one time cannot always be entirely reconstructed from the sources. The stance of Anna and Thomas resulted in a renewed Latin alliance, uniting once more the forces of Naples, Kephallonia (John I, who had just succeeded his father Richard), and Achaïa, to launch another major offensive in 1303–1306.407 At the turn of the fourteenth century Venetian political and commercial interest in the area of the so-called despotate was also on the increase, and the republic maintained its own channels of communication with Neopatra and Arta throughout these troubled years. In 1304 Philip of Taranto officially became prince of Achaïa.408 He was already lord of Corfu and lord of the kingdom of Albania, which was gaining a new lease of life with the re-taking of Durazzo, after a Byzantine and Serbian interlude, in the same year. Philip embarked on a major expedition in the Peloponnese in 1306. His confidence may soon have been dampened, firstly by the ongoing stalemate north of the Gulf of Corinth: the Latin endeavours there forced Thomas and his mother into a Byzantine alliance (1307); secondly by the Byzantine consolidations in the area of Valona/Kaninë (for which a chrysobull was issued in 1307); thirdly by a large Byzantine counter-offensive in the central and northern part of the peninsula itself; fourthly by Philip’s failed personal policies and the related uncertainties surrounding the fate of Athens after the death of Duke Guy II (October 1308), who had supported Angevin ambitions since the 1290s and was also his bailo in the Morea after Philip’s own

405  See the historical outline in Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1449–1450. Also useful for the historical sequence is Haberstumpf, “Regesto dei Savoia per l’Oriente”, although some of the chronologies are not followed here. The data are presented differently in the same author’s “La Morea tra gli Angioini e i Savoia (1295–1334)”. 406  Consider also Savvides, “Splintered medieval Hellenism”. 407  On these events, see specifically Luttrell, “Vonitsa in Epirus” and Kiesewetter, “Trattato”. 408  Appendix II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

275

departure for Italy (from May 1307);409 and finally especially by the Catalan menace. The presence of the Catalan Grand Company precipitated a remarkable venture by Charles of Valois: the brother of King Philip IV of France and pretender to the Latin empire, through his wife Catherine of Courtenay, sought to exert pressure on Greece by hiring the Company and placing it under the authority of his envoy Thibaut de Chepoix (1308–1309). This did not have any immediate consequences, bar some numismatic ones,410 but the further course of the involvements of the Valois family in Achaïan affairs is worthy of note here. By the time of the death of Catherine I in 1307, her daughter, the titular Empress Catherine II, had become engaged to Hugh of Burgundy.411 A double deal in early 1313 saw Philip of Taranto himself marry Catherine, while Hugh’s brother Louis was married to Mahaut, daughter of Princess Isabelle of Villehardouin and widow of the Athenenian Duke Guy II. Subsequently Philip was able to relinquish the princeship to Louis and Mahaut, in a move reminiscent of what had occurred in 1289, and a year later his title of despot of Romania in favour of his offspring with his first wife Thamar. For a short while after 1311 the house of Anjou was actively seeking to exchange all its Greek and Albanian claims in favour of Aragonese-held Sicily.412 The presence in Greece of Empress Catherine II herself and her son Prince Robert after 1338–1341 was a particularly noteworthy episode a few decades later (see below). 7.6 Athens, Thessaly and the Arrival of the Catalans In Athens, meanwhile, the death of Guy II was followed by an inter-regnum of half a year in late 1308 and early 1309, and the rule of Duke Walter of Brienne which lasted until the battle of Almyros in March 1311.413 In Thessaly, John II had succeeded his father and uncle probably in early 1303. John was initially disregarded by the Constantinople establishment, never officially created sevastokrator unlike his predecessors, but in turn particularly taken under the wing of the Athenian duke, to whom he was related, though not always for selfless reasons. John intermittently opposed and supported Anna of Epiros, widow of Despot Nikephoros, who rejected the 1294 settlement. This ambivalence also put Guy II de la Roche in a difficult position with his own Angevin overlords. The death of Guy II, the new political situation in Athens, and the approach of 409  See also Appendix II.9.B, p. 1431. 410  Compare Appendix II.11.A, p. 1502. 411  See the comments for «114. Unknown Provenance before 1946». 412  Abulafia, “The Aragonese Kingdom of Albania”; Kelly, Robert of Naples, p. 210. 413  Compare also Appendix II.8.A.3, pp. 1363–1364.

276

Chapter 3

the Catalans, re-established ties between Thessaly and Constantinople, which took John II into the imperial fold. The Catalans received money both from Duke Walter of Brienne and John, respectively as outright payment for campaigning with him, and as bribes to turn against the same Walter.414 In 1311 the Catalan Grand Company, having conquered much of the Thessalian territory, defeated Walter and the assembled aristocracy of Latin Greece in a battle which recent scholarship has located at Almyros in Thessaly. Negroponte and the Aegean Islands: Venice, Byzantium, and the Coming of the Turks Also present on this occasion were Nicholas Sanudo of Naxos, later duke of the Archipelago,415 and George I Ghisi, lord of Tinos and Mykonos.416 The first of these was subsequently imprisoned, the second killed during the battle. This was also a blow to the island of Negroponte, where he was one of the terzieri. We have seen that in the middle of the thirteenth century the Cycladic islands and Euboia passed under Achaïan authority.417 In 1262 a treaty was concluded between Venice and Prince William II, which settled the earlier conflict over Negroponte.418 There was a phase subsequent to the Byzantine re-taking of Constantinople in 1261 when Venice, much like the Villehardouin rulers of Achaïa, feared for the very existence of its Greek holdings. Negroponte in particular, thanks largely to the actions of the aforementioned Licario from 1270 onwards, seemed to be slipping out of Latin control. As a result Venice, like the Angevins as we have seen, began to engage much more with the direct colonies in Romania.419 Meanwhile, for the central Cycladic islands these two prominent families (Sanudi and Ghisi) provided very important stability in the face of the threats there of Michael VIII and his Admiral Licario, by collaborating both with Venice and their Angevin overlords, even if their own relations 7.7

414  Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1438–1439; Appendix II.9.G, p. 1460. 415  Appendix II.10, p. 1492. 416  Appendix II.9.H, pp. 1462–1463. 417  For themes in the history of the Cyclades in these years, see Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204”; Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires”; Saint-Guillain and Schmitt, “Ägäis”. Consider also some of the contributions to Moschonas and Panopoulou Ducato dell’Egeo. 418  On the historical developments defining the fate of the island and especially its relations with Venice in this period, see especially Loenertz, “Seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont” and Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 69ff. 419  On the attention given to Coron-Modon in these years, see Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, pp. 42–45.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

277

were not always easy.420 Michael’s interests in this respect were threefold:421 communications between the capital and the Byzantine Morea, eradicating Latin piracy by sponsoring Byzantine piracy (see below), and securing the island of Euboia, which overshadowed all the adjacent islands in terms of importance. Many of the Cycladic islands held by Venetian citizens were much more frequently included in the peace treaties between the two parties than Negroponte itself.422 There was a pattern of offensives and counter-offensives and treaties in 1265 and 1277 which aimed at peace, reparations, and free trade.423 Overall, despite significant Venetian achievements in the Aegean, the campaigns of Licario may still be termed successful in the sense that they established an imperial axis through the centre of the Aegean (Lemnos, northern Sporades, Kea, Serifos, Siphnos), which was only broken a couple of decades later. Venetian co-operation with Charles of Anjou had been strong ever since the Viterbo treaties, and a major anti-Byzantine treaty was signed in 1281 at Orvieto. This alliance was forged at a critical time for the Latins, and for Venice it held the specific promise of securing some Byzantine repayments by threat of force. After the failure of this endeavour, Venice reverted to diplomacy, and a treaty with Andronikos II was concluded in 1285, which was, however, difficult to maintain in the long term, especially in the face of rivalries with Genoa. From 1296 Venice was officially at war again with Byzantium, and the republic encouraged its citizens to conquer islands in the Aegean single-handedly. Kea, Kythnos,424 Serifos,425 Ios, Santorini, Anaphi, Amorgos, Karpathos, Astypalaia, Kythira,426 were all placed under the Venetian sphere of influence in this way.427 As previously, conflicts could arise over the precise 420  On the history of the Ghisi in the Aegean Loenertz, Ghisi II is fundamental. Specifically on the protracted succession in Andros involving both families, see Loenertz, “Marino Dandolo”; Balard, “Andros aux XIVe–XV e siècles”; Saint-Guillain, “Andros et Lemnos au 13e siècle”. Compare also above pp. 221–222 and 239. 421  The main treatment of Byzantine ambitions in the Aegean, and on the island of Euboia in particular, is Angold, “Michael VIII Palaiologos and the Aegean”. 422  Dennis, “I rapporti tra Venezia, i suoi domini diretti e le signorie feudali nelle isole greche”. 423  Some aspects of these treaties are discussed in Chrysostomides, “Venetian commercial privileges”. 424  Specifically: Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Thermia”. 425  Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Serifo”. 426  Koumanoudi, “First Venetian lords of Kythera”, p. 93: this island had temporarily slipped out of the control of the Venier. 427  Siphnos had already been ruled by the later Doge Giovanni Soranzo from a slightly earlier period: Machaira-Ontoni, “Giovanni Soranzo”.

278

Chapter 3

political constellations of the islands.428 Some of these conquests were formalised in a renewed treaty with Byzantium in 1302. The early fourteenthcentury feudal wars in the Cyclades are the probable context for the final ascendancy of the Sanudi and the acquisition of the title of dukes of the Archipelago (first used by Nicholas I, 1323–1341).429 In the years immediately after 1300, the appearance of Catalans and Turks, political uncertainties in Achaïa itself, the establishment of the Zaccaria and the Hospitallers430 in the eastern Aegean, and the official foundation of the Genoese colony in Pera/ Galata, all provide contexts for the Venetian need for tighter control and consolidation.431 This period saw the beginnings of the convoy system organised by the Venetian senate for public and private galleys into Romania and the Black Sea.432 The heart of this empire was the town of Negroponte and the island of Euboia, which were both further consolidated for Venice in this period.433 With any realistic desire to re-conquer Constantinople abandoned, relations with Byzantium were stable and further treaties were signed in 1310 and 1324. Soon, as we shall see, a process of normalisation with the Catalans was also begun. In 1318 Venice received the Thessalian town of Pteleon, strategically placed between the Pagasetic Gulf, northern Euboia, and the northern Sporades. The nearby barony of Bondonitsa, nestled between the two Catalan duchies and the island of Euboia, was also brought within the Venetian orbit through dynastic policies (1334).434 Meanwhile the Turks, intermittent allies of the Catalans, represented in these early decades of the fourteenth century the most serious threat to Venetian interests, menacing by sea the north coast of Euboia and the easternmost Cycladic islands in particular.435 The Archipelago entered a tributary relationship with the Aydınoğulları and even Negroponte appears to have paid tribute to the Turks at times.436 The Turkish menace to

428  On the re-conquered island of Amorgos after 1302, and the roles of the Sanudo and Ghisi families there, see Koumanoudi, “Η διαμαχή Σανύδων-Γκίζη για το νησί σης Αμοργού”; Saint-Guillain, “Amorgos”. 429  Compare Appendix II.10, p. 1492 and Maltezou, “Mer Égée à l’Archipel”. 430  Compare Appendix II.11, pp. 1494 and 1508. 431  For an overall perspective, see also Balard, “Veneziani e Genovesi nel mondo Egeo nel trecento”. 432  See Stöckly, Incanto des galées du marché à Venise, especially pp. 101–108. 433  Jacoby, “Consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont”. 434   Haberstumpf, “Marchesato di Bondonitsa”; Tzavara, “Nicolò Ier Zorzi, marquis de Bondonitsa”. 435  Jacoby, “Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie”, p. 246ff provides important precisions based on Sanudo’s correspondence. 436  On this and what follows: Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

279

Christendom in these years gained international attention,437 and various powers such as Venice, the Hospitallers, Angevin Naples, the Ghisi and Sanudo rulers in the Aegean, and Byzantium, were united in the 1332/1334 league which culminated in the crusade of Smyrna (1344), establishing a Latin bridgehead in the centre of the Anatolian coast that contributed also to the Genoese re-taking of Chios in 1346. From this period onwards, the Turkish threat to our territories manifested itself differently. As was often the case, neither the Venetian nor the Byzantine positions were ever entirely clear-cut throughout these episodes, and both remained willing to collaborate economically or militarily with the Turks. 7.8 Catalan Eastern Mainland Greece Returning now to 1311, the Catalans continued their hostilities against neighbouring Latin areas after their establishment in Attica and Boiotia, principally through military incursions into the Peloponnese and Euboia.438 They were also involved in the internal struggle of the Morea, supporting Ferdinand of Majorca against Louis of Burgundy, rival princes from 1314, each of whom had married into the Villehardouin family and came to violent deaths in 1316.439 The Catalans were widely mistrusted for their aggressive stance to the established powers, Franco-Italian as much as Byzantine, and to the Latin church, and for their alliances with Turks who were expanding into the Aegean area, fostering thereby piracy and the thriving slave trade. The Catalan duchies of Athens, which covered Attica and Boiotia and adjoining areas, with Thebes as capital, and later of Neopatra, were novel also in an administrative sense. An autonomous and sovereign ‘Corporation of the army of Franks in Romania’ ruled these territories, with some powers devolved to urban municipalities. From the outset the Catalans felt nevertheless compelled to give the title of duke to an authority outside of its membership: 437  On the prevailing atmosphere, see Luttrell, “The crusade in the fourteenth century”; Laiou, “Marino Sanudo Torsello, Byzantium and the Turks”; Housley, “Robert the Wise and the Naval League of 1332–1334”; Tyerman, “Marino Sanudo Torsello and the lost crusade”; Zachariadou, “Holy war in the Aegean during the fourteenth century”. 438  In addition to the works of Setton which have already been cited, those of Jacoby are in many respects of fundamental importance: “Compagnie catalane” clarifies the structures of the Company; “L’état catalan en Grèce” the socio-economic conditions of the duchies; whereas the already cited “Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie” narrates the many dealings between Catalans, Turks, and Venetians, and the central position of Negroponte, during the 1310s–1330s in great detail. A clear chronological structure for the political and ecclesiastical history of the Catalan duchies can be found in Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I” and “II”. See also Morfakidis, “La presencia catalana en Grecia” and Dourou-Iliopoulou, “El ducat d’Atenes i el principat d’Acaia”. 439  Appendix II.9.A.8–9, pp. 1413–1415.

280

Chapter 3

the offer was first made to two remaining co-opted Frankish potentates of the area; and then in 1312 to the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, which was from this date onwards to appoint dukes who were represented locally by vicars general. The vicars general were important personalities in their own rights, forging the policies of the duchy. For instance Alfonso Fadrique (1317–1330) was instrumental in guiding expansion into Thessaly upon the death in 1318 of John II of Neoptra, who had previously been in receipt of the title of despot from Andronikos II.440 This was an alarming development for both the Byzantines and the Venetians, but they managed to deal with this new constellation rapidly and pragmatically: the remaining areas of Thessaly were incorporated into the empire with the exception of Pteleon, which became Venetian. Having rejected papal overtures and refused to collaborate with Walter II of Brienne, pretender to the duchy of Athens, the Venetian authorities in Negroponte concluded a treaty with the Catalans in 1319, which was renewed in 1321 and 1331. The exclusion of Catalan shipping from the Saronic Gulf, with Livadostro on the Corinthian Gulf remaining the main harbour of the duchies,441 and the ban on further Turkish alliances, were major, if at times theoretical, outcomes. Some of this regained stability was nevertheless broken by continued seaborne attacks, as we have seen, and by incursions into Catalan eastern Mainland territories by Walter II (1331–1332), which caused the Catalans to vacate parts of the countryside and to destroy central Thebes preemptively, and then by the Aydınoğulları (1339/1340).442 The latters’ raids had in the earlier years of the same decade reached also northeastern areas of the Peloponnese which had before the Catalan conquests been part of the possessions of the Burgundians.443 It appears that also during the first half of the fourteenth century the Brienne managed to hold on to the Argolic plain and its important urban sites, even if their rural feudatories further to the east had come to a settlement with the Catalans. 7.9 New Eastern Aegean Constellations after 1300 In the period under analysis the Anatolian coastline and its islands represented as much a political faultline as Euboia or the Cyclades. The first decade of the fourteenth century saw particularly dramatic political mutations in the face 440  Appendix II.9.G, p. 1461. 441  Compare also the earlier discussion in this chapter regarding routes and communication: p. 199. 442  Chapter 2, p. 146. 443  On the history of these territories after 1311: Luttrell, “Argos and Nauplia”. See also Baker, “Argos”, p. 232 and Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

281

of the failure of Byzantine policies, with the establishments of the two beyliks (Aydın and Menteşe) on the Aegean coast, and the Latin take-overs of the islands of Rhodes and Chios. In due course the Hospitallers and, rather sooner, the Genoese Zaccaria were to play important roles in the Peloponnese and Mainland Greece, engagements which were also numismatically important.444 The Zaccaria were actively coveted by the Angevins and were brought into the protracted Greek political mix, gaining possessions in Achaïa, Arcadia, the Argolis, and intermittently Bondonitsa.445 As was often the case, Venice pursued its own political interests in the area, contributing to the eventual ousting of the Zaccaria from Chios in 1329, and establishing especially friendly relations with the Menteşeoğulları in the 1330s.446 7.10 Piracy As we have seen, during much of the period presently under analysis there was a state of war in the Aegean Sea, with different constellations of alliances and antagonisms. A near constant was the deployment of piracy by all the main Latin, Byzantine, and Turkish protagonists to further their strategic interests,447 which lead to serious economic and demographic disruptions, particularly to a significant growth in slavery. Our picture of piracy is often skewed because the Venetians were the most vocal at protesting injustices,448 but particularly in the early period of the 1260s/1270s, when the geo-strategic situation appeared especially unfavourable, piracy was mostly directed by Latins from Euboia and the Cycladic islands towards Byzantine-held territories to the north and east, which in turn provides the context for subsequent piracy sponsored by the Byzantines and based at diverse Byzantine-held strategic points of the Aegean (Thessalonike, Lemnos, Anaia, and Monemvasia).449 The Angevins as a major territorial and political force recorded and counteracted piracy, also in areas other than the Aegean, though there are fewer suggestions that they

444  Appendix II.6.D–E, pp. 1346–1349. Appendix II.9.I, pp. 1464–1466. 445  Miller, “Zaccaria”; Haberstumpf, “Marchesato di Bondonitsa”, pp. 30–31. 446  Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade, pp. 18–40. 447  A specific, though not comprehensive, contribution to the topic is Charanis, “Piracy in the Aegean”. On the general phenomenon in the light of the collapse of general Byzantine authority around 1204, see also Chapter 1, p. 25. 448  Morgan, “Venetian Claims Commission” (1278). Compare also the document of 1321, referred to in the further course of this chapter and Appendix III.1, pp.  1516 and 1518; Appendix III.3, p. 1535; Appendix III.5, p. 1568. 449  Maltezou, “Θεσσαλονίκη: ορμητήριο κουρσάρων”; Angold, “Michael VIII Palaiologos and the Aegean”, pp. 31–40.

282

Chapter 3

harnessed it for their own ends.450 From the turn of the fourteenth century the Venetian state used its colonial and galley systems not only to police piracy in the Aegean, but to engage in it covertly under the aegis of her captains.451 In the same period the Turks managed to profit particularly from the Byzantine disengagement from the sea and developed into a formidable maritime force in the Aegean,452 while the Catalans in a similar fashion threatened the territories surrounding the duchies of Athens and Neopatra. The demarcation between acts of piracy and of warfare is particularly unclear in these contexts. In the 1320s and 1330s important maritime parts of our area, especially Euboia and some of the Cycladic islands, were under imminent threat of loss to the Venetian/Angevin authorities, as they had been at the hands of the Byzantines half a century earlier. Alliances and concerted action, some may call it counterpiracy, managed to avert the most dramatic dangers of that age. 7.11 Slavery Slavery maps to some degree onto the developments which have just been outlined. In middle Byzantium, and in early Latin Romania, slaves had played virtually no role.453 It is all the more remarkable that slaves emerged as arguably the single most important commercial commodity in the Aegean from the period under discussion onwards.454 This was part of a wider trend which persisted throughout the Christian and Muslim Mediterranean and Black Sea, where slaves were very widely traded and used in different urban, domestic, proto-industrial, military and maritime contexts. By definition, one had to enslave people of different ethnicity and religion to oneself, although the latter condition was often applied more loosely, and Bosnians, Albanians, and

450   Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Η πειρατεία στις ανδεγαυικές κτήσεις”. Compare: Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο, pp. 71–72. 451  Tenenti, “Venezia e la pirateria”; Katele, “Piracy and the Venetian state”. See further Gertwagen, “Venetian Modon”, p. 130 and Karpov, “Ports of the Peloponnese”, p. 185. 452  See in this regard specifically Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer, pp. 367–378. Compare also the relevant passages in Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade. 453  Chapter 1, pp. 24 and 28. Compare also Jacoby, “Social Evolution”, p. 214ff; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 203. 454  On the subject of slavery in the later medieval world Verlinden, L’esclavage remains a fundamental study, even if it focuses predominantly on the western Mediterranean. See also Spufford, Power and profit, pp. 338–341. On our territories and adjacent regions, see additionally Verlinden, “Venezia e il commercio degli schiavi”; Luttrell, “Slavery at Rhodes: 1306–1440”; Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade, pp. 160–163; Duran i Duelt, “Comerç d’esclaus”. Moschonas, “Η αγορά των δούλων” (German translation: “Sklavenmarkt”) is a very thorough exposition of the sources for our area.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

283

particularly the omnipresent ‘Greeks’, were for instance readily found in Christian households in Iberia, Sicily, and elsewhere. Our area provided a particularly fruitful pool of potential slaves in view of the general political and military conditions. Certain Latins, for instance the Catalans, and Turks, were evidently more active in enslaving and trading their victims. While it has been said that slavery was alien to the Byzantines, Serbs and Bulgarians,455 it is now clear that all areas, polities and ethnicities became to some degree implicated in this phenomenon. Most dramatically in certain economic or military climates anybody could be persuaded to sell their own kin into slavery. In terms of commerce, slaves exchanged hands in large numbers in places as diverse as beylik Ephesos, Hospitaller Rhodes, Venetian Candia, or Catalan Thebes, and across the main political and religious faultlines. Their main destinations were the west and the Mamluk sultanate. Greece in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century: Angevins and Orsini Returning to the internal political situation of Latin Romania, in Achaïa the Angevins sought to clarify the situation in the wake of the death of their designated prince, Louis of Burgundy, in December 1316, in favour of his widow Mahaut, the new princess subject to the usual restrictions imposed by the Angevins on members of the Villehardouin family.456 However, she refused to consummate the hastily arranged marriage to John of Gravina, younger brother of Philip of Taranto and King Robert of Anjou, and eventually in 1321, after long negotiations and the threat of a Venetian intervention in the internal affairs of Achaïa, John himself was offered the princeship. These developments and subsequent events highlight the complicated political constellations in the Angevin Peloponnese and related areas: the interests and actions of Prince John and of his brother Philip, titular emperor of Constantinople, and the latter’s son by Thamar of Epiros, Philip (II), despot of Romania, all deferred ultimately to the Angevin crown of Sicily/Naples, whose own interest in Romania was, however, only remote.457 During the 1320s and early 1330s the main focus of these protagonists was to protect the Gulf of Corinth and the remaining areas of Epiros/Albania, and to rein in Count John II Orsini of Kephallonia and Zakynthos. John II was son of John I, the grandson of Nikephoros of Epiros, and the brother of Count Nicholas. Nicholas succeeded his father John I in 1317 and promptly embarked on an ambitious plan, murdering his relative 7.12

455  Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans”, p. 151. 456  Appendix II.9.A.10–11, pp. 1416–1422. 457  Kelly, Robert of Naples, p. 210.

284

Chapter 3

Despot Thomas the year after and expanding the reach of the Epirote state northwards, where he met Byzantine resistance. John II was in turn responsible for his brother’s death in 1323 and took over his territories, which he ruled from Arta.458 John of Gravina launched a major campaign in 1325 for which he had indebted himself to creditors, especially the Acciaiuoli,459 but during which he failed in his principle objectives, to subject the Orsini to his authority and to roll back recent Greek successes in the Peloponnesian areas of Achaïa and Elis. He did, however, manage to incorporate the islands of Zakynthos and Kephallonia into the principality of Achaïa. After 1328 John II of Orsini was created despot by Andronikos III, but he continued to pose a direct threat to imperial holdings, especially the town of Ioannina. John also managed to establish himself in northern Thessaly after 1333.460 In 1331/1332 the same John II was nominally integrated into the Latin structures also for his Epirote territories, Philip of Taranto died, and the principality of Achaïa changed hands from John of Gravina to his nephew Robert, son of Philip, new prince of Taranto and emperor of Constantinople, and to Robert’s mother Empress Catherine of Valois.461 This decade evidently saw the erosion of political authority and of established feudal and commercial privileges in the principality, so much so that the republic of Venice sent an embassy to the empress during her residency in Clarentza (1338–1341).462 Present in Greece, together with Prince Robert, was Nicholas Acciaiuoli, who managed to build on his family interests in Greece going back to the previous decade, and especially his close relationship with Catherine and her son, by gaining a great number of possessions and privileges in the peninsula and in Romania more broadly.463 In return he offered very important financial backing to Catherine and Robert. After the departure of the party from Clarentza, Achaïa was once again left in a very precarious political and social situation. This will be further explored in the next discussion. In the meantime we note an interesting episode: in 1331, during the earlier period of transition from one Angevin prince to another, the former Princess Mahaut of Hainaut had pronounced James III, king of Majorca, on her deathbed as her legitimate successor. James III had been born in 1315 to the former

458  Appendix II.9.J, p. 1475. 459  Compare in this chapter, p. 222. 460  Compare Ostrogorsky, “Das Chrysobull des Despoten Johannes Orsini für das Kloster von Lykousada”. 461  Appendix II.9.A.12, pp. 1425–1426. 462  Tzavara, “Un’ambasciata veneta a Clarenza presso Caterina di Valois nel 1341”. Compare also Tzavara, Clarentza, p. 51. 463  Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce, pp. 47–48; Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, pp. 23–33 and 41–44.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: POLITICS AND WARFARE

285

Prince Ferdinand and his wife Isabelle of Sabran,464 Mahaut’s cousin. An assembly of Moreote lords legitimised James’ claim in 1344. This was of little consequence to the history of the Peloponnese but it has given us a numismatic curiosity.465 John of Gravina had been left with what remained of the Angevin kingdom of Albania, largely confined to the duchy of Durazzo. After John’s death in 1336 the title of king was variously held by his son Charles and his brother King Robert of Naples. Earlier, Walter of Brienne’s expedition had led to the re-integration of Corfu, Leukada, and Vonitza on the Ambracian Gulf into the direct area of Angevin influence466 (Kephallonia had been attached to Angevin Achaïa somewhat earlier, in 1325). The new feudal lords and colonial administrators – at Corfu in the shape of the Captain William of Tocco, who laid the foundations for the important involvements of this family in Epiros and the islands (see below) – answered initially to Emperor Philip of Taranto and his son Philip II, despot of Romania, who held high hopes for the area. Both Philips died, however, in 1331 and the Angevin interests also in this area, now separated definitively from the Angevin kingdom of Albania, passed to Empress Catherine and her son Robert, prince of Taranto and of Achaïa. 7.13 Byzantine Epiros, Thessaly, Peloponnese and the Aegean after 1300 In the empire, Andronikos II had succeeded his father Michael VIII in 1282. During the initial stages of his reign Andronikos scaled down the naval capabilities, and thereafter Byzantine policies in the Aegean became very different. By the first decade the fourteenth century most of the central and southern Aegean had passed under Venetian control. Much of the Anatolian coastline and its islands, despite imperial efforts and the massive Catalan engagement there in the early 1300s, came to be divided amongst Latin and Turkish polities. Chios could intermittently and rather opportunistically be brought back into the imperial fold during 1329–1346. Andronikos had also conducted major campaigns in Thessaly and Epiros in 1283 and 1292.467 The Albanian possessions of the Byzantines were consolidated and expanded after 1300 from their main base, Berat, notably towards Valona/Kaninë. The Peloponnesian territories enjoyed a truce in the same period, followed by a Byzantine advance into the north and northeast of the peninsula during the first decade of the fourteenth century. 464  Compare in this chapter p. 220, n. 188. 465  Appendix II.9.A.13, pp. 1426–1427. 466  Luttrell, “Vonitsa in Epirus”; Luttrell, “Guglielmo de Tocco” (see specifically pp. 47–48 for a coin erroneously attributed to John of Gravina for Corfu); Soustal, “Butrint”; Synkellou, “Αιτωλοαρκανανία”. 467  Compare Appendix II.1.B.8, p. 1245.

286

Chapter 3

Thessaly and Epiros, under their rulers John II and Thomas, gradually gravitated towards Byzantium. Nevertheless, in the years leading up to Thomas’ death (1318) these relations were strained by the actions of the imperial commander Syrgiannes, who ravaged the area around the Ambracian Gulf. John II died in the same year as Thomas. During the subsequent Byzantine expansion, during which for instance the important town of Ioannina once again accepted imperial overlordship. The chrysobull issued for its citizens by Andronikos II in 1319 is also of monetary interest.468 This emphasis on privileged towns is mirrored by the different chrysobulls for Monemvasia issued by Emperors Michael VIII and Andronikos II.469 During the final decade of the reign of Andronikos II the Byzantine positions in the Peloponnese expanded considerably. The same emperor came to uneasy accommodations with Nicholas and John II Orsini after 1318 and 1323 respectively, and the area of Valona and Berat still provided scope for conflict between Byzantines and Angevins in these years, so much so that an important Venetian commission of 1321 recorded damages to its citizens as a consequence of hostilities there. Emperor Andronikos III (1328–1341) managed to make some further inroads in the Balkan territories, against John II Orsini and especially after the latter’s death sometime before 1337, so that Epiros and Thessaly, parts of which having intermittently been held by Sevastokrator Gavrielopoulos and John II Orsini himself, became imperial again for about a decade before the Serbian conquests. The same emperor, as we have seen, also collaborated with the Latin powers in the Aegean to curb Turkish expansion. With the weakened Orsini and Angevin positions, the empire’s prospects in the northern parts of the territories of interest to this book should have been good at the moment in history. Nevertheless, from around the period of the death of Andronikos III (1341) the situation unfolded rather rapidly: during the ensuing civil war the Byzantine towns and regions of Greece and Albania sided with Kantakouzenos, who had previously managed to bind the son of John II Orsini, Nikephoros, to his own family. Kantakouzenos governed these territories through John Angelos, for whom he issued a special chrysobull (1342). For a short period John forged and ruled a territorial state spanning most of Thessaly and Epiros, yet the wars themselves, the increasing political activities and migrations of Albanians, and centrifugal and revolutionary forces, all undermined stability. All the while Serbian advances were relentless: the regions between Kruja, Berat, and Valona/Kaninë were lost to the empire between 1341 and 1345. By this point most of Macedonia was already Serbian: Dušan was proclaimed and crowned 468  Chapter 1, p. 56; Appendix III.4, p. 1558. 469  C  hapter 1, p. 38.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

287

emperor there in 1345/1346. After 1346–1348 all of Epiros and the western Mainland, and Thessaly, were Serbian. It is not possible to ascertain whether the conquests of Epiros and Thessaly were violent or not. John Angelos had by this point left the area and probably died of the plague in 1348. In 1347 Kantakouzenos was crowned sole emperor and his son Manuel created despot. Two years later the latter was dispatched to the Morea, the only part of the empire which was in expansion, with the precise task of establishing stability vis-à-vis the local archons and the Latins. The further demise of the empire, and of the Kantakouzenos family in Constantinople itself, entailed that Manuel’s posting eventually acquired a more important and permanent character, leading to the establishment of what was eventually known as the despotate. 8 1259/1268–1347/1348: Socio-Economic Trends Overall, the same Franco-Greek social and economic ordering along feudal lines, as outlined already,470 persisted in the present period. Nonetheless, the extensive political mutations in Greece in these years, especially the establishments and expansions of the Angevin and Venetian systems, and additionally the presence of the Byzantines and Catalans, resulted in important changes. These new imperial constructs in Greece sought to hold and control Greek lands for direct exploitative purposes, but also for geo-political reasons, in a broader Mediterranean context. To maintain these strategic networks monies flowed directly to Greece, while new administrations harnessed and generated local resources in new ways.471 They paid greater attention to efficiency and detail, often the result of the heightened levels of conflict. In this environment the distribution of fiefs and the wealth which they entailed were political tools of the highest order.472 These social and economic changes, combined with more general demographic developments and the flow of trade, left strong marks on monetary affairs.473 470  See in this chapter, pp. 234–251. 471  On different forms of colonialism in Greece, see Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, p. 155. 472  Note for instance that, according to Muntaner, Boniface of Verona, key ally of the Burgundians of Athens, though obviously ready to explore his allegiances in the light of the arrival of the Catalans, received 50,000 shillings tournois (= 600,000 deniers tournois) per annum from Walter of Brienne, in all kinds of goods: Muntaner, chapter 244, p. 437. 473  On demographic developments, see in this chapter, pp. 186–217. In terms of the relevant literature which has already been cited, I refer to my discussions of the previous phase in Greek history, n. 209 and n. 260, and specifically to the bibliographies on the Assizes

288

Chapter 3

8.1 Social Changes As in the earlier part of the thirteenth century, there was a close symbiosis between the interests which exploited the land and which engaged in regional and international trade. Many of the key political and economic players resided in the growing towns, including in this period a new grouping of Greek and Italian – also non-noble – feudatories.474 There was a small but growing urban middle class, some members of which engaged in manufacturing/commercial activities, others in bureaucratic, administrative, medical, clerical, and legal professions. Given the different functions of some of the urban centres, in infrastructure and logistics, seafaring and warfare, a proletarian and soldier class would also have been a constant feature. In these urban contexts, the Latin church and its orders had a significant presence.475 Most of these persons were based in places which were tightly controlled by the prevailing political and colonial powers, in fact many of these were installed there via official channels, for instance in Coron-Modon, Clarentza, Negroponte, Thebes, or Corfu/Butrint.476 Notable exceptions might have been Ioannina, Arta, and Monemvasia, which, as we have seen, may increasingly have regulated their affairs independently from larger political structures.477 There is no sense in the sources pertaining to Latin Greece that there was any substantial social conflict emanating from these middling and lower classes, as was the case in the Byzantine Macedonia and Thrace,478 and in the socially more advanced parts of Latin Europe in the central years of the fourteenth century. Likewise, for this period and for the period after the Black Death, there is no evidence for our area of agrarian revolts in the classic sense, which were so common in parts of Europe. In some of the Venetian colonial contexts the relative absence of social unrest may have been the result of some of the rather coercive policies in place, as we shall see. In the 1340s, in parts of Epiros and Thessaly, there were instances of separatist and even revolutionary movements amongst rural Greek populations. These need to be viewed in the context of growing socio(n. 266), the land regime (n. 295), and commerce (n. 314). The bibliography regarding the political history of Greece after 1259/1268 (n. 376) is also relevant here. 474  Jacoby, “Encounter”, p. 901. 475  See Nanetti, “Case di ordini mendicanti nella Messenia veneziana” (in English: “Houses of the mendicant orders in Venetian Messenia”). 476  The best documented populations of towns in this period are those Coron-Modon, Negroponte, and Clarentza (see Hodgetts, Modon and Coron; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”; Tzavara, Clarentza), followed by Corfu (Asonitis, Κέρκυρα). 477  On towns and commerce in Byzantium in the Palaiologan period, see also the discussion at an earlier stage in this book: pp. 32–34. 478  See above in Chapter 1, p. 25, especially the contribution of Kyritses.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

289

economic pressures and the deterioration of political stability. It is generally assumed that the populations in all the territories analysed in this book only began to decline from approximately the Black Death onwards. 8.2 Commerce: Broad Changes in Intensity and Orientation From the second half of the thirteenth century onwards commerce in the eastern Mediterranean, in the area between the Aegean, the Black Sea, and Cyprus and eastwards, was generally on the increase.479 Reasons for this were the following, amongst others: rising populations and urbanisation in the west, and augmented material needs there;480 the ‘Pax Mongolica’; western access to the Black Sea; and western trading privileges in Byzantium, Trebizond, and Armenia.481 Important were furthermore the rising political and economic stature of Cyprus and, in due course, the stability fostered by the beyliks in western Anatolia, and further afield by the Mamluk sultanate. Crete, a major source of primary agricultural products, was also only now systematically subordinated (especially with the colonisation of the west of the island) and exploited by Venice.482 The same was true to a more limited extent for many of the Cycladic islands and the Angevin colony of Corfu. As we shall see, the Venetian galley system began to link many of these areas in a regular and intense way halfway through our period. Between the early decades of the thirteenth century and a century later there was a substantial augmentation even within the principality of Achaïa 479  On primary and secondary production, and on commerce, in this period and in our region, see for instance Heyd, Histoire du commerce, vol. I, pp. 427–527, and ff on related areas (Bulgaria and Anatolia); Hodgetts, Modon and Coron; Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania”; “Social Evolution”; “Changing Economic Patterns”; Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries” (of only intermittent interest to Greece); Sakellariou, “Latin Morea”; Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 166–215 (of only intermittent interest to Greece); Jacoby, “Thirteenth-century commercial exchange in the Aegean”; “Rural exploitation and market economy”; Gasparis, “Land and landowners in the Greek territories under Latin dominion”; Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”. Hrochová, “Commerce vénitien”, is to be used more cautiously. Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 233–254 and 337–365, considers trade throughout the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea without touching much on Greece proper; the briefer Balard, “Latins in the Aegean” deals with territories closer to our area. An extensive bibliography on commerce in the eastern Mediterranean is contained in Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. xxx–xxxiii. 480  Compare for instance movements of grain from Sicily to northern Italy in the same period: Abulafia, “Commercio del grano siciliano”. 481  Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 240–241 and 245–246; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. xxx–xxxiii. 359–361; Jacoby, “The economy of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia”. 482  Gallina, Una società coloniale, remains a useful overview of the island’s colonial economy.

290

Chapter 3

in the number of fiefs and horsemen, that is to say in exploited territories. One may naturally think that the almost constant strife in the Aegean, and the permanent fear of piracy, cannot have favourably influenced maritime exchange in that area. However, these challenges obliged Venice to streamline its administrative and commercial activities there. For instance, the expansion into the smaller islands in fact fostered trade because many of these could not naturally meet all their own requirements. Genoa was increasingly instrumentalised by the Byzantine Empire, also with commercial implications. The rivalry between the two Italian republics, which culminated at the end of the thirteenth century in the battle of Curzola (1298), led to a neater division than previously into eastern and western Aegean areas of influence, with Greece more and more dominated by Venice.483 This was further embedded in mid-fourteenth century, as the Genoese took over Chios for a second time, again with great commercial repercussions. Within these processes the commercial position in the Aegean of a third Italian republic, Pisa, which had been promising during the early years of the new Palaiologan dynasty in Constantinople, waned.484 Pronounced conflict around the turn of the fourteenth century also added an entirely new commodity – slaves.485 One may suppose that this was to become the single most lucrative item of trade of our area of interest, comparable in profitability only to the resources which the Zaccaria family and later the Maona managed to exploit in the east, at Phokaia and Chios, namely mastic and especially alum, a central ingredient to the textile industry as a fixer of dyes. Jacoby has used alum extraction by the Zaccaria as a prime example of wealth creation driven by a western, but rather un-Byzantine, sense of innovation and enterprise. Commerce within our area of interest underwent certain directional changes in the years ca. 1259–1348. In the Aegean, the westerly re-orientation of Thessalonike and its hinterland, mentioned already,486 occurred at the beginning of the present period, with Venetian merchants active there from the 1270s. Later, the main flow of international trade affecting Greece was partially re-directed through the regular convoys of Venetian state galleys, as we shall see. This system integrated faraway places, especially in the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean. It will also have led to the concentration of resources 483  On this subject, see for instance pp. 189 and 281. Compare also Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 147. 484  Borsari, “Rapporti tra Pisa e gli stati di Romania nel duecento”. On Ancona, which had a later ascendancy, see the discussion below, pp. 322, 352, 402 and 421. 485  On slavery, see the bibliography which has already been provided on p. 284, n. 454. 486  Chapter 1, p. 33.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

291

in some locations en route (notably Clarentza, Negroponte, and Crete) to the detriment of others (for instance Thessalonike itself). In general terms the republic advised its citizens to operate everywhere in harmony with the galley network in order to ensure the transportation of produce back to Italy. In this way the key Venetian towns of Greece, Coron-Modon in addition to Negroponte, and the new political centre of Achaïa, Clarentza, and its newly attested fair (St. Demetrios), were all gaining in commercial importance, leading overall to a westerly re-orientation also of the Peloponnese. The profile of commerce in this period will be revisited in this chapter in the light of disparate sources, material culture, and numismatics. 8.3 Agricultural Exploitation and Production487 In quantitative terms, the main Aegean contribution to regional and international trade remained also from the second half of the thirteenth century onwards agricultural products, especially foodstuffs. The Greek products which were traded either within Greece and the Aegean, or with the west, were olive oil, grains, wine and currants, cotton, acorn cups (‘valania’) and kermes (‘grana’) used for dyeing,488 and secondary items such as wax and honey, and cheese. For the Peloponnese there is evidence of a silk industry in the fourteenth century,489 and the same is true for Catalan-held Thebes, but only up to a certain point in the second half of the century.490 In the current period agricultural improvements took place with regard to scale, intensity/effort, and know-how. In Latin southern Greece, especially the Peloponnese, many landowners and stewards came afresh from sophisticated areas of southern Italy, where massarie were common. New crops (cotton, citrus), new exploitation (the 487  On the land regime in Latin areas, consider the bibliographies in nn. 295 and 497. For the present period the documents in Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres are fundamental. These have been widely exploited in the cited literature, but specifically by its editors Longnon (“La vie rurale dans la Grèce franque”) and Topping (“Régime agraire dans le Péloponnèse” and “Estates of Niccolò Acciaiuoli”). See further Jacoby, review of Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres. The same documents have also been the focus of Carile, Rendita feudale; see further by the same author “Formazione della rendita feudale nel Peloponneso” and “Rapporti fra signoria rurale e despoteia”; but also the reservations in Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale, esp. p. 360. Consider also Ortega, “La mainmise financière des Angevins sur leur périphérie”. On the important monetary information contained in the same acts, see Appendix III.3, pp. 1540–1543 and 1547–1549. 488  On these two items, see already above, p. 246. 489  Compare above, p. 247. The Achaian evidence is derived mostly from the same acts edited by Longnon and Topping: Jacoby, “Silk production in the Frankish Peloponnese”. 490  Jacoby, “Production of silk textiles”.

292

Chapter 3

beginnings of more regular salt extraction for south Italian, Venetian, and to a lesser extent Ragusan, export491), new techniques (irrigation), can all be found from the second half of the thirteenth century onwards. To this one must add the fact that the estates of these landowners/holders were larger and therefore more efficiently exploited, with peasants being perhaps held more frequently than previously to their corvée labour duties rather than being encouraged to commute these into cash payments. The overall profitability of landholding in Greece in these central years of our book, and therefore the great attention given to its administration, is suggested in a variety of very disparate sources.492 In the mid-fourteenth century body of sources regarding the Angevin Peloponnese (and Kephallonia) great emphasis is placed on this corvée labour (‘servicium’), revealed therein to be worth five hyperpyra.493 At the same time, hired farmhands supplemented the workforce. In the same sources the basic land tax (demosion or acrosticum) is specifically paid “in denari” on one occasion, but there are also many instances where part of the agricultural yield is used for the purpose of paying taxes.494 Monetary payments must on the other hand be consistently supposed for the many additional dues to be paid by the villeins to the fiefholders, for the privilege of mooring boats, extracting salt, grazing livestock in transit, and milling or pressing and storing of produce, and amongst others, part of a seemingly all-encompassing system 491   For some rare Peloponnesian information before mid-century, see Panopoulou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο αλατίου στην Πελοπόννησο”. We have a much clearer picture for the period after ca. 1350, due to an increase in interest and documentation: see therefore below: pp. 390–391. However, in Epiros and Angevin Corfu the systematic extraction of salt is already documented in our present period, as it was in more northerly Durazzo: Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 279. 492  See the opinion expressed already by Gerland, Neue Quellen p. 28. Note also the interesting story of Pietro, canon of Thebes, which only known to us because Pietro was also a Venetian citizen and his case was referred back to the republic, as recorded in the Commemoriali for 1308 (see Loenertz, “Hosios Lukas de Stiris”). He had received good incomes from lands in Boiotia and beyond. As he never intended to come to Greece he farmed out these estates for a certain price, a task with which Algisio of the Dominican order was entrusted. Whether or not this was carried out according to instructions is difficult to judge, but certain lands given to a certain Antoine le Flamenc, who was also of infirm state, turned out to yield too little, causing a dispute. 493  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, p. 271; Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale, p. 359. 494  Petrescu, “Vie rurale en Morée”, p. 98. On questions of payments in money or kind, see especially the cited articles of Topping. Nevertheless, the sources are neither consistent nor presumably representative, and even the omnipresent formula “omnibus in pecunia computatis” would seem to indicate the value of a particular payment, rather than the fact that it is made in currency. On these taxes, compare p. 243 in this chapter.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

293

of exploitation.495 Efficiency was also ensured by expert incomers, in charge of estate management and bookkeeping, the gathering and dissemination of produce, and food processing: for instance currants for sweetening became a major Greek export in these years. Jacoby in particular has stressed the close relationship between Latin and Byzantine landholders by the second half of the thirteenth century, who encountered one another in local or commercial contexts and exchanged knowhow.496 In certain rare cases Greeks and Latins even administered holdings jointly.497 Amongst the highest feudatories of the principality one finds, by the early fourteenth century, an increasingly large number of Greeks.498 It was within this demographic at this moment in time, in the Frankish Peloponnese and eastern Mainland, that there may also have been certain forms of acculturation and common identities. The Venetian and Catalan territories of southern Greece were organised and administered rather differently, as we shall see, and the different strata of indigenous Greek populations were generally kept either at arm’s length, or under tight control. This may have had religious, ideological, or practical reasons, but also had strong fiscal and economic repercussions. These populations were often subjected to a tighter fiscal grip and a reduced economic autonomy.499 The villani of the Venetian territories in Messenia were tied to the colonial administrations.500 As such, the direct taxation or rent, labour (angaria), and produce given to the state were mostly at the direct disposal of the castellans or the admiral and subordinated to broader colonial aims. Given the general lack of manpower, great emphasis was placed also here on the angaria in a number of contexts, especially infrastructure and military. These villani could find themselves at the mercy of officials, but were also able to embark on a route of legal recourse through the Venetian system.501 There were a small number of Latins who held certain lands from the state, often in sensitive areas, 495  Jacoby, review of Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, pp. 89–90. See also Lock, Franks, p. 248. 496  Jacoby, “Peasant mobility”: some regional commercial activity also led to peasant mobility and interaction. 497  Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie gréco-franque en Morée”. 498  Jacoby, “Encounter”, pp. 894–895. 499  See the general remarks in Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie: phénomènes sociaux et économiques” and Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”. 500  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, pp. 75–136; 208–241; 284–339. See above, p. 242. Negroponte was until the 1340s mostly an urban colony: Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, p. 133. 501  See the examples discussed in Hodgetts, “Land problems in Coron” and Hodgetts, “Venetian officials and Greek peasantry”.

294

Chapter 3

and subject to lighter fiscal regimes than their Greek counterparts. Greeks within the same Venetian territories who were not of villein status might thrive, acquiring for instance urban properties (on which the acrosticum or rent might be paid, similarly to peasant lands) or conducting private sea trade (notably between the Venetian colonies of Crete and Coron-Modon, via the Cycladic islands502). The Catalan territories of the eastern Mainland saw very profound socio-economic changes. With respect to landholding and the peasantry,503 while the legal conditions remained the same since Burgundian times, the intensity of exploitation, the constant threats to outward security, and the particular Catalan disdain for the local populations,504 resulted in a stringent regime, intent above all on preventing the alienation of goods and dependent peasants. One must imagine the situation in Angevin Corfu somewhere between that of Coron-Modon, and larger territorial entities: while some fiefs were held on Corfu by individual barons who had come to the island with the new administration, many of the landed resources would have been directly exploited by the state in order to maintain the very prominent physical and human structures put in place to administer and defend the town and the island.505 The Angevin empire on the continent was less stable. Perhaps certain lands, for instance at times those around Durazzo and Valona in the north, and Naupaktos in the south, were profitable to the Angevins, but many other possessions would have been too ephemeral to have yielded an income for its holders.506 During the period 1259–1348 large areas in Albania, Epiros and the western Mainland, and of Thessaly and the Peloponnese, were in the hands of Byzantium and its offshoots. Different administrations, in Constantinople or locally, naturally applied themselves to the matters of landholding and 502  Jacoby, “Creta e Venezia nel contesto economico”, pp. 80–81; Gasparis, “Trade of agricultural products in the eastern Mediterranean”, p. 94. Such information is contained sporadically in notarial documents, for example: Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella, s.v. Corone. An analysis of this class of Greeks in the Cretan context can be found in Laiou, “Crète vénitienne”. 503  Treated most even-handedly in Jacoby, “L’état catalan en Grèce”. 504  Lewis, “The Catalan failure of acculturation”; Morfakidis, “La presencia catalana en Grecia”. 505  See the detailed expositions in Asonitis, Κέρκυρα and Borghese, Carlo I d’Angiò, p. 97ff. 506  On the northern areas, see Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 275–300. The author ascribes a sinister competence to the Angevin agricultural administration during the troubled 1270s and 1280s. Foodstuffs were either withheld from or sold to the local populations at augmented prices. Compare also Borghese, cited in the last note. On the history of Angevin Naupaktos from ca. 1300, see Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1449–1453. See also Luttrell, “Vonitsa in Epirus”. Overall, there is little direct evidence for the agricultural regime in these areas: Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, pp. 253–267.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

295

exploitation of these territories. As a rule, conquests and political changes would have entailed the large-scale transfer of properties to individuals or institutions. Given the extant documentation, most detailed information is derived from monastic sources, but not exclusively so: For the Peloponnese, we know of the curious case of a pronoia grant by Andronikos II to a certain Nomikopoulos, in the eastern Argolis in 1288,507 maybe at a moment in the regional history when political uncertainty in Achaïa and Athens suggested opportunities for the Byzantines. The Brontochion monastery (Mystras) acquired a large number of holdings through chrysobulls from the same emperor in Lakonia, Messenia, Elis, and Arkadia in the early fourteenth century.508 The monastery of the Panagia at Mega Spilaion was the centre of Byzantine attention in the gradual conquests of the north-central part of the peninsula since the late thirteenth century. It was granted and confirmed a number of land holdings by imperial authority.509 The monastery became the residence of the Greek metropolitan of Patra. The ecclesiastical sees of the Byzantine Peloponnese were also provided with resources, some more so than others. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the present period saw the height of indigenous Byzantine production in the Peloponnese, and a very intense tendency to export the same through the port of Monemvasia.510 As elsewhere, this was no doubt the result of generally favourable conditions, notwithstanding the seemingly difficult geo-political situation, as well as the efficient administration of large estates, and the strict application of ‘feudal’ prerogatives.511 Thessaly had traditionally been agriculturally rich, the source of foodstuffs for other parts of the empire, and the location of important estates. It was also,

507  Bartusis, Pronoia, pp. 427ff. 508  Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, p. 38; Bartusis, Pronoia, pp. 511–514. 509  Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, p. 27. On landholding by such institutions in the Byzantine Peloponnese, see also Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II, pp. 180–182. 510  See for instance Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 314, 318, 322–324. The recently exploited ecclesiastical revenues for 1324 offer a particularly dramatic picture of the wealth of Monemvasia and its area, derived from different sources: Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine empire”, pp. 248, 254, 256–257. According to the same information, the revenue of the said see of Patra was rather humble. It was also during the present period that Malvasie wine, which Matschke, “Der Malvasier” believes to have been originally cultivated in the Peloponnese, became prominent in diverse sources. 511  On the controversial matter of supposedly independent peasant landowners in the Byzantine Peloponnese, see Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy”, p. 274, n. 541, in opposition to the views of Laiou. On the privileges for Monemvasia, see pp.  38 and 286.

296

Chapter 3

as we have seen, of fundamental strategic importance to the emperors of the Palaiologan dynasty, especially Michael VIII and Andronikos III, and it was an important monastic centre.512 For all of these reasons it offers important information on the land regime, from the large inland expanses around Trikala (Porta Panagia, Lykousada,513 and Zavlantia monasteries), further northwest near Stagoi (Kalambaka) (Gradistion monastery); and northeast near Elassona (Panagia Olympiotissa monastery), and from the Pagasitic Gulf. In the latter area, the cartulary of the twin monasteries of Makrinitissa and Nea Petra has preserved a number of imperial acts and private sales’ acts up to 1282, with a concentration in the 1260s and 1270s.514 These testify to the landed resources of the local potentates, the Meliasenoi, made over to the monasteries, although never entirely relinquished. We can witness the significant involvement of this family with the main political protagonists of the area, and latterly the important intervention of Michael VIII on their behalves, as part of his strategy in Thessaly.515 To the south, the Nea Mone in Chios had holdings in the area of Almyros, also confirmed by Michael VIII.516 The monasteries of the Trikala area were apparently founded and patronised by the local rulers in the thirteenth century, then further endowed and regulated by Sevastokrator Gavrielopoulos, and to a lesser extent John II Orsini, and by their successor Andronikos III. The two more northerly monasteries may have had similar developments. In the same period and region, the sees of Trikala and Stagoi were also in receipt of holdings. Despite of this picture, there is circumstantial evidence that in these inland areas of Thessaly the state and the archontic class were still the major landholders. The overall profile of landholding and exploitation in Epiros and the western Mainland is even more difficult to grasp, because of the convoluted political history, relative lack of documentation, complex agricultural activities 512  On what follows, see principally Magdalino, Thessaly, pp. 36–38; 40; 42–45; 48–52; 64–65; 79–80; 99–105; 147–156; 181–182; 219–223; 228; 231–234; 265–292, and TIB 1, pp. 153; 208– 209; 245–246; 283. See also for a brief overview Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth– fifteenth centuries”, pp. 325–326. 513  See, since Magdalino’s thesis: Carile and Cavallo, “Crisobollo di Andronico III Palaeologo per il monastero di Licusada”, and the earlier Ostrogorsky, “Das Chrysobull des Despoten Johannes Orsini für das Kloster von Lykousada”. 514  Formerly in Turin, it is now destroyed: see in the latest instance Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, pp. 27 and 65–67. This is also the source of the first Greek-language references to the Venetian grosso, in the 1270s: Appendix II.4.B, p. 1301. The cartulary has also fed into the general Byzantine feudalism debate: see Chapter 1, p. 27. 515  Consider especially Magdalino, Thessaly, pp. 148–155. 516  Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères, p. 68.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

297

in difficult terrain, often based around animal husbandry, and population movements. The collapse of Angevin northern Epiros in the very early 1300s, and the death of Despot Thomas in 1318, led to significant interventions by Andronikos II. The recipients of privileges on these occasions were the sees of Kaninë and Ioannina, and the town of Ioannina (1307 and 1319). For the first cases it has been said that these were attempts to establish traditional relationships between an emperor and his bishops.517 The privileges accorded to the people of Ioannina are quite remarkable.518 In either case, we are witnessing here significant alienations by the empire of lands and resources. The local rulers were prepared to do the same, for much the same political goals, for example when Despot Thomas issued a chrysobull in which he made over a domain with privileges to the Venetian Giacomo Contareno (1303);519 or when in 1320 Nicholas Orsini offered the Venetians Butrint or Parga and their respective profits from fisheries and sugar cane.520 Wherever we have looked, in Frankish or Byzantine-held Greece, the intensification in the domination and exploitation of the land, and concerns for security, especially in the present period, all account for a boom in the construction of castles and other rural strongholds.521 Again, the effective control of money and of manpower were key to such endeavours. In all of these contexts, there can also be no doubt that greater pressures came to bear on the peasantry (villeins/paroikoi) in the period leading up to the Black Death. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to mistake social for economic destitution, and in fact some of the greater wealth that the key stakeholders were able to extract from Greek resources in this period will have managed to trickle down to the level of the dependent peasantry.

517  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 70. 518  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 83–86; Oikonomides, “Villes ‘séparées’ sous les Paléologues”, pp. 170– 172; Bartusis, Pronoia, pp. 417–418. On the monetary implications, see also above p. 286. At an earlier point in the Byzantine re-conquests, Kruja had also been given certain privileges by the same emperor: Oikonomides, “Andronic II Paléologue et la ville de Kroia”. 519  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 72–73. 520  The sums are given in simple Venetian pounds: see Appendix III.4, p. 1556. 521  From the large amount of literature, see for instance Lock, Franks, pp. 75–80; 82; 121. For a recent treatment of a well-documented Byzantine region outside of our immediate area, see Smyrlis, “Estate Fortifications in Late Byzantine Macedonia”.

298

Chapter 3

8.4 Colonial and Military Administrations: Venice522 The expansion of Venice’s interests in Romania from the 1260s has been discussed in the previous section. There is no denying that the republic’s main focus was Crete, which lies outside of our area of analysis. In the face of external pressures, great parts of the Aegean also became an important concern to Venice, and major military ventures there and elsewhere against the Byzantines, Genoese, and Turks, would have resulted in important expenditures for the republic. The Cycladic islands were particularly threatened in this period, and Venice facilitated their takeover and defence by privates, often Venetian citizens. For the adjacent direct colonies, Negroponte, Coron-Modon, later Pteleon, the official acts document an intense level of interest and a steady stream of money to pay for military and civil expenditure, often salaries to the expanding civil service and public works. These acts are listed in detail here below, according to the monies of account contained therein. In Coron-Modon, which could not rely on the services of feudatories, a standing militia (‘stipendiarii’), sometimes supplemented by villeins performing their angaria, was in place. The armed convoys of galleys523 (‘muda’), which began after 1300, must be understood in the same context.524 These sought to foster growth in profitable trade by organising transport and protection, to bind together the Venetian colonial network, and to find a useful deployment for the navy. Such convoys of galleys operated on pre-determined routes, and usually left Venice in the spring and returned in the autumn. In conjunction with these convoys a public auction (‘incanto’) for merchandise-space on a 522  In general terms, see Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, pp. 181–349, although this is a rather unwieldy treatment of the subject matter (also the author’s “Problemi dell’ammistrazione veneziana nella Romania, XIV–XV sec.” offers little more than reflections); Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon (not only an extremely detailed exposition of the administrations and economies of the colonies, but also a key to a lot of unpublished information); Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”; Papadia-Lala, Θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων, pp. 162–175, and 190ff. For some general impressions, see also Balard, “L’amministrazione genovese e veneziana nel Mediterraneo orientale” and “Veneziani e Genovesi nel mondo Egeo nel trecento”. 523  Compare p. 199 on changes in shipping. 524  From the large bibliography on this subject matter, see for instance and most specifically to our area: Lane, “Venetian Merchant Galleys”; Stöckly, Incanto des galées du marché à Venise; Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 228; Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 338–341; Karpov, “Ports of the Peloponnese” 2006; Balard, “Latins in the Aegean”, p. 843; Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 119. On the technicalities of loading and sailing of the mude, see Lane, “Fleets and Fairs”; the non-commercial deployment of the same, but in a slightly later context, is explored in Doumerc, “Les flottes d’état, moyen de domination coloniale pour Venise”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

299

galley was held. This provided a great number of Venetians, notably from the minor nobility, with the opportunity to invest in trade, but it also ran counter to the traditional Venetian manner of doing business through direct arrangements amongst small groups of individuals (colleganze525). The main convoys, respectively to the Levant, and to Constantinople and the Black Sea, called at Coron-Modon and intermittently at Clarentza. Negroponte was served for the second of these routes only. The system of mude undoubtedly made an important contribution to the integration of parts of our territories, as we have already said, and it resulted in the commercial domination of Venice over areas, for instance in the Peloponnese, which were not part of her direct domain. Nevertheless one must not underestimate the persistence of other forms of commerce, Venetian or otherwise.526 Another important expenditure for the state in relation to the colonial empire was the maintenance of an extensive diplomatic service required to communicate with rival powers, and to press claims for damages suffered by Venetians. Some ambassadorial expenditure is listed below.527 Regarding claims, beside the detailed and important 1278 and 1321 documents which are cited elsewhere in this chapter and in Appendix III,528 there are a number of others which relate to these and the resulting payments, made in both directions.529 525  Compare p. 70. 526  This point is made in Luzzatto “Navigazione di linea e navigazione libera”. Compare also Gallina, “La navigazione di cabotaggio a Creta”, although the focus is there on the second half of the century. The topic is re-visited below in the present discussion. 527  Compare also the well documented Venetian embassy sent to the Achaïan authorities in 1341, already mentioned above: Tzavara, “Un’ambasciata veneta a Clarenza presso Caterina di Valois nel 1341”. 528  Morgan, “Venetian Claims Commission” (1278); Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, no. 88 (1321). 529  See: Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 114 (1303), regarding losses of a Venetian in the area of Corfu and Arta; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 128, no. 189 (1309), where a subject of the Regno is compensated for losses incurred at the hands of Venetian colonial officials; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 128, no. 189 (1310), where we find a Venetian trading between Crete and Negroponte, who had merchandise taken from him by the Hospitallers; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 633 (1314), for Venetian losses in the Aegean; Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, no. 76 (1314), wherein a Venetian citizen claims losses against imperial officials in Epiros; in 1319 (Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, nos. 73 and 76) Venetians suffered damage in the area of the Gulf and the Ionian coast at the hands of Angevins and Byzantines; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 3, no. 280 (1332), where Venice compensates for losses of a subject of the Regno in Modon; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 39, no. 81 (1338): £13,000 ‘a’ grossi are the losses incurred by a number of merchants missing a fair in Clarentza; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 43, no. 103 (1340): money is claimed by Catalans from Venice for losses suffered near Kythira.

300

Chapter 3

With respect to revenue, a substantial part of the domestic Venetian budget was maintained by forced loans from privates.530 For the early years of the fourteenth century, some astronomical yearly figures have been extrapolated.531 It is clear that locally-sourced loans also made important contributions to the budgets of the Greek colonies (see below). Some of these loans were forced, others were explicitly provided freely;532 some of the large number of cited loans for Negroponte in the early 1300s were at no interest, others again were subject to interest. Loans taken were a particular concern to Venice.533 Domestic and colonial loans were not always strictly separated.534 Venice showed regular interest in the financial viability of the colonies.535 Indirect taxes and fines were also levied much more extensively from the second half of the thirteenth century onwards.536 This was driven by financial concerns, but also by Venice’s natural desire to regulate and to control: in the acts cited below one can notice for instance consistent stipulations regarding the behaviour, especially financial, of the civil servants.537 On the other hand, the application of monopolies by Venice post-dates the current period, with the exception of a few cases, mostly in Crete. A significant source of income to the Venetian colonies were the landed resources which, more so than in the earlier part of the thirteenth century, were exploited directly.538 Occasionally profits were sent back to Venice, in fact 530  See Chapter 1, p.  70. Compare also our specific discussion of the money market in Chapter 3, pp. 217–224. 531  Lane, “Funded debt of the Venetian Republic”: the figures given for 1313 and 1334 are for example 2,800,000 and 1,800,000 pounds of grossi respectively. 532  Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, pp. 193–194. 533  According to Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 127, no. 184 (1309) the authorities in all the colonies are to seek out the best rate before taking on a loan. 534  In 1312 a number of Venetians are seen to be complaining about the arrears in the repayment of their loans to the Regimen of Negroponte: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 144, no. 256. On certain occasions Venice herself took care of such loans made to the colonies: see Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 195; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 71, no. CLXXXXV (1295), where we see repayments made through the Ternaria, the oil-office which receives its revenues from taxes. Consider also Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, p. 220, n. 1. 535  There is some sporadic information to that effect: in 1323 the financial condition of Coron-Modon is officially investigated (Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 185, no. 439); and in 1336 the senate pleads with the authorities of these colonies to seek new sources of revenue (Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 36, no. 65). An act of 1320 shows that Coron and Modon achieved respective small overall losses and gains and that as a consequence some internal redistribution between the two colonies needed to take place (Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 182, no. 426. On this redistribution see Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, p. 221). 536  Indirect taxation and monopolies are discussed more broadly on pp. 317–320. See also Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, pp. 229–231, specifically for the Venetian colonies. 537  Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, p. 156. 538  On the land regime in the Venetian colonies, see above pp. 293–294.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

301

the only instances in which we are given some idea of loss or profit, and of any order of magnitude, is when such consignments are discussed by the state bodies.539 Thiriet stated that “la Commune désirait, en principe, que les dépenses locales fussent couvertes par les revenus locaux”.540 Since we cannot expect any complete and hard data on budgetery matters from the available documentation, it would be difficult to estimate whether revenue and expenditure for a given colony were ever matched. However, it would seem to me doubtful, given the costliness of pieces of expenditure just summarised, and also their great diversity, that this was ever even held up as an overall principle.541 Thiriet’s model may well have been based on the picture available for the later period, and it may have applied in the present one only to certain ringfenced costs, such as salaries. Crete was perhaps amongst all the identifiable components of the Venetian colonial system the most profitable one, although even this was not always consistently the case since the island was also the frequent recipient of Venetian money. The acts of the Venetian state bodies record an enormous number of payments, from Venice to the colonies as well as within the colonies. This information is of great importance with respect to monetary policy, the movements of money, but also to the precise identification of currencies and monies of account.542 For this latter reason the monetary information which they contain has been ordered here according to these monies [N.B.: in the following footnotes £/s refer to the piccolo system; gr = grossi; £gr or sgr = pounds/shillings of grossi; £‘a’gr or s‘a’gr = pounds/shillings ‘a’ grossi]. In these acts there is a whole group of salaries in Romania expressed in hyperpyra, which would have been local.543 Other salaries are given in the 539  In 1315 Coron retains 400 hyperpyra from the money due (Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 161, no. 335). Similarly, 2,000 hyperpyra are retained in Sitia in 1316 (Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 166, no. 357), and in 1318 Coron-Modon will spend the yearly due of 3,000 hyperpyra on wheat instead (Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 189). Also other, sometimes quite specific, monies can flow from the colonies to the metropolis. The old bailo of Negroponte in 1308 returns with the money left over from the construction of the walls of Chalkida, the surplus of all the incoming and outgoing monies of the Regimen, and the remainder of monies from a Genoese ship shipwrecked near Kea (Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, p. 89, no. 382). 540  Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, p. 221. 541  Compare the rather more nuanced assessment in Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 186 and Schmitt, Albanien, pp. 365–366, and also our conclusions below. 542  This section should be read in conjunction with Appendix III, where the monies of account are treated. 543  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 28, no. XVI (1226): 75 are received by the duke of Crete in excess of his usual salary; p. 35, no. XLII (1272): 100 are the p.a. salary of the bailo of Modon; p. 36, no. XLIII (1273): 1,000 are the p.a. salary of the bailo of Negroponte; p. 36, no. XLIII (1273):

302

Chapter 3

different Venetian systems of account.544 Regarding local colonial matters, 200–250 is the augmentation of the p.a. salary of the counsellors of Negroponte; p. 37, no. XLV (1275): 900–1,000 is the augmentation of the salary of the duke of Crete; p. 55, no. CXXIII (1288): 500 are borrowed locally by the bailo of Negroponte for the payment of his salary and those of his counsellors; p. 62, no. CLII (1291): 250–400 is thee augmentation of the salaries of the counsellors of Negroponte, as a result of their disallowance to engage in any commercial enterprise; p. 67, no. CLXXVIII (1293): 80 are the p.a. salary of the chancellor of Chania; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 62 (1306): 450 are the p.a. salary of the counsellor of Crete; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 68–69, no. CLXXXII (1293): 500 are borrowed by the bailo and counsellors of Negroponte as an advance payment of their respective salaries; p. 71, no. CLXXXXII (1295): 250 are the salary of the counsellors of Negroponte. The decrease (see above) resulted from the fact that the Jews of the city did not pay an expected amount of money. In turn, the counsellors are now allowed to engage in commercial enterprises; p. 72, no. CLXXXXVIII (1295): 500 are borrowed by the bailo and counsellors of Negroponte as an advance payment of their respective salaries; p. 74, no. CCIX (1297): 250–300 is the augmentation of the salaries of the counsellors of Negroponte, as a result of their disallowance to engage in any commercial enterprise; p. 74, no. CCXI (1297) 200 are the p.a. salary of two chamberlains sent to the colonies. Other facilities are also provided; p. 76, no. CCXXI (1299), 80 are the p.a. salary of the chancellor of Coron-Modon; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 64 (1301): 5 are the sum received, per day, by the governors of Coron when spending time “beyond the river”; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 113, no. 131 (1307): 400 are the p.a. salary of the counsellors of Coron-Modon, in addition to which they are housed; p. 115, no. 137 (1307): 60 are the p.a. salary of the admiral of Chania. He is housed for free; p. 132, no. 205 (1310): 18 are the p.a. salary of the ‘bullator’ of the bread office in Chania; pp. 142–143, nos. 251 and 253 (1312): 200 and 100 are the augmentations of the salaries of the bailo and the counsellors of Negroponte due to the present difficult conditions; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 78 (1314): 500 are the p.a. salaries of the officials commissioned with the drawing-up of the cadastral records; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 179, no. 414 (1319): 450–500 is the augmentation of the annual salary of the counsellors of Coron-Modon; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, pp. 35–36, no. 63 (1335): 125 are the salary of the chancellor of Candia; p. 48, no. 136 (1341): 30–40 is the maximum level of salaries which the castellans in Coron-Modon are allowed to apply; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 197, no. 486 (1342): 500–550 is the augmentation of the annual salary of the counsellors of Coron-Modon; p. 197, no. 485 (1342): 212 are the p.a. salary of the chamberlains of Crete, of which 12 go towards housing; p. 204, no. 508 (1344): 20 are the monthly salary for the six captains who are to pursue thieves; p. 208, no. 521 and p. 215, no. 550 (1345 and 1348): 100 are the salary of a Cretan doctor; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 63, no. 209 (1348), 50–65 are p.a. salaries for mercenaries and artisans employed in Modon. According to the same act, in Modon 900 will be saved on 54 nightwatchmen who are to be made redundant; see the next footnote (1348) regarding the salary of the rector at Pteleon. 544  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1 p. 45, no. LXXVI (1283): £400 are the salaries of the embassadors to the emperor; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 60 (1285): a former castellan of Coron and the bailo of Negroponte are found claiming arrears of 17gr on their salaries; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 74, no. CCX (1297): £‘a’gr100 are the salary of consuls of merchants in Clarentza; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 76 (1301): 11–40sgr – £gr3 are annual salaries of a number of professionals sent to Coron-Modon, depending on profession and family status; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 82, no. 13 (1301): 20sgr are the monthly

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

303

hyperpyra are frequently quoted especially in relation to loans, which go either towards salaries or works of infrastructure.545 Other loans are given in the salary of galley commanders; p. 98, no. 71 (1302): £400 are the p.a. salary of the bailo in Constantinople; p. 105, no. 89 (1303): 40sgr are the monthly salary for the captain of the galleys; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 130 (1303): 30sgr – £gr8 are p.a. salaries of a number of men in the building trade sent to Crete from Venice in order to restore Candia; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 164, no. 349 (1316): 37sgr are the p.a. salary of the castellan of Chania; p. 177, no. 400 (1318): £50 are the p.a. salary of the consul in Thessalonike; p. 180, no. 419 (1319): 40sgr are received by a chamberlain in Crete in excess of his salary for supervising the wheat trade; p. 181, no. 421 (1319): £gr4–6 is the augmentation of the monthly salary of the captain of the galleys; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 61 (1319): £gr1200 are the p.a. salaries of the castellans of Coron-Modon; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 182, no. 427 (1320): £gr40 (400 ducats) are the p.a. salary of the bailo of Trebizond; p. 183, no. 431 (1321): the ambassador in Constantinople receives £400 for four months, 50 for every additional month, and 120 for other expenses; p. 185, no. 441 (1323): 50sgr are the p.a. salary of 200 soldiers sent to safeguard the fort of Modon; p. 190, no. 462 (1329): £gr20–30 is the augmentation of the annual salaries of the counsellors of Crete; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 153 (1333/4): 30sgr are the stipend for one individual attached to the position of the scribe to the judges of Coron; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 197, no. 485 (1342): 20sgr are the augmentation of the p.a. salaries of the chamberlains of Crete; p. 197, no. 486 (1342): £gr (700 ducats) are the p.a. salary of the bailo of Cyprus; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 63 (1342): £gr48 or 50 are the p.a. salaries of the castellans of Coron-Modon; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 202, no. 500 (1343): £gr10 (100 ducats) are the monthly salary of captain of the Union against the Turks; p. 213, nos. 542–543 (1348): 6gr are the salary p.d. for the senators who oversee the distribution of merchandise on the galleys in Candia; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 64, no. 215 (1348): £gr35 were paid to the rector at Pteleon to that date directly from Venice. The payment was henceforth assessed in hyperpyra (300) and paid from local revenues. On the hyperpyra used in this colony, see also Appendix III.3, p. 1545. 545  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 39–40, no. LI (1281): 1,500 are for public works by the duke and counsellors of Crete; p. 41, no. LVI (1282): 2,000 are taken by the duke in order to finance the war and to give protection to the naval convoys; p. 41, no. LVI (1282): 1,000 are taken by the castellans of Coron with the same aim; p. 41, no. LVI (1282): 1,000 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte with the same aim; p. 44, no. LXXII (1283): 5,000 are taken by the Regimen of Negroponte to protect city and island; p. 53, no. CXII (1286): 14,000 are taken by the counsellors of Crete to support their effort against Alexis Kalergis; p. 54, no. CXX (1287): 5,000 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte to pay for mercenaries and defensive works; p. 55, no. CXXIII (1288): 500 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte to pay his wage and those of the counsellors; p. 63, no. CLIX (1291): 5,000 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte to ensure the safety of the island; p. 67, no. CLXXVIII (1293): 2,000 are taken by the castellans of Coron-Modon towards the reconstruction of Modon; pp. 68–9, no. CLXXXII (1293): 500 are taken by the bailo and counsellors of Negroponte towards their salaries; p. 70, no. CLXXXVII (1294): 2,000 are taken by the castellans of Coron-Modon for the needs of Modon; p. 72, no. CLXXXXVIII (1295): 500 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte to facilitate the payment of his and the counsellors’ salaries; p. 75, no. CCXV (1298): 750 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte; p. 107, no. 102 (1304): 6,000 are given to Alexis Kalergis in Crete, who in return will ensure the delivery of wheat; p. 116, no. 144 (1308): the Regimen takes loans on a daily basis towards the works on the walls of Negroponte; p. 124, no. 169 (1309):

304

Chapter 3

Venetian system.546 In small-scale local matters on which the Venetian state bodies took decisions, prices for goods and services, taxes and penalties, the hyperpyron is often encountered.547 In general, the documentation available for the land regime in the Venetian Peloponnese548 offers some very useful insights into the payments of administrative fees made during the different processes, the ‘anagraffi’, the maintenance and consultation of the ‘catastica’, 2,000 are taken by the bailo of Negroponte for work on the same walls; p. 125, no. 177 (1309): 2,000 are taken by the same person for the same purpose; p. 191, no. 464 (1331): 400 are taken by the rector of Chania to build a granary; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 4, nos. 14 and 15 (1342): 2,000 are loaned by the state to A. Cornaro for the duration of two years in return for transporting 27 horses to Crete. 546  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 28, no. XV (1225): payments of £6 and £12 are due to a Cretan merchant, owed six gold hyperpyra; p. 40, no. LII (1282): £10,000 are the credit given to the duke of Crete, of which 2,000 are to be spent on the protection of the maritime convoys; p. 41, no. LII (1282): £1,000 are in a similar fashion spent by the castellans of Coron; p. 49, no. LXXXXII (1285): £gr60 are given to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople, residing in Negroponte; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 592 (1313): £gr1,000 are given by Pantaleone Michele to the republic, to be re-paid in Negroponte; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 3, no. 245 (1332): £gr60 are borrowed in Coron by R. Morosini, on behalf of N. Cocco, from the Morosini company. This money will be invested in the cargo of a ship and repaid within 15 days upon arrival in Venice. 547  See the following on horses: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 32, no. XXXIII (1259); p. 38, no. XLVI (1276); p. 58, no. CXXXIII and CXXXIV (1289); Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 69 (1319).    For rents and other housing matters: Cessi, Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio, 2, p. 148 (1265); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 36, no. XLII (1273); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 37, no. 72 (1337); p. 61, no. 198 (1347).    For wheat prices: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 80, no. 7 (1301); p. 107, no. 102 (1304); Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 185 (1304); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 172, no. 381 (1317); Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 189 (1318); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 28, no. 26 (1333); p. 36, no. 66; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 207, no. 516 (1345); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 59, no. 190 (1346); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 211–212, no. 534 (1347); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 60, no. 194 (1347); p. 65, no. 220 (1349); p. 67, no. 228 (1349).    For local indirect taxes and penalties: Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, no. 57 (1301); no. 222 (1304); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 167, no. 36 (1316); p. 181, no. 423 (1320); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 51, no. 150 (1343).    In the 1340s–1350s penalties were levied in hyperpyra in relation to piracy, for instance the non-reporting of acts of piracy or the harbouring of corsairs: Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 139.    Smaller sums are stipulated in the same period and localities in related tournois: one each, for instance, for rolling barrels in an incorrect manner or in tax per unit of imported wine: Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 384 (1343–1344) and Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 63, no. 209 (1348).    For expenditure on foreign dignitaries: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 50, no. LXXXXIX (1285); p. 60, no. CXLI (1289) Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 197 (1319). 548  See also above, pp. 293–294.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

305

or the actual tax farming, amongst others. These are all invariably given in soldi or tornesi, and the level of monetisation was high for these activities, as it was in other administrative contexts, for instance judicial. On rarer occasions these very local concerns are nevertheless given in the Venetian system,549 as are transport expenditures for staff, produce, and related matters, mostly given in the piccolo system,550 or, quite rarely, in the related ‘a’ grossi system.551 In general, on the latter occasions there is usually a Venetian dimension. This is also the case, very importantly, for wheat from Romania, with the apparent implication that the republic is interested in the price which it can be given once it has reached Venice.552 In addition to loans taken out locally, which were often, as we have seen, specified in hyperpyra, the republic was increasingly obliged to send money 549  For a purchase of land, see Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 47, no. LXXXV (1284); for penalties: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 37, no. XLV (1275); pp. 167–168, no. 363 (1316). 550  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 27, no. VII (1224): £100 are the travel allowance for the bailo of Negroponte; p. 27, no. VIII (1224): £50 are the travel allowance for counsellor in Crete; p. 27, no. X (1224): £100 are paid during the voyage by the counsellor to the podestà of Constantinople; p. 29, no. XIX (1228): £730 are expenses of the castellans of Coron-Modon, to be reimbursed; p. 35, no. XLII (1272): £700 are the travel allowance for the new bailo of Coron-Modon; p. 37, no. XLV (1275): counsellors can only export £100 to Crete instead of £400; p. 40, no. LII (1282): of a credit of £10,000, 2,000 can be spent by the duke of Crete for the protection of maritime convoys; p. 41, no. LII (1282): in a similar fashion the castellans of Coron spend £1,000; p. 57, no. CXXIX (1288): the castellan of Coron spent £400 for his initial needs. He will be reimbursed locally; p. 91, no. 49 (1302): £4 are the transport cost per horse on the galleys from Negroponte; p. 98, no. 71 (1302): the counsellors of Constantinople can only export merchandise up to the value of £4,000; p. 126, no. 179 (1309): £200 and £52 are paid for a table and the transport of the new duke of Crete; p. 196, no. 482 (1341): the ex-counsellor of Crete is condemned to paying £1,000; p. 199, no. 491 (1342): £25 are given respectively to the Turkish prisoners and the children of the late admiral of Negroponte; p. 216, no. 554 (1348): £25 are given to the Turkish prisoners. 551  1275: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 37, no. XLV (1275): £300 are the penalty for an individual who had aided the Cretan rebels; p. 175, no. 393 (1318): £8 are the price paid by the republic per modius of salt in Cyprus; p. 194, no. 476 (1339): £3 are the price per thousandweight of cloth from various localities in Romania; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 198, no. 488 (1342): £10 and £6 are the duties on the wines of Crete and Monemvasia per amphora; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 4, no. 142 (1344), £65, £74, £107, £28, £66, £42 are the estimated values of six horses of the counsellors of Candia; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 210–1, no. 529 (1346): £200 are the price, per thousandweight, of selected luxury items of Romania. 552  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 105, no. 92 (1303); p. 107, no. 103 (1304); p. 110, no. 115 (1306); p. 112, no. 126 (1306); p. 116, no. 142 (1308); p. 124, no. 170 (1309); pp. 125–126, no. 178 (1309); p. 136, no. 222 (1310); p. 137, no. 224 (1310); p. 146, no. 268 (1312); p. 147, no. 272 (1312); p. 151, no. 289 (1313); p. 156, no. 312 (1314); p. 163, no. 345 (1315); pp. 163–164, no. 346 (1316); pp. 164–165, no. 351 (1316); p. 171, no. 376 (1317); p. 171, no. 379 (1317); p. 180, no. 418 (1319); p. 184, no. 434 (1322); p. 185, no. 440 (1323); p. 188, no. 453 (1326); p. 189, no. 456 (1327).

306

Chapter 3

outright to Negroponte and Coron-Modon for important aspects of the general war effort. These were often quoted in the Venetian system.553 Work on the defences of Negroponte was apparently so intensive that it was considered worth reporting by the chronicler Sanudo, who is characteristically precise about the costs involved on one occasion (14,000 shillings of grossi).554 In the early years of the fourteenth century also Coron-Modon significantly increased its defences, and extended ports and arsenals.555 In all of this, Crete remained by far the largest recipient of domestic Venetian financial aid. The patterns for the usage of these monies of account are not entirely consistent, but a certain picture emerges nonetheless which we can then test against the actual numismatic evidence in our next discussion on money. There are some chronological developments which one would expect to find, for example from the piccolo- to the grosso-based system. As the Venetian system became more complex, a hierarchy of values established itself based on the nature of the payment and the persons involved. The grosso and the hyperpyron systems would eventually accommodate also soldini, but the latter is still hidden in the present documentation, only revealed in some rare cases as the required link coin.556 The rare and late – within the present period – alternative grosso and ducat citations probably meant payment in gold. At the same time, the omission of a ducat alternative may imply payments in soldini. In payments with a domestic Venetian dimension the piccolo and related ‘a’ grossi system had a long survival rate. The great bulk of payments and dues are solidly recorded in the grosso and hyperpyron systems, and one may presume that actual grosso coins and an amalgam of silver used locally in Greece lay respectively at the bases of these. 553  For instance: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 40–41, no. LII (1282), when £2,000 are sent to Coron for the protection of convoys; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 112, no. 129 (1307), when 2,000 grossi are sent to Coron-Modon for the provisioning of galleys; Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 190, no. 459 (1327), when £gr300 (= 3,000 ducats) are sent for defences; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 27, no. 21 (1332): 15,000 soldi of grossi are sent also to Negroponte to defend Venetian interests; Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 380 (1334): 20 soldi of grossi are sent annually by the republic to maintain the mendicant friars in Coron-Modon; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 41, no. 93 (1339): £300 of grossi sent in addition to 100 men to alleviate the sorry state of Negroponte; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 44, no. 108 (1340): 2,000 ducats are sent also to Negroponte in support of the general war effort; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 57, no. 172 (1345): 2,000 ducats are sent to Coron-Modon to manufacture biscuits. 554  Sanudo, p. 141. 555  Regarding the physical legacy of the Venetian colonial building programmes there, see for example Kontogiannis, “Messenia”. 556  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 226, no. 591 (1352): the soldino coinage is to be used as shillings in the case of simple salaries in Crete; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 5, n. 17: hyperpyra in Crete are payable in soldini in 1341 and 1345.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

307

The acts do not usually provide much ulterior information with regard to salaries, stipulating for instance that the official(s) in question should have (‘debeat habere’), have (‘habeant’), and so forth, and there is no indication as to the origin of the payment. Much the same can be said for loans which are authorised by the republic and assessed in hyperpyra. Officials are usually informed that they may accept a loan, without reference to its origin. The creditors are only rarely identifiable. For instance in 1307, the feudatories and bourgeoisie of Candia lend money to the republic for building work,557 and in 1336 it is a single local Venetian who lends Coron-Modon a substantial sum of more than 1,500 hyperpyra.558 In an act of 1312 we can witness a ‘large number’ of Venetians who had lent money to Negroponte.559 Most loans expressed in hyperpyra concern those made to the colonial administrations in the process of ameliorating the defences or for other public works. Loans within Venetian Romania expressed in the Venetian system of account are much rarer, as we have seen. Specifically regarding salaries, there is one instance where a change in the payment of salary results also in a change in the system of account: the rector of Pteleon will from 1348 onwards be paid from local sources and be assessed in hyperpyra, whereas previously he was paid by the republic, accounted in pounds of grossi. In the absence of any significant information on the origin of the payments of other salaries mentioned in the documents, one may tentatively apply this pattern also to other salaries: the method of assessment may therefore relate to the origin of the payment. This theory is corroborated by the fact that in numerous documents the annual salaries are provided in hyperpyra, whereas the initial transport to the colony is assessed in the Venetian system. In 1288, 1293 and 1295 the money for salaries in Negroponte, quoted in hyperpyra, was also to be borrowed locally. There is therefore some basic evidence here for the assumption that salaries given in hyperpyra were paid locally. One may conclude that the money of account in which a salary is quoted within the acts relating to the Venetian colonial system is the best indication available as to the theoretical origin of the payment.560

557  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 112–3, no. 130. 558  Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 193. 559  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 144, no. 257. 560  Compare however Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, p. 194, n. 5, where the author generalises on the basis of an act of 1410 that colonial salaries were met half and half by Venice and the colony.

308

Chapter 3

8.5 Colonial and Military Administrations: Angevins Angevin southern Italy was, even after the loss of Sicily in 1282, one of the foremost Latin states in terms of size, population, economy, and revenue.561 Its administration was a combination of old Swabian and newly-introduced French practices.562 Its fiscality and state economy, based on direct exploitation, direct and indirect taxation, and other streams of revenue (monopolies, loans, donations, tribute, etc.), was arguably the most complex and profitable in Europe.563 There are a number of aspects to this which are particularly important for our study: first, the burden of taxation on the population was very heavy; second, an integral part of the domestic fiscal policy was monetary: the departure from the old gold-based system, the efficient minting of silver, especially at the new Naples mint (1278), and the good distribution of over-valued denari, accompanied by the elimination of foreign specie;564 and lastly, this was a state with far reaching military ambitions, and many of the generated funds were deployed in this manner. Amongst the diverse Angevin interests to the east of the Regno, Corfu and Durazzo, the latter beyond the borders of this book, were the closest in character to colonies. The Epirote and western Mainland territories were either under military administration, or only intermittently held (as was the case of Vonitza and Naupaktos). Achaïa was variously directly administered or farmed out. Other areas from Kephallonia (incorporated into Achaïa in 1325), to Athens, Negroponte, Arta, and Neopatra, had to be controlled and instrumentalised within the general structures of Achaïa or the Latin empire/Romania. In terms of detail and scope, to a large degree due to the destruction of the Registri in 1943 and a reliance therefore on previously transcribed acts, a lot of our information concerns the reign of Charles I of Anjou (†1285). His overall strategy, and that of his son Charles II (†1309), were subordinated to the interests of the Regno of Sicily (Naples), that is to say to take on the Hohenstaufen heritage, to provide an alliance for Capetian France and the papacy, to dominate the central Mediterranean, and to deal with the severe crisis caused by the Aragonese ascendancy. Four years into the reign of the second Charles, the 561  See Abulafia, “The Italian South”, and especially p. 500 with respect to estimates of this wealth. In general on this Kingdom, the most convenient overview remains that of Léonard, Les Angevins. 562  On this precise argument see Kiesewetter, “Il governo e l’amministrazione centrale del Regno”. 563  Martin, “Fiscalité et économie étatique dans le royame angevin de Sicile” is a very detailed study. 564  The standard reference for the coinage of the Regno is MEC. Compare also Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1337–1340; Appendix II.11.B, pp. 1502–1504.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

309

Greek and Ionian holdings were re-ordered and expanded, in parallel with an alliance with the local rulers of Epiros. From this period onwards there was an intricate administrative interplay between the Angevin monarchs and various protagonists and vassals, ranging from the remaining members of the house of Villehardouin and the Angeloi Doukai of Epiros, to Philip of Taranto, son of Charles II, and his family, or the ousted Brienne dukes of Athens – themselves Angevin feudatories in Puglia –, or the ascendant Orsini, who all had vested interests in Greece and went to great lengths to secure them. Leaving aside the vexed question of the true ambitions of the early Angevins in Romania,565 and the futility and sinister aspect of this Neapolitan expansion,566 one cannot deny that, in a very difficult environment both locally and domestically, Charles I and II consistently and efficiently attempted to establish an Angevin colonial presence from Albania down to the Peloponnese. That this became policy ever since the defeat of Manfred and the treaties of Viterbo (1266/1267) cannot be doubted, and neither can the basic logic of securing a territorial expanse, opposite Puglia, whose resources and strategic qualities would serve the Regno.567 Corfu and Albania were the first to receive administrators directly from the Regno (from 1272). The king was represented there by captains/vicars, 565  See above, pp. 267–268. 566  Amongst the severest critics of the Angevins is Ducellier in La façade maritime. 567  On the economic and colonial policy of the first two Angevin kings during 1266–1289, and on the administration of the Angevin holdings between Durazzo in the north and Achaïa in the south, see for example Longnon, L’empire, p. 199; Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία; Lock, Franks, pp. 92–95; Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, pp. 131–148; Parmeggiani, “Funzioni amministrative del principato di Acaia”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Oriental policy of Charles I”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οικονομική πολιτική του Καρόλου Α΄ του Ανδεγαυού”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας, pp. 68–69; Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée”; Sampsonis “Charles Ier d’Anjou et l’île de Négrepont”; Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 29–37; 105–128; 137–138. In the latest instance, Borghese, Carlo I d’Angiò, provides a detailed account of Charles I’s activities in Greece, with a strong emphasis on administration. By contrast, Ortega, “La mainmise financière des Angevins sur leur périphérie” dealing specifically with the Angevin exploitation of the Peloponnese, limits itself to only a few details.    Specifically on the monetary policy in the Angevin colonies and the operations of the mint of Clarentza during these years, see: Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, pp. 156–160; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, pp. 430–433; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 218–225; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οικονομική πολιτική του Καρόλου Α΄ του Ανδεγαυού”, pp. 54–58; Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée”, p. 147; Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 34; 110; 132–137; 201–203. Each of these treatments references extensively the many original documents. See also, Appendix II.4.B, p.  1300; Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1309; Appendix II.9.A, pp. 1376–1427; Appendix II.11.B, pp. 1502–1504; Appendix III.3, pp. 1527–1530; Appendix III.4, pp. 1555–1558.

310

Chapter 3

combining civil and military competences, who headed these administrations. Each component of the civil service was given well defined economic rights and obligations. Charles I also showed an immediate and active interest in southern and central Greece, Achaïa in particular, but the Angevins were very conscious of the political and administrative legacy of this territory.568 Initially, Charles’ interventions there were limited to instructions to the new vassals regarding similar rights and obligations, and to military preparations. Even after the death of William II of Villehardouin in 1278, when Charles assumed the princeship, the administrative structures as such were not overtly tampered with,569 save for the introduction of his representative (the bailo) who, as we have seen, was soon to be chosen amongst the highest Greek feudatories, and also for changes in the other personnel in favour of newcomers from southern Italy. Before the establishment of regular Angevin administrations in the 1270s, captains general were in charge of the military operations in the southern and northwestern Greece. In the Angevin colonies, much as domestically, administrators covered military, and economic and financial functions. These could be closely intertwined, for instance instructions regarding the mint of Clarentza were sent to the local castellan. Bureaucracies oversaw direct and indirect systems of exploitation, and interventions in the economy, as with the grain and wine trade, and the salt monopolies. We have already considered the particular Angevin contribution to the Greek land regime. Loans were procured on a very regular basis by the administrators. As part of the monetary policies for these territories, currency was produced at Clarentza and administered at a profit. Much as in the case of the Venetian empire, payments and valuations with an Italian dimension were given in domestic Italian currencies, whereas colonial payments were accounted for locally, ideally at an advantageous rate. The added difference in the Angevin case was that the colonies were an ideal space onto which to dump unwanted currencies culled from the vast territories of the Regno, again at a profit. Monetary policies will be further integrated in the next discussion. In order to keep an efficient and loyal administration, the different persons were directly tied to the king and privileged and remunerated generously. Likewise, the price of contentment and peace amongst the vassals in Greece needed to be bought with incomes and other allowances. As the successor to the Latin emperors, and then as prince of Achaïa, Charles I’s network of

568  For instance the Assizes were redacted at the behest of the Angevins: Topping, “The formation of the Assizes of Romania”. 569  See above, pp. 233–234.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

311

feudatories was wide, ranging from the Orsini in western Greece, to the lords in the Cyclades and Negroponte, and of course the privileged de la Roches of Athens, whom he created dukes and allowed to mint (again). Their protégé John the Bastard, ruler of Neopatra, ‘carissimus amicus’ though not vassal, was also tied to him through favours. Charles had also entered an alliance with the latter’s rival, Nikephoros of Epiros. An important administrative development within the Peloponnese in these years was the creation of a quasi-independent state in 1267 in the shape of the combined archbishopric and barony of Patra, apparently at a profit to the principality.570 The colonial administrations were supported by a far reaching and costly diplomatic service. During the Angevin period Clarentza, whose foundation pre-dates 1267,571 functioned as the administrative centre for Achaïa.572 This was the location of a court of sorts, more important in certain periods than others, and of the administration not merely of the principality, but also of the local administration for town and castle. Most of the bourgeoisie of the principality, that is to say free non-feudatories, also chose to reside in Clarentza in the Angevin period, and this is where they were organised and represented in a ‘cour’. A colonial presence in Greece was quite clearly advantageous to the early Angevins: it helped position the Regno as one of the great states of Latin Europe and it offered a playground in which to reward domestic subjects and vassals, also members of the royal family itself. Even on a more practical level, colonial exploitation channelled, in one way or another, important products, resources and wealth back to Italy. Nevertheless, regular expenditure went into administrations, and extraordinarily high sums into military operations. The latter took the shape of shipments of money and supplies, of mercenaries and knights on service, and they would have drained significant resources from the Regno itself. Again, as with the Venetian case, it is doubtful that the overseas empire was ever directly profitable. From the 1280s onwards the Angevin empire in Greece changed: large parts were in contraction through territorial losses, others saw the institution of indirect rule. The period 1285–1294 was in part transitional, for instance Corfu came to be administered successively by the count of Kephallonia and the prince of Achaïa.573 But whoever eventually oversaw a given Angevin possession in Romania, the basic administrative functions remained, as did the theoretical framework of Angevin domination, in the sense that Naples supported 570  Gerland, Neue Quellen, p. 19, n. 1; Saradi, “Patras”. 571  P. 233. 572  Compare, on this shift towards the area, also Athanasoulis, “The triangle of power”, pp. 114–115. 573  On this period see Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Πρώτα χρόνια του Καρόλου Β΄”.

312

Chapter 3

the empire militarily, monetarily, and logistically, ideally in return for direct and indirect profits and advantages. Solidarity and acts of mutual assistance between the different territories were expected, and the profitability of the Angevin possessions is underlined by the sums of money paid by one junior member of the royal family to another as these changed hands. The only areas of Angevin expansion were Epiros, the western Mainland, and Ionia, initially at great cost to Achaïa, and especially the domestic budget of the prince of Taranto.574 Newly gained territories were often attached, administratively, to Corfu in the north and Achaïa in the south, but also had brief moments of Angevin administrations of their own.575 For Naupaktos the positions of bailo, vicar, and captain, have all been recorded, though not consistently, and often these posts were held by the same person, who on one occasion can also be seen to be in control of the mint.576 This direct representative of the king and prince was evidently charged with overseeing the rule of law in the Angevin possessions in the western Greek Mainland, especially with respect to the Greek feudatories and their rights and obligations.577 Angevin domination in Albania and Epiros was always volatile, but the edifice cracked also in Achaïa in rather distinctive manners during certain episodes in the 1300s. In 1301 Isabelle of Villehardouin eloped with Philip of Savoy, who then became prince of Achaïa. Administratively his short presence in Greece, between 1302 and 1304, was characterised by conflict with the local feudatories, an attempt to introduce his own countrymen to local structures, and his ability to extract significant sums of money from the territory in both legitimate and illegimative manners, yet militarily Philip may have been a success.578 Relations between the different stakeholders in Achaïa – the Angevins, the Venetians, and the local potentates – remained uneasy in the subsequent half-century, in the wake of Philip of Taranto’s abandonment of his Greek interests. Venice intervened in the affairs of the principality on more than one occasion. In the 1320s–1340s there were distinct Angevin initiatives, all with mixed results: John of Gravina’s and Walter of Brienne’s expeditions, at great cost to the Regno which indebted itself to the Acciaiuoli, did not manage to achieve their proclaimed aims of re-conquering and stabilizing key

574  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”. 575  See specifically Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, pp. 225–228. 576  Appendix II.9.E, p. 1445; Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1450 and 1452. 577  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 63–66. 578  See Haberstumpf, “Regesto dei Savoia per l’Oriente”, pp. 213–220; Haberstumpf, “La Morea tra gli Angioini e i Savoia (1295–1334)”, pp. 106–119. Compare Appendix II.9.A.5 and 6, pp. 1399–1407.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

313

Angevin areas in the Peloponnese or the Mainland;579 but they managed to incorporate fringe areas in Ionia into the colonial construct. Prince Robert’s and Empress Catherine’s residency in Clarentza resulted in the establishment of an impressive court, which no doubt made an economic impact.580 There was an increased interest in the profitability of the princely estates and of those estates given recently to key allies. A transposition of the symbiotic partnership between Naples and Florence into the Greek theatre can be noticed.581 However, the prince and his mother could not allay the fears of Venetians and feudatories regarding the administration of the principality. It was precisely in this period that the successive and apparently successful Byzantine Emperors Andronikos III and John VI, and the Majorcan King James III, seemed to offer political and administrative solutions to the entire Peloponnese, in the eyes of many Angevin vassals. 8.6 Colonial and Military Administrations: Byzantines582 The breakdown of the thematic order during the close of the twelfth century had already resulted in a significant simplification of provincial Byzantine administration. The re-incorporation into the Byzantine Empire of territories in Thessaly, Epiros, and the Peloponnese in the course of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century resulted in newly established administrations for the relevant territories, which were lean and could not belie their military origins. We find governors of territorial units of different names (theme, ‘katepanikia’, ‘episkepsis’, ‘eparchia’, ‘chora’, ‘archontia’ etc.) called an ‘epitropos’ or more usually a ‘kephale’, captain in the Latin sources, and heads of towns and castles (‘hegemones’, ‘prokathemenos’, ‘dux’, ‘kastrophylax’). Yet many of the relevant imperial holdings were feudalised: fiscal, administrative, and judicial functions were therefore usually exercised jointly by imperial and ecclesiastical authorities, in collaboration with the archontic class. The latter was often integrated into local courtly and hierarchical structures whose titles reflected those in use in Constantinople. Between the re-conquest in 1262 and the arrival of Despot Manuel in 1349, the character of the Byzantine Peloponnese was initially that of a military outpost, variously under the command of imperial envoys or governors.583 From 579  Even the Argolis remained a drain on resources rather than being profitable: Luttrell, “Argos and Nauplia”. 580  Nicholas Acciaiuoli alone arrived with 25 mounted men: Topping, “Morea, 1311–1364”, p. 125. 581  Abulafia, “Southern Italy and the Florentine Economy”. 582  See in general terms: Maksimović, Byzantine provincial administration. The context for the present discussion is given in Chapter 1, pp. 24–45. 583  See Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II, pp. 46–71.

314

Chapter 3

1308 onwards, kephalai were appointed more permanently and chosen from members of prominent families. We have already seen the imperial privileges accorded to ecclesiastical institutions (for example the see of Monemvasia or Brontocheion monastery) and civic institutions (again Monemvasia), and also the significant territorial expansions into central and northern parts of the Peloponnese during the early years of the fourteenth century. Conquests under Andronikos II, as previously under Michael VIII, would have entailed the distribution of new holdings amongst the military.584 One imagines that the kephale in the Peloponnese oversaw both military and civilian administrative structures. It is clear that in some of his endeavours, for example in the control and exploitation of the landed resources, he would have been able to rely on the collaboration of the vested interests, lay or ecclesiastical.585 Areas of Thessaly and Epiros were re-conquered for the empire through direct imperial initiative, driven by prominent military commanders, variously referred to as ‘stratopedarches’, ‘strategon’, ‘protostrator’ or ‘epi tou stratou’.586 The established divisions and titles mimicked traditional nomenclature, although realities there were very different since the reach of empire into these territories, towns and strongholds would often have been very superficial, administratively and fiscally. As we have seen, here and in earlier discussions, the Byzantine Empire invested heavily in the military conquests of parts of the area treated in this book, evidently from core budget, between the 1260s and the 1340s. Only the resulting administrative structures may have been designed to carry themselves fiscally from local resources. The Byzantine Empire as a whole faced significant budgetary problems in these years, but at the same time the successive emperors were required to strike a fine balancing act between state revenue and the contentment of key allies in the holding and administration of a given territory.587 The territories which became imperial in Epiros, Thessaly, and the Peloponnese during this period would have been even less directly profitable to the empire than areas closer to Constantinople, either because they would have been farmed out to an even greater extent to individuals and institutions, or because of administrative impasses. As such they may of course still have been very lucrative to these recipients, especially in Lakonia and in parts of central and eastern Thessaly. In these years, personal ties between 584  Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II, p. 137. 585  See for instance Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II, p. 203, on the acts issued by the metropolitan of Lakedaimon in the 1339 and 1341. 586  Magdalino, Thessaly, pp. 293–304; Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 217–223. 587  Smyrlis, “Financial crisis and the limits of taxation”. On the budgetary situation, see also Chapter 1, pp. 40–45.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

315

Constantinople and the Byzantine periphery of the west may have been quite strong, especially in Epiros and Lakonia, and this again fed directly into the imperial Byzantine designs for these areas. Yet in purely budgetary terms these Greek imperial territories, perhaps with the exception of Lakonia, would certainly have been mostly unviable to the centre, and the desire to conquer and keep them had different kinds of motivations. 8.7 Colonial and Military Administrations: Catalans The administration of Attikoboitia in the wake of the Catalan takeover in 1311 was characterised by the combination of a number of factors: the local feudal tradition; the internal dynamic of the Catalan Grand Company;588 the co-option of the Aragonese-Sicilian monarchy; and the subsequent accords with Venice.589 After 1311 newcomers of different socio-demographic backgrounds were introduced to the area, ranging from the lower urban classes, who were also predestined for urban environments in their new Greek homeland, to members of noble families. The latter usually took over the estates of local Frankish or Greek archontic holders, many of whom had perished or fled, although very occasionally they intermarried with them. There were subsequent important introductions of noblemen, especially after 1317. The Company itself and its successor, the Corporation of Franks in Romania, was presided over by a chancellor, knowledge of whom is now however only intermittent. At its core the Company had a very important element of urban and lower ranking members. The overall aspect of the Company was also military, Jacoby has estimated that some 1,500 combattants remained in Attikoboiotia in 1312. Even when they returned to civilian and professional lives in one of the towns in Attica or Boiotia, these members remained militarised and ready for combat. From this date, the duchies themselves, which had been made over to the royal crown of Aragon-Sicily, had a vicar general, who was the representative of the non-resident duke. Together with the duchies, the old feudal obligations from Burgundian times were re-established, and therein lies the importance of this constitutional step. (Military) captains were put in charge of certain territories, castellans of castles and towns, but the free men of the latter were also organised in councils. The very disparate interests within Catalan society, urban, rural, feudal, or military, theoretically found their voices in a general assembly. 588  On which see for instance Jacoby, “Compagnie catalane”. 589  Consider particularly Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece” and Jacoby, “L’état catalan en Grèce”, in addition to the discussion above on the Catalan takeover. Compare also p. 191 on demographic matters.

316

Chapter 3

In a difficult geo-strategic context, there were instances when vicars general could be seen to act according to the reason of state, in relation both to the power of the crown and the Company, for example in their military decision making or in the acquisition and direct administration of castles and territories. On the evidence of the history of the duchies between 1311 and the midfourteenth century, the decision-making processes seem to have been rapid and dynamic, multi-level, and perhaps for these reasons generally successful. Examples from different spheres will underline this: militarily the early years brought controlled expansion, the 1330s and 1340s containment of expansionist threats from westerly and northerly direction. The appeasement of Venice was also highly beneficial for the dissemination of local produce, including very importantly slaves, often destined for Candia. Attikoboiotia in these years also hosted some of the largest and most complex urban societies in medieval Greece. Yet, as elsewhere, at the core of the Catalan society and economy in Greece lay the correct distribution and running of rural holdings, and even here great emphasis was placed on the preceding cadastral information. There is in fact a curious disjuncture between the establishment of this new polity in eastern Mainland Greece and the intense exploitation of these landed resources, and the presence of Catalan merchants in earlier fourteenthcentury Romania.590 In fact most of the trade of goods towards Iberia took place out of Constantinople, or from the eastern Aegean islands. The one exception to this are slaves which some Catalans, and also Sicilians,591 sourced directly from Thebes. One must imagine that the exclusion of Catalan traders from the Attikoboiotian agricultural export market was part of the design for the area by the Venetians, who managed to re-direct this trade via Venetian Negroponte. Such an arrangement may nevertheless have been also beneficial to Catalan landholders themselves, as we can witness from the great wealth which they evidently amassed and the financial services which bridged these two demographics.592 The account book of Berenguer Benet reveals on the other hand that the interest of this specific Catalan trader was not to purchase the usual foodstuffs that Greece had to offer, but to sell metals and high-end clothing, and to return with alum, spices, mastic, and raw products for the clothing industry (cotton, leather).

590  See on this subject matter Duran i Duelt, Berenguer Benet, pp. 11–20; Duran i Duelt, “Comercio entre España y Bizancio”. 591  Duran i Duelt, “La participació siciliana en el comerç oriental”, p. 78. 592  Compare above p. 223, n. 203 on a loan from Catalan Athens to the bailo of Negroponte.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

317

8.8 Indirect Taxation and Seigniorage, Fines and Monopolies As we have seen, in Byzantium there was a longstanding tradition of indirect, mostly commercial, taxation,593 which was carried forward seamlessly into post-conquest Greece.594 There are a number of reasons why indirect taxation and related income should come to the fore in the present period: with the streamlining of the Venetian and Angevin colonial systems, and the increasing urbanisation of Greece itself,595 the relatively recent and largely urban phenomenon of indirect taxation in the western Latin tradition, which was the product of different budgetary competences and challenges in these western contexts,596 was rolled out into Greece, whether in Angevin- or Aragonese-controlled areas. Pegolotti for instance describes in some detail the situation at Clarentza, and more briefly for Thebes.597 The taxes and services paid for relate to import/export and customs, to actual sales, and for some products to weighing and measuring. It is of particular interest to us that no import and export duties are charged on gold and silver at Clarentza. The specific kommerkion of Clarentza is mentioned also for earlier Angevin phases, most poignantly on two occasions, respectively in 1279–1281 and 1303, because certain profits derived from this source (500 and 300 hyperpyra) were given to third parties.598 With the general increase in the levels of commercialisation naturally more profit from indirect taxation could be accrued by any of the local fiscs. Domestically, Venice did not know direct taxation until the middle of the fifteenth century and therefore had itself a longer tradition than others of payments related to the transportation and exchange of produce.599 In Greece, Venice derived income from what are termed collectively ‘datia’, many of which are badly understood since they were laid down locally. Yet, even in Coron-Modon on the whole taxation derived from land was the more important. At Negroponte the kommerkion was prominent over the years, but its history remains difficult to reconstruct.600 It was fought over by the Venetians 593  Chapter 1, pp. 3–4 and 38–39. 594  See in the present chapter, p. 248. 595  Compare in this chapter, pp. 195–196. 596  Compare Nicholas, Late medieval city, pp. 169–171. 597  Pegolotti, pp. 117–119. Compare also Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 129–132. 598  Registri 23, p. 80, no. 48 (1279), and Registri 25, p. 68ff, no 1ff (1281). Compare also Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 317, n. 28. Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 309–310. 599  For indirect taxation specifically in the Venetian colonial context, see Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, pp. 229–235 and Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, pp. 241–252. See also for the later period Schmitt, Albanien, pp. 331–333. 600  Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 128; Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, pp. 151–152.

318

Chapter 3

and the terzieri already in the middle of the thirteenth century. At the turn of the fourteenth century the republic of Venice legislated on its application to different communities (Anconites, Jews), and on the destination of the income derived from the kommerkion,601 and in the middle of the fourteenth century the kommerkion reached the Regimen only indirectly from the socalled Lombards (non-Venetian Italians), who had the right to collect it.602 The Venetian colonies in Greece were also administered meticulously, and for each of the services that one may have received from the civil servants (for instance judicial or notarial), one usually had to pay well stipulated sums of cash. These urban environments were also socially tightly controlled, and an increasing number of fines are an obvious manifestation thereof.603 But even territorial states could see indirect payments as a part of a system of controls and checks in times of political fragmentation: under the later Tocco rulers, for instance, the sensitive naval passage between Leukada and the Mainland involved the payment of four hyperpyra per ship.604 Monopolistic policies were part of the same desire to control and to maximise profit.605 In the particular Greek context, salt was the most important monopoly, and it was most stringently applied by Venice in the Epirote area. In fact, Venice was apparently inspired there by the étatist economic policies of her Angevin predecessors in the region,606 though for Crete there is some evidence that the Venetian colonial authorities had already applied some restrictions towards the extraction and commercialisation of salt about a century previously.607 There were also other localised monopolies in place, so all acorn cups (valania608) had to be sold to the authorities in Coron-Modon.609 The monopoly on wheat/grain was to gain in importance as different areas of Greece and Italy, and especially the city of Venice herself, began to recover from the effects of the Black Death in the later fourteenth century. The intensification of the land regime especially in the Peloponnese, which we have already looked at at length in this chapter, also produced dues and 601  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 62, no. CL (1290); Predelli, Commemoriali, 1, no. 382 (1308); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 133, no. 208 (1310). 602  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 114, no. 445 (1367). 603  See also below, pp. 378–382 and 388–395 on the later Venetian colonies in Greece. 604  T IB 3, pp. 95. 605  See the passage cited in Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne in n. 599 above, and Schmitt, Albanien, pp. 336–347. 606   Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, pp. 151–152. On salt and grain monopolies in the later Venetian colonial economic system, see below pp. 390–391. 607  Hocquet, Le sel, 1, pp. 293–294. 608  Compare p. 246 in this chapter. 609  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, pp. 397–398.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

319

different forms of indirect payments, not just in the Latin but evidently also the Byzantine areas of the peninsula: later, George Gemistos Plethon was to complain specifically about the high and varied tax burden which was stifling local inhabitants.610 One of the Peloponnesian accounts from mid-century shows us how many different ‘chomerchi’ and other indirect income streams were present in feudalised Greece.611 Fine-metal coinages were minted in Greece only within the present period. Arguably, in line with this innovation, and the other developments which have been addressed in this discussion, indirect profit from minting (seigniorage) would arguably also have become important for the polities ruling in Greece. We have however very little direct information in its regard from the documentary sources,612 and we may infer certain aspects from circumstantial evidence. In the western tradition, though apparently not in contemporary Byzantium, seigniorage was often not charged on the top-range gold products of the age because of the stiff competition for bullion.613 By contrast, the profit which could be reaped from the large silver issues at the fourteenth-century Angevin Naples mint was very substantial. Gold was issued only during a short period at the Clarentza mint,614 but most of the silver-based denier tournois issues were produced at the different mints of south-central Greece under direct and indirect Angevin authority. We have seen elsewhere that Pegolotti’s account of the operations of the Clarentza mint may have hinted at the existence of seigniorage. We know about seigniorage at earlier Angevin Clarentza because these monies were deployed for specific expenditure, mostly military, that is to say a rather costly enterprise. At the first high-point of tournois production Venice also contemplated issuing tournois in Greece (1305). Again, the profit reaped from this may have been part of the motivation. Just a couple of years earlier, as we have seen, the Naupaktos mint was operated by a Neapolitan banker in return for a substantial loan of 31,000 hyperpyra.615 Around 1330– 1340 Clarentza was churning out yet more coinage, according to our projection in Figure 2, and this was also the period during which the Achaïan tournois 610  See below in this chapter, p.  386. Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues”, pp. 34–40, lists an impressive numbers of indirect charges within rural Byzantium (mostly Macedonia). Schreiner, Texte, pp. 402–403, also offers glimpses of the myriad of indirect dues which petty traders faced. 611  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. IX (1365), pp. 162–163 and 168–169. See also Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania”, p. 15. 612  For an overview, see Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 218–220. See further Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1381. 613  See for example Stahl, Zecca, pp. 190–191. Compare also Chapter 1, pp. 39–40 and 68–69. 614  Appendix II.4.D.4, pp. 1316–1317. 615  See above, p. 223 and Appendix II.9.F p. 1451.

320

Chapter 3

first began to lose substantially in fineness.616 The latter is often a tell-tale sign for profit being siphoned off from the currency, and therefore the involvement of seigniorage. Given the experience of the Naples mint in these years, and the internal evolution in the governance of Achaïa itself, it would perhaps not be too far fetched to surmise that Florentine banking houses, perhaps the Acciaiuoli themselves, became involved in the running of the Clarentza mint in the last decades of its existence. Whether in the Byzantine or Latin systems, much as with direct taxation and any other kinds of privileges, we find that the right to collect seigniorage and indirect taxation more generally could be alienated from the fisc in favour of groups or individuals in return for payments or services.617 In the Venetian colonies the profits particularly from the kommerkion might also be destined for very specific pieces of expenditure by senatorial decree, such as the works on the town’s walls at Negroponte in 1350,618 or the armament of the galleys in 1367.619 As the Venetian empire increasingly became a network of port towns, the value of each of these could conveniently be reduced to its annual indirect taxation, as was for instance the case when a 1,000 ducat price tag was put on Pyrgos in northern Epiros (1416).620 Towards a More Nuanced Picture of Socio-Economic and Commercial Developments I will attempt, in closing the present discussion, to add definition and nuancing to the general picture of trade and production drawn already above in the present discussion, which was based on the wider geo-political developments and the establishment of the galley system. For this purpose, other kinds of documentation from the usual narrative or diplomatic sources need to be drawn on, documentation which is either more private, or more eclectic and 8.9

616  Appendix II.9.A.12, p. 1423. 617  See for instance the famous case of the kommerkion of Corinth, given to the de la Roche during the conquest period: p. 226, and also the cited seigniorage at the Naupaktos mint which was made over to an individual. Also the different indirect taxes listed in the Angevin document of 1365 were all given to individuals. In Euboia during the same decade, the farming of the kommerkion was in the hands of the Lombards, who paid a tribute to the Venetian Regimen from it (see above). In Appendix III.3, p. 1537 we see that the Greek Demetrios Rentis is offered profits from the indirect taxation at Athens for serviced rendered to the house of Aragon (1375). 618  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 69, no. 238. 619  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 114, no. 445. 620  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 242. On this episode, see also in this chapter p. 373, below.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

321

less official and standardised. This can be supplemented with the evidence of pottery. Merchants manuals have the quality of portolans in highlighting places of commercial interest, but are even more useful for our purposes since they also show the connections between them.621 Overall the treatment of Greek locations in the Zibaldone da Canal, with information from ca. 1320, is Veneto-centric and hones in on the obvious places connected to the galley network, Coron-Modon, Clarentza, and Negroponte.622 The weight equivalent for Brindisi and Negroponte,623 and the importance of Thessalonike,624 emerge more incidentally in the Zibaldone. The slightly later Pegolotti is unsurpassed in wealth and breadth of information. Greece makes only an occasional showing among far flung locations, which are often related back to northern and central Italy: the Black Sea and Armenia, Constantinople (and Rhodes and Chios), the Levant, North Africa. The negative evidence is interesting: Greece features neither in the treatment of Rhodes nor of Candia,625 and amongst the Tyrrhenian seapowers only marginally.626 The greatest surprise perhaps is the prominence given by Pegolotti to Puglia and Sicily, and in these contexts Greece comes to the fore.627 Elsewhere in the manual, the Greek sections cover mainly Thebes and Negroponte, and especially Clarentza and its mint,628 and their connections with places in the wider region (including Durazzo and Thessalonike), again with Puglia, and of course with Florence and Venice.629 The connections between Greece and Ancona in this period come 621  On the topic of these manuals, see the different presentations which all appeared in one volume: Dotson, “Fourteenth century merchant manuals”; Spufford, “Late medieval merchants notebooks”; Weissen, “Commercial site analysis in Italian merchant handbooks”. See further Travaini, Monete, mercanti e matematica, pp. 131–137. Specifically regarding Clarentzan connections revealed in these sources, see Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 218–223. 622  Dotson, Zibaldone da Canal, pp. 106–108. 623  Compare Appendix III.3, p. 1535. 624  Appendix III.5, p. 1571. 625  Pegolotti, pp. 102–107. 626  Pegolotti, pp. 203–214 (Pisa), and pp. 215–224 (Genoa), the exception being a reference to Corinthian grana (p. 208). 627  See for instance Pegolotti, pp. 112–114, on Sicilian measures for grain and metals and their equivalents (including Clarentza for metal, and Clarentza, Negroponte, and Thebes for grain); and also pp. 167–168, 170–171, where the vast treatment for Puglia contains Greek connections. 628  On this topic see Appendix II.9.A.1. p. 1379. 629  The main Greek section is Pegolotti, pp. 116–119. Compare also the vast Venetian section, p. 137ff (for instance p. 145, with an explicit mention of the galley routes to Clarentza, Coron-Modon, Negroponte; and also pp. 149 and 153). See also in the Florentine discussion the equivalents for Clarentza and Negroponte, and for Thessalonike (pp. 198 and

322

Chapter 3

as a surprise,630 and even more so those to Acre, Alexandria, and Famagusta.631 The consistent mention of Thessalonike is noteworthy (as it is in the case of the Zibaldone), but also of Corinth, which was absent from the latter. Notarial documents in fact show how privates (in these cases Venetians) could link faraway places between the Aegean and the Levant in the same period, variously making use of the galley system or not.632 Greeks, as we have seen, and Venetians alike operated between Crete and the Peloponnese.633 So-called Monemvasiots may also have traded out of Pegai in Anatolia. The Venetian notaries based in the Peloponnesian colonies – Pasquale Longo in 1289–1293,634 Antonio Paolo, and others in the first decades of the fourteenth century635 – provide us with a rich picture of local society, which was certainly diverse in terms of origins of the various protagonists. Yet, often we do not know their lines of business, and only a minority of the acts offers commercial information, confirming at best the overwhelming orientation towards Venice, and the importance of the Cretan and Pugliese connections which we have already mentioned. Clarentza is a rather curious case: though not Venetian, it would seem from the diverse sources that the Venetians there outnumbered all other population groups, and that in fact large-scale navigation and commerce to Venice dominated the local economy completely.636 Small-scale and disparate accounting notes can offer us invaluable insights, only hampered by their uncertain datings and geographical locations. They reveal a world of traders and transporters of goods, Greeks of different social backgrounds, many specialising in short and confined routes, or making money through petty financial services.637 The 1278 and 1321 Venetian claims, which have been mentioned, also demonstrate the high level of traffic in the Aegean (at particularly difficult times) and put into evidence a cabotage system of smaller communications, with a

203). Compare further for the diffusion of Peloponnesian standards in Puglia and Tuscany and elsewhere: Appendix III.3, p. 1534. 630  Pegolotti, pp. 157 and 159. 631  Pegolotti, pp. 65, 73–74, 93. 632  Coureas, “Lusignan Cyprus and Venetian Crete”; Coureas, “Cyprus and Euboea”. On Venetian family networks in the Aegean, see Tchentsova, “Commerce vénitien en Grèce”. 633  See above, p. 294, n. 502. 634  See Pasquale Longo and the analysis in Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, pp. 113 and 124. 635  Published in Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata. 636  Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 139–200 and 234–300. 637  See the discussions of this environment in Schreiner, Texte, pp. 396–406 and 412–435. Information from these documents is also extensively used in Appendix II.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

323

concentration on a variety of the usual foodstuffs, in addition to other products (wax, silks, and textiles). The number of combinations, especially between islands and points in the Greek (and Anatolian) mainland, are large.638 The northwest of our area, parts of the western Mainland, Epiros, and the islands, are also well represented in these claims. It came to be integrated either for the first time, or more fully than previously, into western trading networks: Corfu, Arta, and Naupaktos in particular. This was largely the achievement of private Venetians and Ragusans, backed by appropriate diplomatic efforts. These traders were able to operate within the territories under Angevin expansion, and also those still ruled by the Angeloi Doukai. The relative decline of the more northerly Valona and Durazzo was an additional motivation.639 As elsewhere, regional fairs supported such developments.640 Merchants manuals or notarial acts can offer us trading connections, but not information on volume, nor on the balance of international trade as against local cabotage,641 nor on the vexed question of trading balances with other areas, which has loomed so large in the literature.642 Ceramics643 are also an inadequate indicator of the strength of domestic Greek industry in the wider sense, and neither can they accurately describe the commercial balance between regions, since they would always have been either a minor or even secondary item of trade. Yet, also in the present period pottery manages to show us some connections and orientations, and it is also important as the main archaeological find and dating tool in rural and urban contexts: From the second half of the thirteenth century onwards the pottery types encountered in Greece diversified: Byzantine-style production became more 638  A very vivid picture based on different sources for communications particularly in the Aegean has been drawn by Jacoby, “An island world?”, p. 100ff. Specifically on Venetians based at Anaia near Ephesos during the last years of Byzantine rule in the area, see Maltezou, “Αναία”. 639  See for instance Ducellier, “Arta et Saint-Maure à la fin du moyen âge”; Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 72 and 76; Zachariadou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο στο δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου”. Consider also the interesting dealings of Venetian merchants in this part of Greece between the 1280s and the early fourteenth century, able to strike deals with the local authorities and not deterred by set backs: Saint-Guillain, “Lady and the merchants”. 640  Asdracha, “Foires en Épire”. 641  And of course the two can be inter-related: see Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie: phénomènes sociaux et économiques”, pp. 46–47. Gasparis, “Terra o mare” also emphasises the integrated nature of all economic activity, in the case of Crete. 642  Compare also pp. 18–20, 34–38, 52–54, 61–63, 245, 249, 264. 643  See pp. 249–251 for a discussion of the potential of the ceramic evidence, with reference to the earlier part of the thirteenth century, including a bibliography which remains partially relevant to our present period.

324

Chapter 3

localised, while western imports were no longer confined to southern Italy, but included different areas of the north and centre of the peninsula, and Iberia. Using the few synthetic presentations for non specialists,644 with ever an eye on the presence of imported pottery types, the following picture emerges:645 In the extreme west of the Peloponnese, Clarentza and Chloumoutzi,646 and to a lesser degree Patra and Methoni, continue the previous strong orientation towards southern Italy, and have few or no imports from the Byzantine world. Material from north Italy, the Veneto and the Po valley, is second in importance in these places. At the other extreme are the Cycladic islands – we have examples from Paros and Andros – which are apparently devoid of western imports.647 The territory in between and to the north needs to be divided: Corinth and the northeastern Peloponnese undergoes a radical shift in the second half of the thirteenth century when western, chiefly Italian, imports largely replace those from the east and the northeast. There is also a discreet yet important importation of specialist wares from Egypt.648 Two other easterly areas – respectively Sparta and Lakonia, and Thebes and Attica and Attikoboiotia more broadly – are similar in the sense that imports of the main Pugliese and Veneto types are known, and even some of the rarer western types, but are confined and outnumbered by local wares or imports from the general Byzantine koine. This suggests, in addition to continued points of contact with the northern 644  One such overview of pottery in late Byzantium, Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, pp. 184–188, is interested precisely in the two aspects which I deem less reliable: production and commercial strength or weakness. 645  Systematic presentations of Greek ceramic finds regarding the period ca. 1250–1350 can be found in Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”, and Skartsis, Chlemoutsi, pp. 24–29. François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance” and François, Bibliographie, are somewhat out of date with regard to the present period. Vroom, Byzantine to modern pottery in the Aegean provides a good presentation of the types. The forthcoming discussions of the ceramics by F. Kondyli and F. Liard in Baker et al., Catalan Thebes, and by S. Skartsis and I. Vaxevanis in the context of the assemblage of pots and coins which we first presented at the 12th International congress on medieval and modern period Mediterranean ceramics, Athens, October 2018, also include substantial considerations of the movements of pottery in the Aegean at the turn of the fourteenth century. Using these works as guides, I otherwise cite only sparingly from the vast bibliography on medieval Greek ceramics. 646  See for instance Clarence, pp. 44–49 and Skartsis, Chlemoutsi. 647  Vionis, “Kastro of Kephalos” and Kontogiannis and Arvaniti, “Andros”. 648  We owe this assessment to the pioneering studies of Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish period” and Sanders “Assemblage of Frankish pottery at Corinth”. Their findings have been borne out by the much more abundant evidence produced in the 1990s: Williams, “Frankish Corinth: an Overview”. See also Gregory, “Late Byzantine Pottery from Isthmia”. On the Islamic imports, see also François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268-1347/1348: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

325

and eastern Aegean, a greater variety in commercial exchanges than can perhaps be gleaned from the evidence at Clarentza or Corinth. The early results emerging from urban excavations in Chalkida (Negroponte) seem to suggest more similarities with Thebes rather than Corinth.649 The even more scanty evidence from another important trading location, Monemvasia, is devoid of western imports. The pottery at Thasos, which may well be symptomatic for Thessalonike and Aegean Macedonia more generally, is equally orientated to the wider Byzantine world, including the Black Sea and the eastern Aegean, and not to west. The importance of Macedonia itself, and of Thrace, is underlined by the diffusion of wares from Thessalonike, Serres, and indeed from Constantinople, from the late thirteenth century onwards, including to parts of our area (especially the eastern Mainland and the eastern Peloponnese).650 But in rural stretches of Boiotia and surroundings, away from the urban centres, Italian wares make only meagre showings.651 Chronologically it is interesting that the studied pottery from Sparta and its associated harbour does not seem to date much beyond the very early fourteenth century,652 but that by contrast the Lakonian countryside is more diachronic.653 Our final region of interest is Epiros, where the evidence is largely confined to Arta and Butrint:654 these urban sites are dominated by western imports, from northern and southern Italy, and from Iberia. If only a limited number of the sites provide us with useful ceramic data for our present discussion regarding the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century, then this is all the more the case for ceramics collected in rural areas as part of archaeological surveys.655 Nevertheless, for certain landscapes in the Peloponnese, the Greek Mainland, and the islands, their findings are vital in supporting a picture of more intensive economic exploitation. In summary, for the period from the 1260s to the 1340s there is evidence that the economy in general, and commerce in particular, grew in relation to the previous period. Whether they managed to diversify in terms of products and especially connections, or on the contrary became more streamlined when 649  For example: Kontogiannis, “Euripos-Negroponte-Eğriboz”. 650  Compare: Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 187. For a recent re-attribution, see Papanikola-Bakirtzi and Waksman, “Thessaloniki ware reconsidered”. 651  Gerstel et al., “Panakton”, pp. 218–221 (the life of the site begins in the first decades of the fourteenth century); Armstrong, “Eastern Phocis”; Vroom, After antiquity, pp. 164–169. 652  See Armstrong, “Zeuxippus derivative bowls from Sparta” and Sanders, “Sparta”; and Sanders, “The medieval pottery” respectively. 653  Armstrong, “The survey area in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods”. 654  In addition to the general overviews referred to, Vroom, “Butrint” is a more specialist appraisal of a certain kind of fourteenth-century imported type. 655  These are discussed in the demographic section, above, pp. 196–198.

326

Chapter 3

viewed as a whole, is very difficult to establish. Perhaps the fact that this expansion took place in a political and strategic context which was so challenging656 may lead us more towards the latter scenario, as an overall trend. 9

1259/1268–1347/1348: Money

As we have seen in the preceding two discussions, the political and socioeconomic changes affecting our area during the second phase of our analysis were staggering. The monetary developments which these brought on were no less astounding.657 9.1 Monetisation of Greece in the Main Hyperpyron Systems of Account The levels of monetisation of Greece between 1259 and 1348, which we have attempted to measure, rose to an unprecedented level, steadily from midcentury to about 1300, and then in different bursts to an absolute high in the later 1340s, which was arguably four times greater than monetisation had been in 1200, and also nearly twice as much as in mid-thirteenth century.658 This monetisation was in this period to a large degree carried by silver-based currencies. Copper may still have converted into other currencies, as we suggest below, but would overall have lost its importance in sustaining the main hyperpyron accounting systems. The impact of gold is more difficult to assess. In Figure 2 I regard gold a small but integral part of Greek monetisation in approximately the last two to three decades prior to 1350. During these years ducats and florins could have been accounted in the local hyperpyra via the silver grosso, to which they stood in stable rates.659 By contrast, after 1350 the situation changed: Italian gold developed into a system of account in Greece in its own right, and the relevant coins were evidently separated from the other currencies to a much larger extent in terms of usage and circulation. Beside 656  Sakellariou, “Latin Morea”, pp. 315–316, emphasizes precisely the conflictual and splintered environment, but comes to the conclusion that therefore the Peloponnese was economically stagnant in this period. 657  This discussions on money in the present period draws on all three appendices, as well as on Chapter 2, pp. 91–102 (overview), pp. 105–124 (stray finds), pp. 124–149 (hoards). There are a few graves and dumps dating to these years, pp. 149–153, and jettons, tokens, and perhaps other metallic objects, gain some monetary relevance (pp. 153–160). Regarding the control over the currency, see pp. 166–173. Consider also the general geographical and demographic context for money, as discussed in this Chapter 3, pp. 186–217. Cross-references are given also here sparingly. 658  Figure 2 on p. 184. 659  Compare Appendix II.4.D, esp. p. 1314; Appendix III.6, pp. 1575–1581.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

327

the silver coinages, a certain number of other silver objects may in some way have contributed to Greek monetisation, particularly in urban contexts. Beside the omnipresent jewellery, belts (of silver/ingots?) may have been fashioned in our own period expressly for storage and certain transfers of wealth. The extent and importance of this practice is again difficult to measure.660 The monetisation of Greece increased steadily during 1259–1348: only the period around the time of the Catalan conquest saw some less regular development in the shape of an acceleration of coin production and a subsequent partial collapse in the same. The general trajectory appears to be the same as that drawn by the demographic expansion during these same years. It was also only in the current period that wider areas of the Greek countryside were monetised.661 We shall see in the following discussions that the two spheres which were arguably most responsible for the shape and quantity of money in Greece were the economy, mostly agriculture and commerce, and the various political and military attempts to seek domination over Greek territories by Byzantines, Venetians, Angevins, Catalans, and others. More silver came to Greece in these years as part of these processes, and an increasing amount of coinage was produced there. This was aided in the later decades by the decrease in the fineness of the main tournois currency of Clarentza, a known technique to stretch the available metallic resources. Yet, in all of this we must not neglect the fact that Greece was subject to wider monetary trends which affected most of Europe and Eurasia.662 As we have already said in Chapter 2, Greece mirrors Byzantium and the west for part of the fourteenth century. Nevertheless, our territories underwent certain idiosyncratic developments, especially from the 1320s to mid-century. 9.2 Persistence and Renewals of Petty Coinages Even though we measure monetisation in terms of silver (and gold) coinage, the Greek regions, especially the urban areas, still abounded in Byzantine-style copper petty coinages after mid-century. In fact, these were replenished by the minting at Thebes and Corinth of large quantities of petty denomination coins which, although western in style and format, and containing perhaps a small percentage of silver, must in some respects be considered a petty coinage in the Byzantine tradition since their metrologies and behaviours at sites 660  Chapter 2, pp. 153–159. 661  See in this chapter, p. 215–216. 662  Kuroda, “Eurasian silver century”. Compare also Chapter 1, 52–54 and 58–61; Chapter 2, pp. 180–181.

328

Chapter 3

in Greece were similar.663 Such coins were largely minted before our present period, with the exception of some later ducal issues at Athens.664 Yet we are to some degree able to measure and demonstrate that these petty denomination coins, together with Byzantine and sub-Byzantine tetartera and trachea, continued to be available at Greek sites also after mid-century.665 We have also noted that there may have been a particular hunger for tetartera in the urban centres of the territories which became Catalan after 1311, to judge by some significant quantities of counterfeits. Other numismatic phenomena supported the general availability of petty cash: the counterfeiting of tournois which was particularly important in the 1290s and 1300s,666 and their cancellation by the authorities (although the coins themselves remained available);667 and the apparent use of jettons or reckoning counters, and maybe lead tokens, as currency.668 In Catalan areas (although our evidence is currently limited to Athens, «238» and «239») the production of specific low grade tournois issues at the Thebes (?) mint, so-called ‘counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia’,669 also helped to augment the stock of petty cash. Finally, in Venetian colonies (and former colonies Corfu and Durazzo, the latter outside of our area) the piccolo coinage was now apparently widespread.670 We cannot fail to notice that all of the cited phenomena are especially known from the most urban of Greek locations, Clarentza, Patra, Coron-Modon, Corinth in the Peloponnese, or Athens, Thebes, and Negroponte in the eastern Mainland. The bulk of the graves which have included such petty coinages also happen to be from the same sites.671 On the fringes, Sparta and Arta were also more monetised now than previously, with petty denomination issues and another wave of trachea respectively. Tournois, by, contrast, were not counterfeited in these areas in this period.672 9.3 Money in Urban Greece The increasing urbanisation of Greece in the present period, and the diversification of Greek urban society at all class levels, be it proletarian and soldier, 663  664  665  666  667  668  669  670  671  672 

Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374. Appendix II.8.A.3, pp. 1363–1364. See also p. 1373 for the rarer Clarentzan issues. Chapter 2, p. 117. Consider also hoards such as «59. Argos 1988». Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490. Chapter 2, p. 170. Chapter 2, pp. 159–160. Appendix II.9.L, pp. 1481–1483. Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. See also Appendix III, passim. Chapter 2, pp. 149–152. Chapter 2, p. 170.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

329

middling or aristocratic, contributed also to the diversification of monetisation in other respects. It has been shown for Italy how especially wage labour resulted in monetary innovation, including the creation and diffusion of the groat currencies.673 In Greece urban waged jobs at many different levels, in the public and private sectors, were certainly on the increase.674 Urban dwellers of all kinds also, naturally, needed to procure basic items of everyday need, for instance foodstuffs, with currency. A multitude of indirect taxes and dues were introduced in the present period, and these were frequently urban and invariably involved the exchange of money. While groats were not minted in Greece, more groat currencies were available there in our period (especially Venetian, and also Neapolitan, Sicilian, and French). Most of these currencies were in themselves only conceived then, and even the Venetian grosso, which has an earlier pedigree, saw the height of its production in these years.675 The deniers tournois of local mintage were in this period ideally suited to commute into the main hyperpyra of account in which wages and other prices were expressed, while being at the same time coins of sufficiently humble intrinsic value to be deployable for even some of the more minor taxes and fines in tale. It is quite possible that the Venetian piccolo and its multiples was gaining in prominence in this period specifically in urban Venetian colonies in the Peloponnese, Negroponte, and Crete, and perhaps even in the newly established Angevin colonies in the northwest, which had a Venetian past. A substantial petty coinage, as we have just seen, was also available for many of the urban exchanges. We must assume that there were ways of commuting such coins into tournois: compare the indirect evidence provided for instance by Pegolotti, who gives an exchange rate for tournois/tornesi and trachea (stamena) in Constantinople.676 Also some of the Rechenbücher for the metropolitan area provide some interesting information for small exchanges. Most of the excavations of medieval Greek occupation have been urban.677 There are some sites, listed in Table 1 on pp.  112–117, which are large and 673  Saccocci, “Wage payments”. 674  For wages in various professions in post-1278 Achaïa see Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, pp. 186–187. Civil service and related jobs have already been dealt with in the main Venetian discussion above, pp. 298–307. Compare for instance the official salaries of a nightwatchman in Coron: 17 hyperpyra p.a. according to Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 63, no. 209 (1348): and of a doctor: 100 hyperpyra, Thiriet, Délibérations, 1 p. 208, no. 521 (1345). On the rise in domestic staff, see Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, p. 164. 675  Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, p. 478. 676  See Appendix II.1.B, p. 1208; Appendix III.3, p. 1532. 677  Compare Chapter 2, pp. 105–109.

330

Chapter 3

diachronic enough to give us a picture of the transition from earlier Latin times to our present period. «237. Arta» was initially dominated by issues of Latin Constantinople and Byzantine Thessalonike, but this tradition for trachea is continued by the issues of the Palaiologan emperors after 1261 (the same is true also for the hoards of this town, «66» and «67»). Corinth fizzled out, not dissimilarly to Arta, in the early years of 1300: at this site there is an overall increase in low value denominations after mid-thirteenth century, in the shape of counterfeit tournois and especially petty denomination issues, but this then comes to an abrupt halt together with all other numismatic manifestations. However, Pegolotti, but interestingly not the earlier Zibaldone da Canal, seems to suggest that Corinth was again commercially important in the 1330s. If this was the case, the commercial centre would in this period not have been in what we term the ‘Central Area’. «236. Argos» has substantially more petty denomination coins than the earlier generation trachea, and the same is true, perhaps surprisingly, even for «351. Sparta». The one town which may have bucked this trend is Thebes, by having comparatively less new petty cash over time, although the two locations «354» and «357» (the second of which being in fact unknown) may not necessarily be representative of the town as a whole (NB: the Athenian «238» and «239» cannot be used statistically in the same diachronic manner, but appear nevertheless to have been different to the Theban picture). Whatever the precise pattern in these most lowly of denominations, it cannot be overemphasised how also silver-based coins such as grossi and tournois, and later soldini, became everyday staples in Greek towns after mid-century, in a fashion which was unimaginable even fifty years earlier.678 The very abundant numismatic record for multiple sites in Appendix I.4 is representative of the many actual coins used there, and the many transactions which would have taken place. Regarding the chronologies of such activities, two things should be noted: clearly an Achaïan coin, for example, of Prince Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297), or of his daughter Princess Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321), was as likely to have been lost after these respective princeships, than during them.679 This is a logical conclusion from the evidence of the hoards of Appendix I.1, and also of the Corinthian and Athenian contexts of Appendix I.13 and I.14, and of Graves XXXVII, XXXIX, XLVIII from

678  Compare the overview provided in the earlier part of this chapter, pp. 215–216. 679  Chapter 2, p. 118: the evidence concerning deniers tournois is not always consistent, especially across the two main sites, Ancient Corinth and the Athenian Agora.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

331

«214. Athenian Agora». Nevertheless, once you are dealing with a certain concentration for a particular issue or ruler you can rest more assured that the dates of rule or issue provide you with an adequate impression also of the dating of historical usage and exchange of the currency. This is strengthened by negative evidence, so for instance a site which has exclusively but relatively abundant coins ranging from Florent to Mahaut, that is to say that has no tournois dating before 1289 and none dating after 1321, was in all likelihood active during approximately the years from the 1290s to the 1320s, and very probably not in the 1350s. Sites have already been summarised in Chapter 2, pp. 120–124, and will be further explored in Chapter 4, but we should emphasise here a few characteristics that can be gleaned from the numismatics of urban centres during the period from ca. 1259 to ca. 1348: in terms of quantity and quality, some of our most significant sites were at their most developed, monetarily and otherwise, in these years. The Athenian Agora and its immediate vicinity to the south («238» and «239») have a great variety in medium-value specimens of local and foreign origin. «262. Clarentza» and the various Corinthian and Theban locations are no less rich and varied. These are clearly the sites one has in mind when speaking about a monetary revolution in the Greek towns of the Latin period. Specifically at Thebes, more so than elsewhere, we notice that activities at some excavated sites (for example «361») only commence during the main tournois phase from the 1270s onwards. Sites could at the same time be cut short by significant political or military events: according to the numismatic data assembled over many years of excavation at Corinth there cannot be much doubt that its ‘Central Area’ suffered considerably as a direct result of the Catalan raids in 1312. About three decades later, the Aydınoğlu Umur bey’s activities at Argos (see «236» and the newly presented hoard Argos 2005a) caused the town to contract in its northerly inhabited areas. The urban centres around the Ambracian Gulf, let alone those of northern Epiros/Albania, which were for all intents and purposes merely clusters of habitation inside a fortification dominated by an ecclesiastical or lay dignitary, compare rather unfavourably with those of the Peloponnese or the eastern Mainland. Still, even there silver coins have been found in good quantities – certainly relative to the often rather tentative archaeological enterprises that have been conducted there. The number of grossi at «237. Arta» are quite remarkable, especially as the town peters out temporarily after 1300. The evidence from the supposedly thriving location of «257. Butrint» is meagre and manages merely to hint at what might have been the monetary situation. By comparison, more humble places such as «253. Ballsh» (Glavinitza), «254. Berat», and «299. Kaninë» have altogether more promising numismatic data.

332

Chapter 3

9.4 Rise and Demise of Palaiologan Coinage in Greece After 1261, the Palaiologan coinage at Constantinople was initially composed of the restored gold hyperpyron and the billon trachy, supplemented by trachea at the Thessalonike mint.680 To judge by the totality of the numismatic information which is available, not merely that pertaining to Greece, both denominations were produced in good quantities, and enjoyed wide circulation. Some particular issues were prominent in our area, broadly from the late 1250s until the 1280s, and much more sporadically thereafter. Palaiologan gold is nevertheless underrepresented, with only one certified Greek find (from Euboia). There are, however, earlier hyperpyra in the name of John III Vatatzes which were concealed in the present years («65» and «70»). For this same period in the remainder of the Balkans, stray finds of hyperpyra (and of silver/electrum trachea) are a much more frequent occurrence. The last datable Byzantine coins found in Greece (specifically in Epiros) during this period are trachea from the reign of Andronikos II with Michael IX (1295–1320). Just like the earliest Thessalonican issues of the thirteenth century, there was a spread of such Palaiologan copper issues into the Adriatic.681 After 1300 the Byzantine Empire issued large quantities of gold and silver denominations, in the names of Andronikos II and his successive co-emperors Michael IX and then Andronikos III. These higher denomination coins of the fourteenth century are completely absent from our area.682 The earlier monetary situation, with respect especially to the copper coinages, manages to chart the political interaction of our area with the resurgent empire in a more or less direct way: the theatres of war and the areas of imperial expansion from the later 1250s, in Epiros and Albania, Thessaly, and in the Aegean and the Peloponnese (see for instance the coins of Michael VIII at «231. Andros» and «351. Sparta»), all saw an influx of coinage, albeit modest accordingly to numismatic record which is currently available to us. We can conclude from the general paucity of these data that Byzantium did not pursue a concerted monetary policy favouring its own currency as part of its expansionist policies in the southern Balkans and the Aegean before 1300, for instance in order to replenish these areas with imperial monetary specie, to underline renewed imperial control, for the collection of taxes and the payments of officials, possibly at advantageous rates to the empire. To judge by the finds from «237. Arta» and «254. Berat», the Albanian/Epirote area may have 680  Consider in general terms Appendix II.1.B.8, pp.  1243–1245 and Appendix II.1.D.6, pp. 1264–1268. 681  Appendix II.1.B.8, p. 1243, n. 257. 682  See Appendix II.1.D.6, pp. 1264–1268; Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1274–1277.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

333

been the exception to this trend: these were simultaneously areas which had maintained Byzantine-style currency in the intervening years (though not necessarily Constantinopolitan systems of accounting683), which had seen a more modest influx of western coins than elsewhere in Greece (with the important exception of silver grossi), and whose strategic importance to the empire was of the highest order. After 1300 the Byzantines were particularly active again in the area of Berat and Valona/Kaninë, and in the Peloponnese. After various political mutations in Epiros and Thessaly, Andronikos III and John VI managed to hold most of these areas for about a decade before the Serbian invasions. The fact that there are no imperial numismatic data from these locations at all, despite of the abundance of Byzantine coin production at Constantinople in gold and silver, certainly underlines the same point regarding the lack of an imperial monetary policy favouring Byzantine money which concerned these territories. The much cited chrysobull for Ioannina in 1319, which allowed this town to use the well established systems of coinage and accounting (based, as we argue in this book, on the tournois), is an explicit piece of primary documentation to that effect. We also note for instance that some of the key imperial allies in our territories, Thomas of Epiros or John II at Neopatra, who had both died the previous year, were according to the numismatic evidence not supplied with Byzantine cash. Yet this picture should not prompt us to under-estimate the intensity of Byzantine rule in the new imperial areas or of their systems of alliances, nor of the exploitation of the human and natural resources of these territories to their advantage. The absence of Byzantine coins in our territories is also not necessarily a reflection of the commercial and inter-personal links, or lack of them, which may have existed between these parts of our primary territories and the imperial capital. We have seen in the previous discussion that imperial economic designs in the Peloponnese and in Epiros/Thessaly were intense and went hand-in-hand with military conquests, and that the main protagonists on the ground, the Greek landholding class, would often have had close links to its Latin counterpart and would in this way have gained familiarity with its currencies and its way of handling them. The total absence of the post-1300 Byzantine hyperpyron and basilikon (there are merely a couple of finds of the latter in the Albanian and Macedonian territories close to our own; and then there is hoard «114» containing Trapezuntine silver coins) in the numismatic record for Greece is not even the result of a lack of an imperial monetary policy. It is first and foremost the result of the flaws in these coinages themselves, which in 683  Appendix III.4, pp. 1554–1559.

334

Chapter 3

turn were caused by a combination of fiscal weakness in Constantinople and very particular imperial monetary policies with respect to these gold and silver coinages.684 Any Byzantine gold and silver which might have reached Greece after 1300 would also, most logically, have been directed back to Byzantium where it was probably valued more highly. These findings may at first glance appear unexpected in the light of the persistence of gold hyperpyra of account after 1300 in parts of Greece, especially Thessaly and the Peloponnese.685 We should also recall the episode of the Grand Catalan Company, which expected to receive its first imperial payment in Monemvasia before proceeding to Constantinople. We do not know, of course, whether the monies involved may have been Byzantine or western. The contemporary accounting system in Macedonia teaches us that the imperial authorities were prepared to forgo Byzantine specie also in areas which were even more strongly and consistently held by the empire.686 We may conclude that from the 1280s onwards, in all the imperial areas from Thessalonike westwards the empire and imperial subjects were prepared to account imperial or imperially-based hyperpyra in non-Byzantine specie. The situation in Epiros from the turn of the century onwards was somewhat different. This area already had its own hyperpyron (of account), and began embracing Frankish Greek coinage in earnest. Evidently these were monetary constellations which could be made to work for the empire and its subjects, even though we must judge such compromises as economically and fiscally not ideal, or indeed detrimental. The situation in Thessaly is curious and requires a special interpretation:687 we have noted before how single grossi managed to establish themselves well in this area, also in quite rural locations, and this picture is matched by hoards «62. Trikala 1949» and «82. Larisa ca. 2001A». It is really quite remarkable how gradual and slow by contrast the introduction of the denier tournois was in this particular region: the early evidence of «105» is not particularly tenable (after which one must wait until «153»), and Appendix I.4 contains only two tournois with Thessalian provenance, one of which an Arta issue. Perhaps this peculiar picture for the imported silver denominations betrays, after all, the hand of the local administration in the first half of the fourteenth century? It certainly seems to suggest that, of all our areas, Thessaly was the one which was economically most closely tied directly to Constantinople, and in 684  Compare Chapter 1, pp. 50–54. 685  Appendix III.1, pp. 1515–1516. 686  Appendix III.5, pp. 1570–1573. 687  Compare Chapter 4, pp. 468–470.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

335

this the numismatic evidence confirms the picture we have given above on the direction of the land regime particularly in the areas turned towards the Pagasetic Gulf. 9.5 Angevin Administration and the Currency of Greece This rather unclear situation must be contrasted with the sense of purpose with which the Angevins pursued a monetary policy for their new territories in Greece.688 In some sense Charles I of Anjou had taken an indirect lead in 1267 from Manfred of Hohenstaufen, his predecessor in Italy and Greece, who a decade earlier had an intense if short lived monetary policy which had continued the local, albeit outmoded, trachy currency. To judge by the numismatic record, for a short while around 1259 these trachea of Manfred may have been the most prominent new coinage in a large and elongated triangle between Durazzo and Pelagonia in the north, and Arta in the south. Manfred’s trachea and Charles’ tournois are both characterised by pragmatic and rather un-propagandistic aspects. From 1267 onwards, and for the remainder of the period to the 1340s, the outward form of the currency of Greece, especially that which was actually produced there, was most obviously shaped by the Angevin authorities. Through the vehicle of money we gain in some way a greater sense of Angevin involvement with their overseas possessions than may be suggested by the traditional historiography, which was assessed in the previous discussions. Minting of the deniers tournois began at Clarentza, in the name of William II of Villehardouin, around the time of the two treaties of Viterbo (1267). It is currently impossible to determine if their first issuance pre- or post-dated the latter, nor is it certain whether the mint of Clarentza had already produced type 12 petty denomination issues in the name of the same Prince William by the time the tournois was launched.689 The fact remains that the 1260s were a particularly intense period in the development of the denier tournois currency in the entire Anjou sphere – in western and southern France, in Italy, and Greece. It was in this decade that large numbers of coins from the French appanages were imported, through public and private agency, into Greece and Italy.690 Consider the hoards from «54. Berbati 1953», «60. Nemea 1936», etc., onwards. There cannot be much doubt that this wave, which affected mostly 688  The situation under Charles himself has a long scholarly pedigree. For more recent summaries see for instance Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, pp. 156–163, and other parts of the book; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”. 689  Appendix II.8.B.3, p. 1373. 690  Appendix II.3.C-D, pp. 1289–1293.

336

Chapter 3

but not exclusively the Peloponnese, constituted one of the immediate impetuses for Greek minting of tournois. It is even possible that the temporary end of French minting in 1266 may have induced Greek minting in a more direct fashion.691 Of course William’s issues themselves owed considerably also to the Angevins, whether or not minting was commenced as a direct result of William’s individual treaty with Charles in the stated year. The Argos 2005b hoard should one day offer us more information on this very sensitive transition period of the 1260s, for instance on types, datings, and the early size of issue.692 It is also of note that the culling of the earlier French tournois issues, which was a considerable administrative effort, was evidently completed in parts by 1270, perhaps on the Mainland a little bit later.693 We can again presume Angevin organisational involvement. It is interesting that the same transition from French to Greek tournois issues as the main staple of the currency obviously resulted in the elimination of actual gold hyperpyron coins from Greek usage: note that «63» and «70» are the last hoards to contain such issues.694 During much of the 1270s and early 1280s there was a strong symbiosis between Angevin policy for Greece, and the minting of coinage at Clarentza, in quite an exceptional fashion. Tournois were explicitly used, even before William’s death in 1278, for Angevin military enterprises. The involvement of the Angevins in Greece in these years is underlined also by the finds of pennies from the Regno, especially those of Charles I of Anjou,695 and maybe of provisini.696 This was also the period in which the main Peloponnesian hyperpyron was pegged more strongly to the denier tournois – whereas previously it had been variously defined through grossi and sterlings and hyperpyra.697 This had entailed a level of uncertainty which the new authorities evidently sought to eliminate: it cannot be a coincidence that the attempted standardisation of this hyperpyron occurred at the same time as the change in political leadership. Nevertheless, we must notice that even thereafter there were considerable variations in the Peloponnesian hyperpyra, for instance in the information provided by Pegolotti.698 The hoard evidence also reveals the 691  Appendix II.3, p. 1284. 692  Compare Chapter 4, p. 427. 693  See for instance Chapter 2, pp. 118, 140–141 and 166. 694  Chapter 2, p. 165. 695  Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1337–1340. 696  Appendix II.5.A, pp. 1336–1337. 697  Appendix III.3, pp. 1527–1530. 698  Appendix III.3, p. 1532.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

337

importance of grossi in their own right for much of the remainder of the present period. This must be ascribed to the continued arrival of grossi, a commercially more useful currency minted by another polity which had an important stake in the peninsula. It is significant that after 1278 the kings’ representatives, the bailos, were directly responsible for the coins of Clarentza (while the local castellans organised the mint). Charles’ administrative, military, or economic ambitions for our area were matched by the provisioning of an ample and stable, locally produced, currency, which was supported by Italian bullion as we have established in analyses in the past decade and a half. This was also a particularly successful period for the Angevins in the Peloponnese and its surroundings: the Latin territories in the peninsula were stabilised, Athens was fully integrated into the Angevin fold, and the Byzantines were fended off, especially in Euboia. Charles’ monetary policies were seemingly vindicated: specifically, his administration reaped direct profit from the minting operation; on other occasions this profit went to privates, see the case of Bisca at Naupaktos, although of course this was also beneficial to the Angevin representative (the bailo, vicar, and captain) who was still in charge of the mint (here specifically in the shape of a loan);699 the resulting specie was used for payments in Achaïa, often military; the tournois was also an element of integration for the related territories, particularly of Athens, but also of Neopatra, Tinos, even Salona; even the defiance of this situation found expression monetarily, as in the case of the Karytaina issues;700 and the same currency also established itself rapidly as a viable currency in Charles’ Italian territories thanks to the simultaneous provisionings from Greece and France. At one point the tournois held the position of the grain of account of the Regno,701 and the Kingdom of Sicily itself contemplated the issue of tournois in 1292, at a moment in time when the Clarentza mint was probably not operational.702 The Peloponnesian hyperpyron, once standardised as we have seen, became recognisable in territories as far afield as Tuscany and Egypt.703 One aspect of Achaïan minting in these years commands our particular attention: the probable closure of the mint of Clarentza for anything up to a decade from the mid-1280s to the mid-1290s. This shows the fickleness of even the best established mint in the face of political adversity and changeability. 699  Appendix II.9.F p. 1451. 700  Appendix II.9.C p. 1440–1441. 701  Appendix III.3, p. 1529. 702  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 223. 703  Appendix III.3, p. 1534.

338

Chapter 3

The fact that Achaïa resumed with a coinage in the name of Prince Florent, perhaps as late as 1294, must have been seen at the time as a strong statement of Angevin commitment to the peninsula. Further to the northwest, territories were held by the Angevins in a more sporadic fashion. The monetary differences which apparently began to develop between Angevin Albania and Corfu in the course of the 1270s to the 1290s are telling.704 The first held quite overtly the position of a military colony, and as such was subject to a very particular policy, the importation of specie from the Regno which was to be used and traded locally at overvalued rates which were advantageous to the fisc. The only sources in this respect are documentary. Corfu, by contrast, was given the kind of attention, by Charles’ grandson Philip after the authority over the island was transferred to the Taranto branch (1294), which was initially not dissimilar to the situation in the Peloponnese a decade or two earlier, entailing also the establishment of a mint. In due course the island’s monetary situation could also not belie the absolute economic dominance of Venice, nor was it the island’s mint which eventually managed to disseminate the tournois currency in this area. In fact, output was very low and the Corfiot tournois circulated preferentially in Italy rather than in Greece. The Epirote and Albanian territories which were occupied by the Angevins, and which saw some major conflicts between them and Byzantine forces under Michael VIII and Andronikos II, have produced very few useful numismatic data. There is only one rather late hoard «93. Apollonia» dating to the second generation of conflict between the new Lord Philip of Taranto and Andronikos II (the hoard was concealed ca. 1311. The slightly later «115. Shën Dimitri» must already be viewed in the context of the conflict between the Orsini and the Byzantines), and rather more stray finds (see «254. Berat», «257. Butrint», «258. Byllis», «299. Kaninë», «316. Mashkieza», and perhaps «232. Apollonia»). The lack of appropriate hoarding patterns might allow us to relativise the intensity of the conflict, while the kinds of coins found in this location suggests that the main monetary impact made by the Angevins on this territory consisted in the eventual appearance also here of Greek deniers tournois, much as the billon trachea which were introduced in tandem with the Byzantine forces (see above). During the first decades of Angevin rule in Greece, until the catastrophic developments around 1311, the political fate of the Regno and of Greece, and the monetisation of the latter, usually developed side-by-side according to significant stages or defining moments which occurred at regular intervals: the most significant was 1267 (the said treaties of Viterbo), 1278 (death of Prince 704  Compare Appendix II.9.D, pp. 1441–1443 and Appendix III.3, p. 1528.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

339

William), 1280 (creation of the duchy of Athens), 1282 (Sicilian Vespers), 1285 (death of Charles I), 1289 (accession of Prince Florent), 1294 (marriage of Philip of Taranto to Thamar of Epiros), 1301 (marriage of Isabelle of Villehardouin to Philip of Savoy), 1304 (accession of Philip of Taranto), 1308 (death of Guy II de la Roche, followed by the interregnum). The three main Greek mints of Clarentza, Thebes, and Naupaktos produced deniers tournois continuously and in good quantities particularly during the defining period before and after 1300. Systematic cullings of some older tournois, and of grossi and other Italian groat currencies, aided the minting effort.705 The quality of this output was also generally satisfactory, suggesting to some extent that rivalries and political crises could be overcome by leadership and/or consensus.706 This was even true when Duke Guy II de la Roche died in 1308 and was eventually succeeded by Walter of Brienne after an interregnum, events which could potentially have unhinged feudal Greece and its monetary production. The overall control exerted over the coinage by the authorities is also underlined by the quality and systematic execution of the die design and the striking.707 The unravelling of the Angevin system began about a year later with the arrival of the Catalans: more precisely the preparations which this necessitated and which seriously stretched the Achaïan, Athenenian, and some of other feudal mints (resulting not least in the abandonment of neatness of the Clarentzan coin design and production); and secondly the destructive power of the Catalans which physically cut short the operations of a number of mints and which curbed developments in one of the key urban, money using, centres of Greece (Corinth). Minting at Thebes, Neopatra, and Salona, during the period ca. 1285 to ca. 1311 reveals varying systems of authority and interdependence which are significant for the political and constitutional situation more generally. The de la Roches would have received the right to mint, stipulating no doubt the fineness of the coins, and perhaps some technological help, though no bullion, from the Angevins. Perhaps it took the rapprochement with the principality in the course of the 1290s to achieve a greater harmonisation of the quality of the products of the respective Thebes and Clarentza mints, although this harmonisation was never total. The Autrementcourt of Salona could only mint inside the territory of the duchy with the consent of the dukes, which was withdrawn at one point before late 1301. The Angeloi Doukai, by contrast, were neither bound to Naples nor to Athens, but relied on technological and 705  Chapter 2, p. 167. Compare also Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1298–1299. 706  See in this regard Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”, in addition to the relevant discussions in Chapter 2 and Appendix II. 707  C  hapter 2, pp. 167–169.

340

Chapter 3

perhaps administrative support from the de la Roches. The shift in the political orientation of Neopatra from the Latins to the Byzantines after 1308 is very graphically underlined by the coins produced at the local mint. The mint of Naupaktos was under the direct authority of the prince of Taranto and despot of Romania. Its existence alone symbolises the conflict between Philip of Savoy and his Angevin overlords, who had temporarily lost control over the Clarentza mint, and also the importance of the southwestern Mainland to the house of Taranto in the early years after 1300. The coins themselves were also a vehicle with which to propagate the title of despot of Romania which had only recently come into existence, and thereby to negate the heritage of Despoina Anna and her son Thomas. On the whole, during the period from the 1270s to the 1300s, the Angevins not only instigated and regulated huge minting operations, but they also controlled all other currencies effectively. For instance, in the years around 1300 a significant wave of tournois counterfeiting affected Achaïa. This may well have been, at least in part, an attempt to undermine Angevin authority itself: many of the counterfeits used the Naupaktos prototype, a particularly vulnerable coinage since it was new and already inferior to the contemporary Clarentzan and Theban issues.708 If this is partially a correct interpretation of the phenomenon of counterfeiting, then it would have applied to the confined world of Achaïa and its immediate Latin dependencies, since no counterfeits have been found at Arta or Sparta. We deduce from the numismatic evidence, particularly the finds from Corinth, that these counterfeits were nevertheless very effectively dealt with by the authorities.709 The change in the Angevin position towards Greece in the years 1311–1316 cannot be overstated, nor can, however, the continued viability of minting at Clarentza after 1316. This demonstrates that the two spheres – political will and monetary production – do not always need to work in tandem. I have stressed in the relevant appendices how this mint flourished in adverse political circumstances during the princeships of Mahaut of Hainaut and John of Gravina (1316–1332).710 In this period the products of the Clarentza mint were actually distributed and mixed more thoroughly than even in earlier years. Also, the effort of culling incoming silver currencies – one imagines gigliati above all others–, and of earlier and more intrinsically valuable tournois, would have been quite considerable.711 It is also possible that the Clarentza mint was profiting, in the period running up to its closure, individuals, families, and 708  709  710  711 

Chapter 2, pp. 95–96. Chapter 2, p. 170. Appendix II.9.A.10–11, pp. 1416–1422. Chapter 2, p. 167.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

341

firms, possibly of Tuscan origin, who were allied to the Angevins.712 If this were the case then some of the other phenomena such as the culling and debasement, and eventually the discontinuation of that mint, might be better explained. The tournois coinage of Clarentza in its closing two decades belied the very grave political and constitutional position the principality found itself in. Robert of Taranto did not innovate the Achaïan coinage in ways which Lambros had first postulated, yet we have attempted in this book to re-evaluate Robert’s florin coinage, minted at Clarentza sometime between 1332 and ca. 1350 in yet to be established quantities. Also the initial tournois issues of Arta (IGA-B) do not reveal their dramatic political back-story: the Angevins failed to effectively control John II Orsini, who evidently started minting tournois in the town in the second half the 1320s without formally recognising either his Latin or Byzantine overlords, or fearing any immediate interventions from them: he had after all just fended off Prince John of Gravina in 1325. Nevertheless, on all accounts he voluntarily, and for reasons which are quite difficult to grasp, kept a high standard when these tournois were first minted, and thereby contributed in a responsible fashion to the monetisation of the area (see «139. Atalandi 1940», and especially «140. Ermitsa 1985A»). The later episode of tournois minting at Arta (with group IGΓ) was radically different and out of sync with the overall consensus which seems to have prevailed. It requires a specific explanation in terms of very pronounced military ambitions and a foray by Orsini into a completely unprecedented political and military constellation. In summary, the general wisdom, given the circumstances, of the Angevin monetary policies in Greece has been highlighted here and in a number of passages in this book. The historiography relating to the Angevin period in medieval Greek history often stresses the ineptness of Neapolitan administration which belies the sophistication of the Regno itself, as we have seen in the previous discussion. Studying the monetary conditions rectifies to some degree the picture which is frequently drawn. The challenges which the Angevins faced in the Peloponnese, the western Mainland, Epiros/Albania, and elsewhere, throughout the decades under scrutiny here were of course considerable. There were periods during the initial expansion when monopolistic monetary policies were pursued, with the introduction of certain undesired currencies into the new territories, at favourable rates to the fisc, but probably without much success. During a long stretch of domination in areas of Greece, from the 1270s to the early decades of the fourteenth century, the Angevins pursued a more regular approach to monetisation. They instigated and facilitated the 712  This has been argued in the previous section, pp. 319–320.

342

Chapter 3

minting of coinages which stood in a good and recognisable tradition, which tied in with monetary developments in France and Italy, and were largely internally stable and non-confrontational. It may have been the case that it was felt that only a good and indigenous coinage could protect the workings of the feudal order, which the Angevins had put together so meticulously. This system relied on the effective exploitation of the local resources: compare the previous discussion on the new manpower, techniques, and crops coming to Latin Greece. In turn, this was the only true guarantee for the longevity of the Angevin holdings in Greece. Even during the years of most severe crisis, from the 1320s to the 1340s, during which the Achaïan issues finally did lose in fineness, the Angevins never instigated a more overtly colonial form of coinage, which might have highlighted in a much starker fashion the power-relations at play.713 It is a moot point whether this is really to their credit or not: in fact in the period after mid-century, when such colonial coinages really did come to the fore in different parts of Europe, the Angevins simply ceased to mint for or in Greece, as we shall see. Money in the Venetian Colonial Network 9.6 During the period under discussion the Venetian currencies established themselves in earnest in our territories. The diversity of these currencies, in billon, silver, and gold, is noteworthy, and signals to us that more than one simple Venetian monetary policy may have been at play in their dissemination, or indeed that other mechanisms may also have applied. In the period until the 1320s, Venetian currencies in Greece were largely limited to the grosso and the piccolo. As far as the Italian gold coins were concerned, Venetian ducats may well have been outnumbered by florins, to judge for instance by the Argos 2005a hoard,714 or indeed a number of sources from the acts of Pasquale Longo or those of the Angevin chancery which record florins but not ducats.715 Regarding grossi and piccoli, although they were apparently present in Greece in, respectively, great and decent quantities, their introductions to Greece by the Venetian authorities were not motivated by any more overt monetary policies than the payment of certain wages and other services (often military) by the central or colonial fiscs. The lack of any holistic scheme to the monetisation of the colonies can be witnessed for instance by the often awkward fashion in which the grosso related to the local

713  Day, “Colonialisme monétaire”. 714  See Chapter 4, p. 427. 715  Appendix II.4.D.2, pp. 1309–1311.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

343

hyperpyra – before and after the introduction of the local tournois.716 These hyperpyra – and the underlying tournois – were very frequently used by the Venetian authorities themselves to regulate local colonial finances, and indeed the republic contemplated the minting of tournois at a point when supply and quality could no longer be relied upon (1305).717 For instance, most of the information on salaries, loans, works of infrastructure, legal and administrative costs, gathered in the previous discussion, suggests local payments accounted in hyperpyra and no doubt paid to a large degree in tournois. Stahl’s observations that Venice and Genoa ran colonial empires with other people’s money holds true even for the current period.718 None of this should detract from the overwhelming importance of the grosso in all of Greece, especially in the present phase. A glance at some of the hoards makes an important point: «64. Ioannina 1821», «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915», «99. Delphi 1927», «137. Kafaraj», «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965», none of which were found in areas of prime Venetian colonial interest, were all valuable enough to be included in Table 2. There are also pure grosso hoards from other areas, to cite but «80. Athens/Agios Andreas 1937». The grosso was also represented in all of the monies of account relevant to our territories in this period. For this to have occurred, especially in the light of relative Venetian disinterest in introducing specifically this currency to Greece, we can only conclude that the role of the grosso as a prime commercial currency would have come to the fore. In the preceding discussion we have seen that western trade in Greece became increasingly dominated by Venice in the second half of the thirteenth century, and that this dominance was then cemented by the galley system after 1300. We lack of course any hard data on this matter, but one would have to conclude that a majority of grossi which travelled from the Venice mint to Greece in this timeframe had commercial rather than administrative agents. To put this matter in perspective, we must cite the significant parallel example of Byzantine Macedonia, where pure grosso hoards abound before and after 1300, and where already in the 1280s the grosso was firmly integrated in the local money of account. This line of argumentation is strengthened by the following consideration: as we have seen in the previous discussions, Venice’s military and administrative strategies were the most developed for Negroponte and the Cyclades from the 1260s, areas that were in imminent danger of being lost to the Byzantines and their allies. Nonetheless, there is a marked dearth in grosso finds there: 716  Appendix III.3, pp. 1524–1526. 717  Chapter 2, p. 170. 718  Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”, p. 325.

344

Chapter 3

Negroponte seems to have received some or most of its money in this period from the Greek mints (see «135»), and the same is true for islands such as Andros («230» and «231») and Tinos («379») (including, presumably, tournois from the mint on Tinos itself: the evidence is so far limited to one specimen at «230»). «58. Naxos ca. 1969» shows us that the sterling phase on this island extended into the second half of the century (as in Crete but not in the Peloponnese, with the exception of Corinth), presumably through private rather than public agency. The hoard contained just a handful of grossi. After that, even the island of Naxos may have preferentially received tournois rather than grossi (see the sparse evidence from «328»). The recently found grosso hoard from a church on the same island dates quite late in terms of grosso circulation in Greece.719 If at all, it would have to be viewed in the context of the later attempts by Venice and the local dukes to secure the Cyclades from the Aydınoğulları. The monetary situation in the Archipelago is all the more intriguing since the Sanudo dukes became tributaries of the latter in these years.720 Is it conceivable that specific currencies were set aside for this purpose, for instance the same grossi, or in fact Neapolitan gigliati acquired via Puglia, the western Peloponnese (where they might have been culled by the Angevin authorities), or the Catalan Mainland? Such coins might have failed to leave a mark on this part of Greece because of their ringfenced status and their immediate export. In the official acts of the Venetian state bodies, analysed in the previous section, we can witness the rise of the gold ducat as a currency with which, first and foremost, high ranking salaries were paid. This hierarchisation of the Venetian colonial service, expressed through the different currencies used for remuneration, continued also into the next period, and the mid-century ducat hoard «166. Euboia» may well need to be interpreted in such a context. It cannot fail to strike us nevertheless that the two earlier ducat hoards are from Epiros, and combine in the first case ducats and grossi: see «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965» and «162. Nea Sampsous 1982». Here the ducat seems to have continued the tradition of the grosso as a trading coin. We must assume that ducats were available in the Venetian colonies of the Peloponnese before the 1350s, and would also there have interacted (in terms of accounting and as an

719  Chapter 4, p. 479. 720  There were also private payments from the Cyclades to the Turks, especially for ransoms, as in the case of a son of a papas bought back at Candia for 21 hyperpyra in 1320: Saint-Guillain: “Seigneuries insulaires”, p. 36.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

345

actual currency) with the grosso during the last phase of its presence, although we lack the data to quantify their relative importance.721 When Venice launched a new silver currency in the 1330s, the soldino, this initially undermined the hyperpyron further as we can witness from some sources,722 although in accordance with the numismatic documentation the denomination was quickly integrated into the Greek monetary systems, for want at that point, one may say, of a better alternative. The Venetian grosso was in decline during these same years, at the source and in Greece, which facilitated accounting in Greece itself somewhat, since there would have been seldom a direct clash there of the grosso- and soldino-based systems. The last substantial grosso hoard, «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965», came from an area where the soldino evidently arrived quite late. Nevertheless, hoards «144» and «145», unfortunately of unknown provenance(s), are all the more intriguing since they combine Venetian grossi with soldini at a fairly early date. The ease with which the soldino was then able to position itself in the Greek accounting systems owes also considerably to the debasement of the locally produced tournois – in fact we have surmised whether this debasement may have been the result of the introduction of the soldino. Even though we and contemporaries may look negatively upon the soldino as a poor equivalent of the local sterling standard, and a poor successor to the grosso as a trading coin, we should not underestimate the resources behind it: Venice minted it in vast quantities and made it mandatory in many colonial contexts. The most advanced parts of Greece – the western Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland – soon abounded in such coins.723 The soldino is a typical silver coin of the first bullion crisis,724 but at the same time it is a precursor of the later medieval colonial coinages: in some respects, producing the soldino, and forcefully rolling it out into the colonial network, provided Venice with a blueprint for what the republic attempted to do, from 1353 onwards, with the tornesello. 9.7 The Catalano-Aragonese-Sicilian Monetary Sphere The arrival of the Catalan Grand Company in Greece had some immediate monetary consequences, directly and indirectly: the attempt by Thibaut de Chepoix, envoy of Charles of Valois, to lead the company during 1308–1309 is arguably the reason for the sudden appearance of French gros tournois. Even the royal French obol at «268. Corinth» might be viewed in the same light. 721  Compare Appendix II.4.D.2, pp. 1311–1312. 722  Appendix III.3, pp. 1540–1544. 723  On some impressive large and early hoards, see Chapter 2, pp. 129–130. 724  Chapter 1, pp. 63–65.

346

Chapter 3

As the Catalans entered Thessaly and negotiated with the political authorities in Neopatra and Athens, the mints of Neopatra, Thebes, Clarentza, and probably Tinos, began to augment their productions of deniers tournois.725 The Catalans themselves had evidently entered Greece primarily with Sicilian pierreali, perhaps some Neapolitan saluti and gigliati. When the Company first operated in Asia Minor, the large silver denominations of its choice may have been the second of these, since relatively quickly, in locations such as Smyrna or Ephesos, saluti and gigliati established themselves. In Attikoboiotia, as hostilities came to a head in 1311, a pronounced wave of hoarding and non-retrieval of all these currencies took place. The hoards are testimony to the thoroughness and geographical extent of conquest and submission,726 but also the disruptions caused by the incoming Catalans (see below). After the establishment of the Company in Attica and Boiotia and the creation of the Aragonese duchies of Athens and, later, of Neopatra, the peculiarity of the monetary developments continued unabated. It is argued in this book that the mint of Thebes produced almost immediately in 1311 a large issue of counterfeit tournois, which might have served some very immediate needs, such as the paying off of fighters.727 Pierreali and gigliati of different mintage continued arriving in this part of Greece. This is certified by the chronological and typological profiles of some of the hoarded specimens: some gigliati may date to the early 1320s, some pierreali even later. These coins were hoarded until mid-century. It is genuinely difficult to choose between commercial or administrative agencies to explain the movement and usage of these particular denominations. Venetian soldini were rapidly integrated into the local monetary system, no doubt a reflection of the treaties with Venetian Negroponte in 1319, 1321, and 1331, and the access by Venetians to the Boiotian market for food in particular. In all of this, it would be difficult to ascribe a joint up monetary policy to the new rulers of the eastern Mainland: the lack of any serious minting in silver, despite of the plethora of silver coins available, is indicative, as are some of the eclectic and awkward hoard formations from Attikoboiotia, and the different and conflicting pieces of information on the systems of account in place.728 There is no sign that the Catalan authorities ever engaged in any cullings of the silver currencies,729 even though of course something on these lines must have 725  726  727  728  729 

Chapter 2, p. 96. Chapter 3, p. 207. Appendix II.9.L, pp. 1481–1483. Appendix III.3, pp. 1536–1540. Chapter 2, pp. 171–172.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

347

occurred for more minor denominations prior to the minting of the (largely or completely copper) tournois in 1311. Judging particularly by the evidence from the Athenian Agora, the Catalan authorities were also tolerant of illicit counterfeiting in their own territories, quite unlike the Angevin authorities in neighbouring Corinthia in the early years after 1300.730 The origins of this unengaged attitude to monetisation may perhaps be sought in the uncertain political and constitutional situation especially during the period 1312–1317. This might have set the tone for later administrations, which were otherwise in many respects quite effective, as we have seen. Nevertheless, it must also be stated here that this cannot detract from the intensity with which the Catalans and the newcomers from Iberia and Sicily sought to exploit their territories along traditional lines. For these new demographic elements in the area, apart from carlini, for which there is ample numismatic and documentary evidence,731 there is for this period only one additional piece of evidence in the shape of a Barcelona penny.732 More intriguing is the tournois of pretender James of Majorca, minted also in Iberia and found in a hoard («210») which may well have been concealed in or around Athens.733 The ample monetisation which was required for the feudal regime to function was again provided, first and foremost, by tournois: see the following tournois hoards concealed after the initial conquest phase within Catalan territories down to mid-century: «116. Amphissa ca. 1977»; «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972»; «123. Sterea Ellada 1975»(?); «124. Attica 1950»; «125. Eleusina 1894»; ««126. Attica (?) 1951»»; «131. Attica (?) 1967»; «138. Tritaia 1933»; «139. Atalandi 1940»; «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A»; «154. Delphi 1894Γ»; «157. Thebes 1990»; and the Thebes 2011 and Chalkida 2011 hoards, as much as numerous stray finds, all discussed further in Chapter 4, pp. 447–448. New Achaïan tournois circulated unhindered in Catalan areas and are testimony, as I repeat on other occasions in the present discussion, to an ever greater integration of all Greek territories. In view of these hoards and all the other denominations we have discussed, in these years the monetary conditions of Catalan Greece look vibrant. Very valuable hoards have been identified, and the violent circumstances of some of their concealments and non-retrievals cannot detract from this fact.734 The monetary wealth of early Catalan Attikoboiotia may in the widest sense, beside the importance and sophistication of its two main urban 730  731  732  733  734 

Appendix II.9.M, p. 1487. Appendix III.3, pp. 1537–1538. Appendix II.5.E, pp. 1342–1343. Appendix II.9.A.13, pp. 1426–1427. Chapter 2, pp. 131 and 146.

348

Chapter 3

centres and the agricultural products from the plains of Attica and Boiotia, be ascribed in no small measure to the slave trade, which was on all accounts thriving. 9.8 Money in Greece and the Commercial Revolution The main and most intense years of the so-called commercial revolution fell within the present period 1259–1348.735 In the western context ca. 1310 is usually considered its high point. In Greece this chronology was different. This can be established with reference to a number of pieces of evidence, prominent amongst which are the demographic and numismatic data. It appears in fact that this high point may have been considerably later, perhaps as late as the Black Death itself. In looking for reasons for this, we might state that Greece was able to successfully overcome important crises in the early years of the fourteenth century, in the eastern Mainland, and also in the Cyclades (and related Crete). In some ways the newly emerging political constructs of the early fourteenth century added vitality to our area. Even during troubled phases, westerners and Byzantines were still prepared to come and settle in Greece, with the aim and hope of exploiting the local resources. The latter was pursued more intensively and systematically than before, covering more areas than previously, and also spread quite evenly throughout large tracts of land, sometimes independently from precise political relations. In the course of these developments an absolutely vital new commodity was added: slaves. Yet Greece was also part of a wider constellation of areas which became accessible to western markets at this moment in time, ranging from Cyprus and Armenia, to western Anatolia and the Black Sea, in line with the geopolitical changes described in the previous discussion. For all these reasons the strict parameters of economic expansion and contraction do not seem to apply to Greece in the way that they do in the west. Regarding the important numismatic data in relation to the economy, we have already seen in the present discussions the augmentation in Greek monetisation; and also the increase in the everyday use of silver-based currencies in urban contexts. In addition to outright economic exchanges in these urban areas, money was also required for the related indirect taxes, which were increasing significantly in this period as we have witnessed in the preceding discussion. Monetary, and demographic and urban, expansion all occurred concurrently and will presumably have resulted in stable prices for much of this period. There was also for these years a great concentration of hoards – often in more remote areas of our territories than the excavated data. The same is true for single grossi, some in rather inaccessible parts, which may have 735  Chapter 1, pp. 58–60.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

349

represented miniature treasures in themselves to their owners. Many of the hoards were also particularly valuable in contemporary terms.736 This would generally suggest that the use of money was increasing and spreading in our rural landscapes. The new mints of medieval Greece were subject to bullion flows, much as the contemporary mints in the Latin west were. The commercial orientation of this currency is underlined by the tax-free import of metals, and also by the large amount of space Pegolotti dedicates to the minting of tournois at Clarentza, including the kind of costs a merchant would be expected to meet.737 There are also explicit statements in the Venetian and Angevin sources which identify the tournois as a commercial currency.738 These metals originated mostly in the west, and also within Greece there was a consistent west-east movement of specie which signals also the direction of trade.739 The production of tournois was very intense in the years around 1300, but the coins in question still mixed less evenly than was the case after 1310.740 Elsewhere in this chapter I have described personal and commercial communications in the period to the early 1300s, especially by land, as sluggish according to the numismatic evidence.741 Economic integration might therefore have increased in the years around 1310–1350, even though our instincts tell us that it was greater when the alliance between the Angevins and the de la Roches of Athens was still holding sway. It was also well after 1300 before outlying parts of our territory, for instance Epiros or the Cyclades, were commercially integrated with its core through the tournois currency. The numismatic evidence can also, to some extent, document the changes in the access points, by sea, into the Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland as a direct result of the events of 1311.742 Nevertheless, the exchanges between the Peloponnese and the Catalan eastern Mainland look particularly regular in the light of the tournois coinage, as we have already argued in this discussion. In the current period, the territories under analysis enjoyed an unprecedented inter-regional and international reach. For some of these numismatic connections there is a thin line between personal and commercial ties.743 The Greek currency, in the light of the numismatic data, can be found in areas as 736  Chapter 2, pp. 120 and 129–131. 737  Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1379–1381. 738  Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1382. See also Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 218–220. 739  Chapter 2, p. 142. Compare also Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 248. 740  Chapter 2, pp. 96 and 142. 741  Chapter 3, p. 207. 742  See in this Chapter 3, p. 207. 743  Chapter 3, pp. 208–209.

350

Chapter 3

far afield as France, the Low Countries and Scandinavia; all parts of the Italian peninsula; Anatolia and the Levant.744 The importance of central Italy in particular is also underlined by the origins of some of the jettons which have been found in urban contexts of Greece,745 and by a handful of Tuscan coins found at Greek sites.746 It was clearly important especially to the Angevins and their feudatories that the indigenous Greek currency should in this period have been one that had great recognisability and usability in both Italy and France. Particular concentrations of Greek tournois finds add definition to this picture: in Puglia, for instance, the finds harmonise with the weight of the information which we have extracted from Pegolotti. There is a secondary movement of the same tournois to Calabria which, by contrast, comes unexpected in the light of any of the other available primary evidence. Coins from regions such as Armenian Cilicia, the Tatar Black Sea, or northeastern France, came to our area. The many coins of the Zaccaria at Chios there are particularly noteworthy, as is the fact that the main product of the Chios mint was the billon tournois which tied in specifically with Greek monetisation. It is possible that gigliati, which might have arrived in early fourteenth-century Peloponnese or the eastern Mainland, instead of all being melted down, were re-deployed for relations with the eastern Aegean. According to the systems of account, there were direct links between the Peloponnese and Levantine locations such as Acre and Alexandria, and of course with Italy.747 The motivations for such monetary movements were in this specific period more often than not commercial, with the Venetian galley system accounting for a substantial proportion, thereby underlining the general routes from Italy and the Adriatic, Greece, and then further either towards Constantinople and the Black Sea, or Crete, western Anatolia, and the Levant. The direct links with Macedonia were much less pronounced: tournois are naturally available at places such as Thessalonike or the Chalkidike, but as a whole they fail to penetrate the interior along the main Vardar and Strymon rivers. Even in coastal locations of Macedonia the tournois seemingly did not establish themselves in entirely even manners: at «526. Thasos» the Achaïan series is arrested post-1300 even though the site evidently continued, while «521. Rentina» is dominated by Naupaktos issues. Consider also in this context what has already been said about the lack of Byzantine coins uniting these territories. Neither Serbian grossi, nor the late inferior Artan tournois that can be 744  745  746  747 

Chapter 2, pp. 99–100. Chapter 2, pp. 159–160. Appendix II.5.D, p. 1342. Appendix III.1, p. 1512 n. 11.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

351

found in some quantities in Macedonia and Bulgaria, can be used to construe commercial links between Greece and these southern Balkan regions. With respect to these Artan issues, note that a few ‘reject’ hoards suggest that these coins were of limited usefulness, and that they virtually never travelled in the other direction, towards Italy.748 The relations of Thessalonike with the eastern Mainland and the Peloponnese is one case where the overwhelming information gathered from Pegolotti and the Zibaldone da Canal cannot be made to fit the numismatic record. The latter, however, is backed up by the ceramic evidence which also suggests that this city’s orientation was turned much more towards the east. The other, perhaps surprising, negative pieces of evidence concern Rhodes and Crete during the later thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth century: beside «469. Rhodes ca. 1927» there is no or very little suggestion that Greek tournois were present on this significant island, and also none of the prolific gigliati of the Knights Hospitallers has ever been found in Greece. This confirms the impression we had already gained from Pegolotti regarding the relations of Greece and Rhodes. The Cretan evidence is even more sparse, being limited in terms of deniers tournois to one specimen («475. Iraklion») despite the intense commercial links that apparently existed both through the galley system and private trade. We must conclude here that, even in the light of the lack of sophistication of local medieval archaeology and numismatics which may not have revealed some of the existing evidence,749 firstly, some of these links may indeed have been exaggerated by modern historians, and that, secondly, even if links intensified from the 1330s onwards there would not be any numismatic data to demonstrate them since both Crete and our territories used predominantly soldini and then torneselli. Despite some of these limitations, we must conclude on the role of the Greek mints that these managed to contribute substantially to the monetisation of a number of surrounding territories, especially in an arc which can be drawn from Thasos to Constantinople and down to the area of Smyrna and Ephesos, including the respective Thracian and northeast Anatolian hinterlands. Again, this is a completely unprecedented situation in much of the earlier, but also subsequent, course of Greek history. The counterfeiting of tournois may well have been an attempt to supplement the specie available and to augment further monetisation to cater for the most basic requirements.750 The fact that tournois were singled out for 748  The only IGΓ specimen from Italy was contained in «397. Manduria 1916». 749  Compare the Preface, pp. xxii–xxiv. 750  Chapter 2, p. 170.

352

Chapter 3

counterfeiting underlines the pivotal role of this currency. Counterfeiting, and then the production of inferior quality issues by the Catalans at Thebes and the Orsini at Arta, and by Robert of Taranto at Clarentza, contributed to the upsurge in monetisation in the 1320s and 1330s. Yet, these coins also undermined the tournois as a currency, resulting in some irregularities in handling and storing,751 and contributing to the quick absorption of the soldino, which we have already discussed. Moving beyond the tournois, we have also already discussed the problematic evidence regarding Iberian and Sicilian monies and monies of account in Catalan areas. The latter might have gained in significance only after midcentury.752 According to the numismatic evidence, in the period before 1350 the commercial orientation of Attikoboiotia was primarily towards Negroponte, and secondarily towards Sicily, perhaps with different emphases on products, foodstuffs and slaves respectively. The negative ceramological evidence is of some interest in this respect: according to Yangaki’s study Iberian pottery was prominent in Greece in the second half of the fourteenth century, but not before. The Venetian grosso is a very important commercial indicator: we have already stated that most grossi would have reached Greece in commercial contexts, and in this they underline the increasing dominance of Venetian traders in our particular area to the detriment of, for instance, merchants from Genoa or Pisa. We have seen the rise of Ancona in the sources, but according to our numismatic data the importance of merchants from this town needs to be played down for the current period.753 The ducat and the soldino must also be considered, at least partially, as commercial markers in parts of our territory. As such, their respective prominence in the northwest, and in the western Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland, is noteworthy and ties in with the previous points made in relation to the tournois. The soldino also gained some prominence in the northwest. The area between Arta in the south and Valona in the north (and beyond, into territories beyond the confines of this book, to Durazzo and further to Ragusa) saw a particularly sharp rise in commercial activities from this period onwards. The appearance of the “de cruce” standard has already been linked to an increased integration of this entire coastline with the Serbian heartland from, which might have begun in the 1320s or 1330s.754 This would suggest some form of peaceful commercial co-existence for a decade or two, side-by-side, of areas conquered by the Serbs and others 751  752  753  754 

Chapter 2, pp. 142–143. Appendix III.3, pp. 1538–1540. Appendix II.5.C, pp. 1340–1341. Chapter 3, p. 211.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

353

which the Byzantines had incorporated into the empire during the reigns of Andronikos II and then of Andronikos III as sole emperor. We need to conclude on the perennial questions of the balance of payments, and the relative importance of organised international commerce as opposed to local cabotage for the trade of Greece in the period ca. 1259–ca. 1348. Both questions can be put into sharper focus through the numismatic and monetary evidence. It is undeniable that Greece received infinitely more bullion than it exported in this period. The origin of this bullion was largely Italy, to much lesser degrees France, and perhaps parts of the east. Once this bullion became Greek through mintage, some of it was again exported. The primary directions of export were, as we have seen, southern Italy and the northeastern Aegean, with secondary outlets to other parts of Italy and the west, and other parts of the east. Both movements in and out of Greece were driven to significant degrees by trade and by other connections. All in all one would have to conclude that trade was more important than the different colonial administrations, and this was true even before the inception of the galley service: note for instance the early hoards «387. Vibo Valentia», «388. Filignano», and «404. Capaccio Vecchia» in Italy, or «468. Izmir 1968» in Anatolia. To judge also by the evidence of pottery, exposure to the west was felt most sharply in the western Peloponnese and in the wider Epirote area. By contrast, places such as Sparta, Thebes, or Negroponte were open to more than one direction. This brings us to the second consideration which arises from this: cabotage was clearly, in relative terms, more important to places as diverse as Byzantine Lakonia or Catalan Athens, than to Clarentza (or even Corinth) for instance. Yet Greek monetisation was driven in this period by the northern Peloponnese, and we must conclude, in line with what has already been said above,755 that in terms of sheer bulk the galley system left after 1300 the strongest mark on the initial arrival and mintage of bullion. We should also consider that Greek coin production after 1300 was infinitely larger than before, and that many of the South Italian or eastern and northern Aegean tournois hoards date well after 1300.756 On the other hand, as we have emphasised in the discussion, also within Greece the tournois in particular was a major vehicle of commercial integration of all of our areas, by land and all along their coastlines (yet the trading connections to areas such as Macedonia, Crete, or Rhodes, were still rather feeble). In this sense the two systems of trade, international and stateorganised, and local and private, were complementary, and this is underlined by our numismatic data. 755  Pp. 325–326. 756  See Appendix I.5, I.8, I.10, and above p. 100.

354

Chapter 3

9.9 Warfare and Violence and the Greek Currency between 1259 and 1348 Greece experienced almost continuous warfare between 1200 and 1430. In each of our phases its organisation, pursuit, and outward characteristics were different. The present period saw the last great attempt by the Byzantines to dominate militarily the more westerly reaches of its European territories, and also the central parts of the Aegean Sea (by contrast, the Peloponnese continued as an important theatre of war for Byzantium also after the middle of the fourteenth century). It also saw the first great Latin colonial constructs taking shape after significant military successes against the Byzantines. Piracy was a particularly pronounced military tactic during these years. Within the context of feudatories and pronoiars, military service was a very important concern. In our period mercenaries were also coming to the fore, although the classic age began somewhat later. Mercenaries were employed by Byzantines and Latins alike.757 Finally, the years 1259–1348 lend themselves particularly well to an analysis of the symbiotic relationship between warfare and money in Greece because only during these years substantial amounts of money were produced there which can in some way be measured against its military history. Money could be purposefully made or moved around with warfare in mind. It served to maintain military infrastructures, equipment, and provisions, and to pay for mercenaries, tribute, and bribes. We must state from the outset that very few of our numismatic data bear direct witness – for instance through their exact typological make-up – to monetary designs and payments made by the authorities in a warfaring context.758 Links between monetary issues and military expenditure must be inferred less directly from the evidence. In Byzantium during the long reign of Andronikos II Palaiologos a connection between the decrease in the fineness of the gold hyperpyron and his many military enterprises has long been made. In the introductory Chapter 1 I endorsed this approach, though I also denied the applicability of some of the existing models whereby steps in the debasement of this currency are explained directly with reference to particular campaigns. If hyperpyra did move towards Epiros/Albania, for instance, in tandem with Andronikos’ armies, then their complete inexistence in the record is still remarkable. I have surmised that such coins would, logically, have entered this area (and other parts of Greece, too), but would then have been withdrawn because of their general incompatibility

757  Compare pp. 42 and 67. 758  The exceptions are the single type hoards «48. Ioannina 1983» (trachea), and some others containing later inferior tournois discussed in Chapter 2, p. 142.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

355

with the local specie and monies of account,759 and returned to imperial territories where they were perhaps more useful or valuable.760 We have already stated that there was no movement to speak of Palaiologan hyperpyra towards Italy, which might in some way have contributed to the inception of the florin in ducat, as was believed in some of the older literature.761 In the thirteenth century foreign mercenaries were employed by Byzantium and deployed in our area: Cumans and Turks, Cretans and Alans, and the indigenous Tzakonians.762 Companies only emerged in the fourteenth century.763 The most (in)famous, costly, and consequential engagement was that of the Catalan Company by Andronikos II. It affected perhaps the production of gold coinage, and more probably of silver coinage, at Constantinople.764 Muntaner, Pachymeres, and also Gregoras, all give detailed accounts of the financial arrangements between the empire and the Company. Whereas Pachymeres laments the Catalans’ bad attitude and unreasonable demands, Gregoras shows perhaps more empathy for them, though both Byzantine historians are unanimous on just how disastrous the episode eventually was from a financial point of view. Muntaner is a very important source, giving us insights into the salaries of the mercenaries and how monetary specie was distributed amongst them, into the constant need to accumulate more cash, into looting and ransoming as major sources of gain, into the uneasy differentiation between public and private wealth, and into the pursuit of warfare as a career with which to gain one’s livelihood, and as a way of life:765 “menys de guerra no porien viure”.766 Muntaner’s own biography underlines the financial viability of this pursuit: he personally sponsored the expedition to Phokaia which was very successful, not least in the acquisition of relics,767 and his own wealth may have reached 25,000

759  Bear in mind here for instance the much cited toleration, by the imperial authorities, of the money (of account) at Ioannina which would have been based on tournois (1319): p. 56. 760  Chapter 2, p. 92. 761  Appendix II.1.D.2, p. 1257. 762  Kyriakidis, “Mercenaries”. On the direct links between Constantinople and the Byzantine Peloponnese, and the movements of mercenaries in both directions, see: Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II, pp. 18–19 and 133–134. 763  Oikonomides, “Armées des premiers Paléologues”. 764  Chapter 1, pp.  51–52. A good summary of the events is again provided by Kyriakidis, “Mercenaries”. 765  Compare Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1311; Appendix II.9.B, p. 1438; Appendix II.9.L, p. 1483. 766  Muntaner, chapter 242. 767  Muntaner, chapter 234. Compare ODB, 3, p. 1665.

356

Chapter 3

gold ounces or 100,000 florins by the time he lost it near Negroponte in 1308.768 Sometime after this episode, when the leader of the Company En Rocafort was ousted, the Catalans divided amongst themselves his innumerable riches, according to Muntaner.769 Considering all this money which was acquired from the Byzantine authorities, or through conquests in Asia Minor, Thrace, and Macedonia during the period 1303–1308, the lack of relative coin finds in our own area is disappointing and corroborates the explanations given above regarding the dearth of Palaiologan hyperpyra. Subsequently, as it moved further southwards, the Company was paid by two new sources, as we have seen, Neopatra and Athens, and also plundered considerably in the countryside of Attica and Boiotia after the battle of Almyros in 1311, so that even their Turcopole allies, who fought with them, had become very rich (“tuyt eren richs”770) by the time they finally took leave after the conquest. Whatever the precise destiny of these different riches around 1311, the fact that at least three to four tournois mints, Clarentza, Thebes, Neopatra (precisely with types PTA, GR20Z-E, and 2), and perhaps Tinos,771 managed to increase their outputs so considerably in anticipation of these events is of very great importance. The employment of mercenaries by the Latin polities of our area gained in importance during the present period. The Catalans themselves, once established in Attica and Boiotia, paid for foreign fighters, first Albanians and later Turks.772 The king of Majorca estimated that in the contemporary principality of Achaïa a third of the revenue was spent on defence.773 Of the historians dealing with Latin Greece, Sanudo is the most sensitive to the costs of warfare and defence, whether he is reporting on the expenditure of the megadux of Lemnos (amounting to two thirds of his estimated wealth of 90,000 soldi di grossi spent on defence), the release of John de la Roche from captivity in Constantinople (for 30,000 soldi di grossi),774 or a conflict between the Sanudi and Ghisi in the Cyclades in 1286, which started over the theft of a beautiful

768  Appendix III.3, pp. 1530 and 1537. 769  Muntaner, chapter 239. 770  Muntaner, chapter 241. 771  The spread of these issues into the eastern Mainland is quite telling: Appendix II.9.H, p. 1463. 772  Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece”, p. 246. 773  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 224, no. CLXXI (1338): the total is given as 300 Barcelona pounds, the remaining sum 100,000 florins. See further Appendix III.3, p. 1538. 774  Appendix III.6, p. 1577.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1259/1268–1347/1348: MONEY

357

donkey: “Nondimeno la cosa dell’asino costò all’una e l’altra parte più di 30 mila soldi di grossi”.775 It was also Sanudo who informed us about the intentions which lay behind the first issue of Achaïan petty denomination coins in the late 1240s, or indeed tournois a couple of decades later, as the case may have been: to lead men (in battle).776 Early Angevin acts also show us that tournois were specifically used for warfare in Achaïa and Athens.777 Also subsequently, direct Angevin tournois production at Clarentza (and Naupaktos) was extremely high, as were the Neapolitan and Tarantine subsidies which kept arriving in our territories. One would be tempted to ascribe a part of the prolific coin issuance to this incoming bullion which was promptly turned into the local currency. In this sense the Angevin colonies operated very differently to the Venetian ones. While this underlying tendency seems clear, only sometimes can certain issues be tentatively brought in connection with particular campaigns or payments made in a military context. In the mid-1290s Florent of Hainaut was active in his support of the Angevins’ new ally, Nikephoros of Epiros, and some of the tournois from the re-launched Clarentzan mint might have been destined for this theatre of war. The next princes to be involved in this area were the rivals Philip of Savoy and Philip of Taranto, who initially minted contemporaneously at Clarentza and Naupaktos respectively. In the relevant sections of Appendix II we have already highlighted this military dimension. Guy II of Athens and John II of Neopatra also became involved against Anna of Epiros, and the large indemnity which the latter had to pay to all of these protagonists for her insubordinance to the Angevin order (10,000 hyperpyra of account) may well have stimulated the productions at all of these mints.778 Shortly after, as we have seen, the Catalans would have stimulated production further. In the new post1311 context we can identify some specific military issues which have already been discussed here (‘counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia’; IGΓ of Arta). The mint of Clarentza, by contrast, had possibly the most regular rate of output after 1316, suggesting less injected bullion, and fewer extraordinary (military) occasions on which to suddenly increase coin issuance. Returning to Sanudo, he is also astute enough to inform us about all sorts of payments which occurred in the context of warfare: we have already seen him with respect to the defensive works at Negroponte.779 Acts of piracy resulted 775  Sanudo, p. 121. 776  Appendix II.8.B.2, p.  1369 and Appendix II.9.A.1, p.  1381. On this and what follows, see Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 218–219. 777  Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1430. 778  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 53–54. 779  Above, p. 306.

358

Chapter 3

in the accumulation of large sums, 50,000 hyperpyra in jewellery and pearls, gold and silver, on the occasion of an expedition of the people of Negroponte to Anaia at the height of the conflict in the Aegean;780 later, around 1300, the pirate Marinello di Candia inflicted damages of 400,000 soldi of grossi on the empire. On the theme of the mercenary in medieval Greece, the services rendered by William of Veligosti during the siege of Negroponte in 1257–1258 were obviously of such high quality that they could make him rich.781 Interestingly, a recent biography has tried to explain the rather distinctive behaviour of Nicholas Acciaiuoli in Greece with reference to the figure of the condottiere, which was emerging in north-central Italy at this precise moment in time (the 1330s).782 Nicholas nevertheless diverged from this model in that he was autofinanced and already arrived in Clarentza with a large amount of his own cash. Warfare (and the related piracy) could also affect profoundly our area and its populations, economically and demographically.783 With respect to monetisation, currency could be withdrawn in such circumstances through thesaurisation by these populations, and through booty which might again be hoarded in the same territories or taken elsewhere. Plundering was endemic to any army in our period. On some rarer occasions warfare could enhance the availability of currency. For instance, a remarkable quantity of billon trachea arrived in Greece in 1204 and shortly thereafter through military events, as we have seen in the earlier discussions of this chapter. The Byzantine offensives in Thessaly and Epiros in the 1250s and 1260s, in the Aegean in the same period, and in the Peloponnese respectively in 1264 and in 1308, resulted in some very distinctive hoards. None could, however, compare with the massive wave which was caused by the arrival of the Grant Catalan Army.784 We know from Muntaner how important raiding was to the Catalans (see above). Hence, I would consider it as distinctly possible that the contents of some of the hoards concealed around 1311 were booty. The Catalans are also an interesting case in point for monies imported into our territories during violence, starting even before 1311. On a much humbler scale, at about the same time, in the western Peloponnese, the house of Burgundy entered the politics of the principality, which may have resulted in the importation of some

780  Sanudo, p. 131. 781  Sanudo, p. 109: the sum that is mentioned, 11,000 soldi of grossi, would be paid to him by Venice should he lose his feudal rights in Romania. 782  Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli. See further Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1310. 783  Some of these aspects are considered in Bartusis, “Cost of late Byzantine warfare”; Kyriakidis, “Booty”; Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο, pp. 346–359. 784  See Chapter 2, p. 145.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

359

monetary specie.785 In subsequent years, the Catalans had violent encounters in and around Attica and Boiotia, causing again possible patterns of hoarding, with forces which entered this area respectively from Italy (Walter of Brienne) and Anatolia. On one occasion, as we have seen, the Aydınoğulları subsequently penetrated also the Peloponnese and caused damages to Brienne Argos. To the east, some hoards may be brought in connection with seaborne attacks by the Turks, and in the west, some Epirote and western Mainland hoards with the expansionist actions of the Orsini dynasty, and the Angevin and Byzantine reactions. The extreme northwest of our area experienced the Serbian invasions earlier than the great bulk of Thessaly and Epiros, and one relevant hoard falls within the present period («156»). By contrast, the apparently massive conflict in Albania and Epiros between the Angevins and Emperors Michael VIII and Andronikos II produced surprisingly few numismatic data of this kind. 10

1347/1348–1430: Political and Military History

The preceding account of political and military events terminated with Byzantine ascendancy and Latin disarray in much of the Peloponnese, with Catalan and Serb domination in the remainder of continental Greece, and with the strengthening of the Venetian sphere of influence in the Peloponnese, in Euboia and the Cyclades, and in pockets on the Mainland.786 Our third phase is, politically and militarily speaking, one of the most complex and convoluted 785  See Appendix II.5.A, p. 1336 and «114. Unknown Provenance before 1946». 786  For bibliography covering the years 1347–1430, compare the overviews of the previous periods, nn. 209 and 376. In general terms, see Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”; Lock, Franks; Balard, Latins en Orient (and also his “Latins in the Aegean”); and Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III. There are some relevant contributions in Shepard, The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, and in Tsougarakis and Lock, Companion to Latin Greece.    For the Peloponnese between Franks and Byzantines, see Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, I and II; Bon, Morée franque; Topping, “Morea, 1311–1364” and “Morea, 1364– 1460”; Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας.    For the eastern Mainland, see Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I” and “II”; Setton, Catalan domination of Athens 1311–1388; Setton, “Catalans in Greece”; Setton, “Catalans and Florentines in Greece”; Savvides, Οθωμανική κατάκτηση της Θήβας και της Λεβαδειάς (which surveys the Turkish engagement in the eastern Mainland from the 1360s onwards); Haberstumpf, “Acciaiuoli Duchi di Atene”; Giannakopoulos, Δουκάτο των Αθηνών. Η κυριαρχία των Acciaiuoli.    On Thessaly and the northwestern part of our area, see Magdalino, Thessaly; Ducellier, La façade maritime; Nicol, Epiros II; Soulis, Serbs and Byzantium; Kiel, “Das türkische Thessalien”; Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο; and the work of Asonitis (Κέρκυρα;

360

Chapter 3

in Greek history, which calls in the first instance, in the words of Colin Imber, for an old-fashioned account of “king, battles and dates”. In this exposition I have also tried to convey some of the multitude of monetary citations, in hyperpyra, and ducats and florins, and even aspra, which can be found in the narrative and diplomatic sources. Epiros and Thessaly between Latins, Byzantines, Serbs, Albanians, and Turks, 1348–ca. 1402 By 1348 the Serbs had completely conquered Epiros and Thessaly, which had previously been re-united by the Byzantine Governor John Angelos for Emperor John VI for the first time in nearly a century.787 The Serbian invasion can only be reconstructed schematically. It occurred at the same time as the Black Death, which may have been a greater destructive force than the Serbs themselves. Emperor Dušan prided himself on these newly acquired territories, which were henceforth governed by different envoys, initially Gregory Preljub in Thessaly, Symeon Uroš in Epiros, and John Komnenos Asen, brother of the Bulgarian Tzar Ivan Aleksandăr, in the area of Berat and Kaninë. The Ionian Islands (and Vonitza) remained in Latin hands: all but Corfu and its dependencies, which were administered as a direct Angevin colony, were eventually, in different steps (1357 and 1362), to be governed – nominally on behalf of the Angevin crown – by the newly created Count Palatine Leonardo of Tocco (†1375 or 1376), son of the aforementioned Captain William who had married into the local Orsini, and close ally of Robert of Taranto, Latin emperor and prince of Achaïa.788 The deaths of Preljub and Dušan and the temporary departure of Symeon Uroš (1355–1356) created a power vacuum in Epiros and Thessaly. The son of the erstwhile Despot John II Orsini, Nikephoros Orsini, now a Byzantine ally, attempted to re-gain power in the region through military enterprises and clever alliances. The Albanians had entered the western Mainland in great numbers in the preceding years, with only some resistance from Leonardo of Tocco. Nikephoros attempted to subjugate these Albanians, but was defeated and killed in battle (1359). In Albania/northern Epiros itself, the line of direct 10.1

Νότιο Ιόνιο; Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια). Northern Epirote/Albanian history from the 1380s onwards is also summarized in Schmitt, Albanien, p. 217ff.    On the Venetian and Ottoman empires which, by the early fifteenth century, had managed to carve out large parts of our area, see in the first instance Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne and Imber, Ottoman empire. 787  For chronological and territorial details in this early period of Serbian domination see, in addition to Soulis’ book, his “Θεσσαλία”. 788  On the history of this family in Greece see Haberstumpf, “Tocco”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

361

Serbian envoys ended with Governor John (†1363) and his short-lived successor Alexander. The Balsha (Balšić) dynasty, which emerged from the Komnenos Asen family, then ruled the area from Valona for a few decades, but was itself under great pressure when the Ottomans pushed through towards the Adriatic in the 1380s. The demise of Nikephoros convinced Symeon Uroš to return and to establish himself initially in the area of Trikala, and then to expand his domain into Epiros. Soon he would have to share his rule with Thomas Preljubović, son of the late Gregory Preljub, who would become Symeon’s son-in-law. Symeon further de-centralised his political construct by recognising the Albanians as vassals in Arta and the western Mainland, and by assigning the ascendant Ioannina and its area to Preljubović. The latter maintained and even expanded the territory of Ioannina against the Albanians, notably those ruled by the Artan Despot Gjin Boua Spata. Thomas managed this with the help of Turkish mercenaries. For this, and also for the harshness of his rule, he was widely condemned. Thomas was assassinated in 1384. Parts of Thessaly from Trikala southwards and eastwards were governed successively by Symeon, by his son John Uroš, and then, after the re-conquests of Manuel II Palaiologos in the 1370s,789 by their relative Caesar Alexios Angelos Philanthropenos and his son or brother Manuel in the name of the emperor, ca. 1380–1394.790 These areas lack a contemporary narrative history: they may have been relatively stable and peaceful, certainly when compared to the territories to the west or to the south. Further to the northwest, in Albania, the Latin presence had already for some time been confined to Angevin Durazzo, beyond the geographical scope of this book. John of Gravina, duke of Durazzo, died in 1336, as we have seen. He was succeeded by his son Charles, who in turn died in 1348 at the hands of the Hungarian Anjou invaders of the Regno, and then by the latter’s daughter Joanna (of Durazzo). From 1368 her husband Louis of Evreux (†1376) organised various Navarrese and Gascon companies of mercenaries from his own area of origin to re-conquer Durazzo, which had only recently been occupied by the Albanians.791 The Navarrese then handed over the town to Robert of Artois, Joanna of Durazzo’s second husband. The companies subsequently joined the Knights Hospitallers, leaseholders in the Morea (see below), who under their 789  Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans, pp. 224–225. 790  Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans, pp. 279–280. 791  On these and subsequent developments, see the detailed treatments in Loenertz, “Hospitaliers et Navarrais en Grèce” and Luttrell, “Appunti sulle compagnie navarresi in Grecia, 1376–1404”. On the monies gathered for this enterprise, including a 50,000 ducat loan from the king of France, see Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, pp. 66–67, no. 286 (1372).

362

Chapter 3

new Grand Master Juan Fernandez de Heredia were engaged against Albanians and Turks in the western Mainland during 1378–1379, with some short lived successes such as the conquest of Naupaktos. It is revealed at one point that the Navarrese services cost the Knights 5,500 ducats.792 During these campaigns Heredia himself fell into Albanian captivity and had to be ransomed for 8,000 florins. According to information now in the Maltese archives, some of this money was gathered through a loan from Centurione (I) Zaccaria, a powerful Moreote baron (at least 2,000 ducats). The demotic version of the Chronicle of Ioannina cites florins quite frequently, for instance in the context of the peace offering of Thomas Preljubović to Spata, and of Thomas’ activities against two archons from Kastoria (1377–1379).793 Durazzo eventually passed from the Angevins to the Balsha, before becoming Venetian (1392). When Venice acquired Durazzo as a colony there were parallel discussions that the republic should also rent from the Balsha, who were under intense Turkish pressure, Valona, Kaninë and the coastlines to the north and south, but these came to nothing for lack of serious Venetian commitment. The proposed annual rent was 7,000 ducats.794 According to Ducellier only Durazzo seemed defensible enough to Venice without investing exorbitant sums of money. From this moment onwards Venice concentrated its Albanian colonial efforts in the north,795 while further Ottoman consolidations in the south of Albania and in Epiros were only halted by the battle of Ankara and the interregnum. From 1332 John of Gravina and his family claimed Angevin Albania. Meanwhile, the lordship of Corfu remained in the hands of the Taranto princes of Achaïa (see below), who administered the island through captains.796 In the years just prior to 1350 Angevin rule, both domestically in Italy, and in Romania, faced acute problems of succession, legitimacy, and competence. It was in this context that Venice first contemplated a take-over of the island, and in 1350 Mary of Bourbon, wife and representative of Robert of Taranto, offered Corfu and other possessions in the area for 160,000 ducats. To put this in proportion, we know from other sources that Mary received annually 2,000 gold ounces (= ca. 8,000–9,000 ducats) from certain holdings in Corfu and Kephallonia. The Venetian senate went so far as to lay down the salaries 792  Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I”, p. 246, no. 200 (1381). 793  See pp. 86, 89–90. 794  Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 504; Ducellier, “Les échelles de l’Adriatique meridionale”, p. 32. 795  The subject of Schmitt, Albanien. 796  On the last phase of Angevin rule on the island, see Asonitis, Κέρκυρα. On the Venetian attempts, over the years, to acquire the same, see Ravegnani, “La conquista veneziana di Corfù”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

363

for the captain of Corfu and the castellan of Butrint, at 60 and 15 pounds of grossi respectively.797 Such a handover did not materialise at this point in time. Following Robert’s death in 1364, the lordship went to his brother Philip II, and upon the death of the latter in 1373, as in Achaïa, the rule over the island was contested between his nephew James of les Baux, and Queen Joanna of Naples herself. Effective control was in the hands of James 1381–1382, whereupon it passed to King Charles III, Joanna’s successor in Naples. Once again Venice was alerted by the political instability regarding the island and the Kingdom of Naples in general, with special concern for Venetian merchants. On this occasion long discussions with Charles resulted in a sale in 1386. In 1385 the Venetian state bodies had still contemplated paying anything between 60,000 and 100,000 ducats. A year later the geopolitical situation was quite different, not just in Naples, but also in Greece, with the Ottoman penetration towards the Ionian Sea. Welcomed by the Corfiots themselves, Venice proceeded to take over the island in 1386, for which the republic eventually paid Charles’ successors nearly two decades later the sum of 30,000 ducats. The established feudal order on the island was respected by the new administration.798 The Venetian lordship over Corfu, which included Paxoi, was quickly expanded on the opposite Epirote coastline, to cover not just Butrint which fell to it by right, but also the more southerly Sagiada and Sivota, while the castle of Phanari, yet further to the south, was bought by a private, Marino della Roisea, for 100 ducats (1390). Parga became Venetian in 1401. Upon the death of Thomas Preljubović in 1384, in the face of Albanian and Turkish threats, Ioannina was in urgent need of a leader. A council decided in favour of an alliance with the Tocco of the Ionian Islands, more precisely Thomas’ widow Mary was to marry the Florentine Esau Buondelmonti, brother of the widow of Leonardo of Tocco, Maddalena, who was at the time regent for their infant son Charles I of Tocco. Esau was Despot of Ioannina from 1385 to 1411. He received his title with Byzantine imperial sanction and spent much of his rule in a fine balancing act between Ottomans and Albanians. In 1399 he had to be freed from Albanian captivity to the north of Ioannina for 10,000 florins.799 Despot Charles I of Tocco followed his father Leonardo as ruler of the Ionian Islands (with the exception of Corfu) and of Vonitza on the Mainland. Throughout his long reign his position vis-à-vis the two Italian sea powers, and especially the gradual push by Venice into the Ionian and Epirote area, was a 797  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 72, no. 251 (1351). 798  See: Asdracha and Asdrachas, “Les paysans dans les fiefs de Corfou”. 799  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, pp. 173–174.

364

Chapter 3

constant preoccupation.800 In 1388 he formed an alliance with the Acciaiuoli, whom we shall encounter in the next discussion, by marrying one of Nerio’s two daughters. His first major military engagement came as a result of Nerio’s death in 1394 and took place in the northeastern Peloponnese. Charles’ constitutional ties to Achaïa were severed in 1396 by the Angevin crown of Naples in view of the political uncertainties in the Peloponnese.801 From this period onwards his main ambitions were directed towards the Albanian hinterland of his island polity, although at a later point in his career he again played an important role in Peloponnesian affairs. Under Orhan (†1362) and the early rule of Murad I (†1389) the Ottomans had made major advances in Thrace and Macedonia. Thessalonike became Ottoman in 1387. The conflicts in Albania, Epiros and the western Mainland now offered further opportunities for expansion. In the short period before Murad’s death and during the sultanate of Bayezid I (1389–1402) the Ottomans conquered parts of central Albania, with the notable exception of Durazzo, which became Venetian in 1392. Thomas Preljubović had already relied on Turkish mercenaries, as we have seen, and so did his successor in Ioannina Esau Buondelmonti. In 1390 Commander Evrenos, who had been so successful in western Thrace, marched against Albanian Arta with Esau, himself now an Ottoman tributary, just like the Byzantine emperors in Constantinople. At the time of their first engagements by Preljubović in the mid-1380s, the Turks had already raided the northern fringe of Thessaly. In 1393 Bayezid mounted a campaign which was to take his rule all the way to the Gulf of Corinth, as we shall see in the next discussion. On the eve of the battle of Ankara (1402) the Ottomans dominated therefore much of Thessaly, and the related northern Sporades, and sections of Albania. In Epiros and the western Mainland, crowded by the interests of numerous protagonists, the Ottomans’ military might ensured that also there all political developments occurred at their whim. In 1402 Ottoman rule temporarily collapsed in the northwest, in the northern Sporadic Islands and the eastern Mainland, remained however intact in most of Thessaly. The treaty of Gallipoli concluded in early 1403 confirmed temporary Byzantine gains. 10.2 Peloponnese and Eastern Mainland Greece, 1348–ca. 1402 The Achaïan princeship of Robert of Taranto, the last official issuer of Greek deniers tournois, continued beyond the period of the Black Death and the 800   Kolyva-Karaleka, “La penetrazione della repubblica veneta nella contea palatina degli Orsini” provides a useful overview. Specifically on Charles’ early alliance with Genoa, see Gasparis, “Carlo I Tocco” and Zečević, “Carlo I Tocco”. 801  Haberstumpf, “Tocco” p. 64.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

365

closure of the Clarentza mint until his death in 1364.802 After the aforementioned Greek residency in 1338–1341, he would never return there. Emperor since the death of his mother Catherine of Valois (1346), and married in 1347 to Mary of Bourbon, who had Cypriot Lusignan connections, his political life was henceforth tied up with Neapolitan concerns, while in Greece his rule often faced problems of authority. His counsellor Nicholas Acciaiuoli (†1365) did not return to Greece either, but continued to profit from and expand his Kephallonian and Peloponnesian holdings, notably with the receipt of the lordship of Corinth (1358). According to a much-repeated narrative, the Acciaiuoli acquired also the northern Moreote baronies of Vostitza and Nivelet (for 6,000 ducats or florins, paid to Empress Mary of Bourbon in 1363803). A distant relative, John Acciaiuoli, was archbishop of Patra between 1360 and 1363. These foundations of a medieval Greek area of influence for the Acciaiuoli dynasty were passed on to Nicholas’ sons, and also to Archbishop John’s brother Nerio, who was adopted by Nicholas. Nerio eventually managed to gather all these Peloponnesian interests and holdings for himself and to take advantage of the uncertain political situation in the eastern Mainland, as we shall see. The Angevins usually sought to govern their Greek possessions through bailos, many of whom had political ambitions of their own. Internally, the political cohesion of the barons and the principality was at times difficult. The growing influence of Florence in the Morea, and the mounting debts of the Angevins to Venice, resulted in a vivid interest of the republic in the affairs of the principality. In the early 1350s the Genoese were a threat to the wellbeing of Achaïan and Venetian subjects alike around the coasts of the Peloponnese and the Mainland, and had found an ally in the archbishop of Patra, whom they paid an annual 2,000 ducats for a naval base.804 In 1351 they besieged Negroponte for a few months. Venice therefore sought to harmonise its political decision making for the area as best as possible with Queen Joanna of Naples. The Rhodian Knights Hospitallers also gained in political stature in Achaïa, and were increasingly seen as the saviours of Latin Christendom in the peninsula in the face of some considerable external threats. In 1356–1357 negotiations to confer the principality onto the Knights, which was championed by the papacy, came however to nothing. From a document of 1366 we can see

802  In addition to the standard literature on the late medieval Morea, Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 86, provides a detailed account of the rule of the princes of Taranto in the peninsula. 803  See however Chrysostomides, “Was Neri Acciaiuoli ever lord of Vostitsa and Nivelet?”, which denies that the sale went through and corrects the price. 804  Gerland, Neue Quellen, p. 32.

366

Chapter 3

the considerable amount of profit the Knights were already reaping from their Peloponnesian holdings.805 The princeship itself remained in the hands of the house of Taranto until the 1373 death of Philip II, brother of Robert. Robert’s widow Mary and her Lusignan offspring also continued to claim the title. In 1366 Mary, who was also the principality’s single most significant feudatory, ordered an expensive expedition of mercenaries to the peninsula on behalf of the son she had from her first marriage. Again, the allegiances of local barons were split, and many sought the intervention and arbitration of outside powers to resolve the situation (the Byzantines of Mystras, the rulers of Argos and Nauplio, the Green Count of Savoy, who was passing through the area at the time of Mary’s expedition). The Argolis had been held by the Brienne dukes of Athens separately from the principality also after 1311, but parts of it may at different times have fallen under Catalan rule. Not so Argos and Nauplio, and in 1356, upon the death of Walter II, these important towns passed to his son-in-law Guy of Enghien, brother of Louis of Enghien, who was in different periods bailo in Achaïa,806 and from Guy to his daughter Mary, wife of the Venetian Pietro Cornaro. Intermittently the rulers of the Argolis made attempts, with Angevin backing, to re-take the duchy of Athens from the Catalans. When Pietro died his widow sold her claims to the towns to Venice, for an annual 500 ducats ‘auri’ (1388).807 Prince Philip II was without direct heir, and Queen Joanna of Naples was accepted as princess by the highest feudatories upon his death. In 1376 she and her new husband Otto of Brunswick leased the principality for five years to the Knights, for an annual rent of 4,000 gold ducats.808 It was exactly at this moment in time that a new and dynamic Grand Master was appointed, Juan Fernandez de Heredia, whom we have already encountered in the Epirote context.809 We owe to the Knights a list of fiefs in 1377 prepared for Joanna, which is an important source for the territorial extent of the principality.810 805  Luttrell, “Hospitaller Commandery of the Morea”, p. 298: an income of 491 ducats and 48 soldi. 806  On the history of Argos in this period, see Luttrell, “Argos and Nauplia”; Kondylis, “Η Αργολίδα την περίοδο 1350–1400”. 807  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 97, no. 45. 808  On the tightly-packed events of the later 1370s and early 1380s, involving the Knights and the various companies of mercenaries in the area, see Loenertz, “Hospitaliers et Navarrais en Grèce”. Compare also Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οι Ιωαννίτες ιππότες”, p. 315. 809  On the cultural orbit of this outstanding grandmaster, see Luttrell, “Juan Fernández de Heredia’s History of Greece”. 810  Luttrell, “A fourteenth century list of barons of Achaea”; Luttrell, “The Principality of Achaea in 1377”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

367

In the first half of the century, the Latins had evidently suffered significant losses in the interior of the peninsula but still dominated the western and northern peripheries. The Hospitallers were active in the area of the Gulf of Corinth, forging links with Nerio Acciaiuoli, but their overall strategy was met with considerable set-backs, as we shall see. The Byzantine Peloponnese remained in the hands of the Kantakouzenos family until 1383, even if Emperor John V Palaiologos intermittently tried to replace Despot Manuel with a governor of his choice. But John’s interest in the peninsula was secondary, since he was tied up during the entire period from the 1350s to the 1370s with extremely pressing matters closer to home, which saw his empire precariously perched between Bulgarians, Ottomans, and Latins, while suffering internally from dynastic uncertainties. Despot Matthew Kantakouzenos (†1382) was especially concerned with matters internal to his territories, establishing and embellishing his administrative seat of Mystras, or dealing with the demographic effects of the Black Death, and became involved with the Latins of Morea only during moments of crisis. In the Catalan-dominated eastern Mainland, the dukes continued in the second half of the fourteenth century to be members of the Aragonese house of Sicily, all with more or less ambitious, but seldom realised, projects to dispatch military missions to defend and expand their Greek domains. After 1355 the ducal titles were united with the crown of Sicily in the person of Frederick IV (III). A line of vicars general can also be reconstructed from the sources. The high feudatories and major landholders were often the heirs of the previous generation, as was the case with the Fadrique family, offspring of Vicar General Alfonso. The duchies were further administered by the usual functionaries, who often combined civil and military competences. The urban classes also wielded significant powers and occasionally came to unified political expressions through the general assembly. Internally there was often conflict amongst these various parties, and with the Catalan Company itself, regarding rights and obligations. Externally, as hostilities between Sicily and Genoa broke out, the alliance between the Catalan duchies and Venetian Negroponte was strengthened, and there was joint military action in 1351–1352 against the Genoese in the Aegean. In 1362–1365 the Catalans were however virtually at war with Negroponte over the hot headed actions of their Marshall Roger of Lluria. Roger, whose ascendancy had begun during the popular urban revolts of 1362,811 caused the most 811  Compare also the related episode involving the dean of the church of Thebes, Michael Oller, who was killed during the revolt, and the revelations about the wealth of the late Archbishop Sirello which he managed to acquire: Appendix III.3, pp. 1538–1539.

368

Chapter 3

severe constitutional crisis in the duchies. He was also responsible for the introduction to Catalan Greek society of significant numbers of Turkish mercenaries, whose identity has been debated (from the Anatolian emirates, as seems more likely, or from Ottoman territories), and whose bad discipline was noted particularly in 1363 and 1365. Despite the acceptance of the so-called Articles of Thebes (1367) by the Sicilian crown, by Lluria, and by other social and administrative elements in Catalan Greece, political cohesion and confidence was seriously undermined, symbolised by the attempts of local barons and municipalities to transfer the overall competence for the duchies from the crown of Sicily to that of Aragon. 1374 or 1375 Megara fell to Nerio Acciaiuoli. We have already encountered the Navarrese companies which fought for the Angevins and Hospitallers in Albania and western Mainland Greece respectively. Evidently with the support or consent of the Hospitallers, and of Nerio, the Navarrese attacked and took Thebes and Livadia from the Catalans in 1378 or 1379 and 1380 respectively.812 The shock of this collapse contributed to the transfer of the overlordship from Sicily to Barcelona in the person of King and Duke Peter IV of Aragon through the so-called Articles of Athens. Diplomatic attempts to re-gain Thebes were to no avail, and the town, together with Livadia, would soon pass under the rule of Nerio. From this period onwards the Catalans were reduced to a few strongholds, notably Athens and Neopatra. The former fell to Nerio in 1388, the latter in 1391, unifying again for a short while the different territories of the two duchies. At the same time (1390), Venice managed to tighten its grip on the entirety of the neighbouring island of Negroponte. In Achaïa, James of les Baux, a grandson of Philip I of Taranto, emerged in 1373 as another pretender to the princeship from the Taranto line, in opposition to Queen Joanna. In the early 1380s he managed to achieve some shortlived successes, in Corfu (see also above) and the northern Peloponnese. The Navarrese had just received their last payments from the Knights and from Nerio, of 8,000 florins and 2,000 ducats respectively.813 The ensuing difficulties had already convinced the Hospitallers not to renew their lease of the Peloponnese. The Navarrese now turned openly against their former paymasters and offered their services to James, who managed in this way to temporarily gain power in parts of the peninsula. In this process, 1381 saw a great deal of destruction in the northern and western Peloponnese.814 In 1382–1383 Prince 812  See Dennis, “Capture of Thebes”. The Navarrese involvement in Greece is again reconstructed in some detail by Luttrell, “Hospitaller Commandery of the Morea”. See also the same author on the fall of Catalan Athens at the hands of the companies: “El final de la dominació catalana d’Atenes: la Companya Navarresa i els Hospitalers”. 813  On these and subsequent developments, see also Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”. 814  For reports, see Luttrell, “Aldobrando Baroncelli in Greece: 1378–1382”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

369

James and Queen Joanna both died, the latter at the hands of Charles, grandson of John of Gravina, who thereby established the so-called Durazzeschi line on the throne of Naples. King Charles III also became prince of Achaïa in succession to Joanna, although most power in the Latin-held parts of the Peloponnese continued to be wielded by the Navarrese.815 Charles’ own death in 1386 and the eruption of a war of succession in Naples further reduced any immediate Angevin interest in Achaïan matters. In fact the new king of Naples Louis II of Anjou, who was also great-nephew of the earlier Prince James of les Baux, immediately proposed to sell the principality to the Knights for 20,000 florins in 1387, since Grandmaster Heredia continued to show an interest in the principality. It was exactly in this period of political turmoil in the Latin Morea that the Palaiologan Emperor John V appointed his son Theodore, brother of Manuel II, to succeed the line of despots of the Kantakouzenos family, and thereby tied the fate of the Byzantine peninsula more closely to that of the Palaiologan family and to Constantinople (1382–1383).816 Theodore was married to a daughter of Nerio Acciaiuoli. During his 25 years in the Peloponnese he was able to expand Byzantine territories considerably, at the expense of various Latin powers and more often than not with the aid, similarly to the situation in Epiros, of Turkish mercenaries. The first of many Turkish military engagements in the peninsula occurred in 1387 at the behest of Theodore, and directed against the Navarrese.817 Theodore became an Ottoman vassal in this period. Kayapinar supposes that any later episodes of overtly violent and destructive Turkish raiding, as in 1397, was the result of arrears in the required payments. In the year of Charles III’s death, Amedeo of Savoy, a descendant of the earlier Prince Philip of Savoy, sought to profit from the lack of leadership in Achaïa by making his own claims on the principality felt.818 He engaged diplomatically with all four relevant parties (Theodore, Nerio, the Venetians, and the Navarrese), and in 1391 he promised to appear in the Morea in person, to be invested as prince in return for the payment of significant sums. For instance

815  The tumultuous two decades which followed 1382 are specifically treated in Loenertz, “Pour l’histoire du Péloponèse au XIVe siècle 1382–1404”. 816  This is the topic of Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, p. 233ff. This period in the history of the Byzantine Peloponnese is also considered in some detail by Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans. 817  For this and subsequent episodes, see Haberstumpf, “Dissoluzione delle signorie latine in Morea” and Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest”. 818  On the continued claims by the house of Savoy on the principality, see the useful collection of relevant acts in Haberstumpf, “Regesto dei Savoia per l’Oriente”.

370

Chapter 3

the Navarrese were promised 25,000 ducats. In the end Amedeo never left Italy for domestic Italian reasons. Meanwhile, actual events caught up with these political machinations. Members of the now united Navarrese Company under their leader Peter of San Superán had established themselves as regular fiefholders in parts of the northern and western Peloponnese. The company’s position was regularised in a treaty with Venice in 1387, which clarified respective areas of control in the region and provided for a payment of 4,000 hyperpyra to the castellans of Modon-Coron for damages incurred. Venice and Pope Urban VI alike sought, in the face of the Neapolitan power vacuum, a new Achaïan leader. The first short-lived vicar general for the principality, appointed by the pope, was Paolo Foscari, archbishop of Patra (1387). Within the same year this role was transferred to Peter of San Superán, who was obviously best prepared to defend the Latin interests against the ascendant Byzantines. In this process he fell into Byzantine captivity and was ransomed by the Venetians for 50,000 hyperpyra (1395). A year later, King Ladislas relinquished to him the princely title in return for a promised 3,000 ducats. This money had still not been fully paid by the early 1400s. Further to the east, even though the Venetians had acquired the main towns of the Argolis in 1388, they still required the help of the Navarrese to secure them completely from Theodore and Tocco in the early 1390s. Intermittently, Nerio had involved himself in the same area against the Venetians, and as a result was held captive by the Navarrese for a short while. He had to be ransomed with treasures taken from the Parthenon, the cathedral of Athens.819 In early 1394 a treaty was concluded between Venice, Theodore, and Nerio, which settled the disputes over the different territories in the eastern Mainland and the northeastern Peloponnese. A couple of years later Tocco was held to the damages he had caused the Venetians in the Argolis, making five annual payments of 1,000 ducats each.820 In an area crowded by many ambitions, Nerio Acciaiuoli had managed to extend his own power considerably. Upon the death of Archbishop John Acciaiuoli (1363), his younger brother, he had made a claim on Patra and was paid off by the cathedral chapter with 6,000 gold florins, according to papal information.821 He had his possessions in the Corinthia confirmed by Queen Joanna in 1371. In 1374–1375 he struck out against the weakened Catalans, taking neighbouring Megara, as we have seen. Thebes and Livadia probably fell to 819  Saradi, “Acts of private transactions”, pp. 201–202. 820  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 9, no. 23 (1396). 821  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 298, n. 2.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

371

him by 1385; in 1387 and 1388 he besieged and conquered the Athenian akropolis. In the later 1380s, as we have seen, he meddled in the affairs of the Argolis and was captured, sometime later he added Neopatra to his Mainland possessions (1391). Nerio also engaged in the politics of alliances, giving daughters respectively to Despots Theodore I Palaiologos and Charles I Tocco, but he was also intermittently close to the Venetians, offering for instance to contribute financially to a second galley at Negroponte for the general safety of the area against the Turks (1383, 8,000 ducats).822 Shortly before his death in 1394 he was officially created duke of Athens by King Ladislas. By this point some of Nerio’s eastern Mainland domains had already been lost to the Turks. Sultan Bayezid I swept into the area in 1393/1394, taking initially Neopatra and Lamia. As Salona on the Corinthian Gulf was incorporated into the sultanate, heiresses Helena Fadrique and her daughter Mary were sent to the sultan’s harem. The Zorzi of Bondonitsa also became Ottoman tributaries in this period.823 The Turks crossed into the northeastern Peloponnese in 1394 and allied themselves then with Peter of San Superán. Earlier, both Theodore and Nerio had already paid tribute to the sultan. Nerio died in the same year. In his will his two daughters were left with goods and money, respectively 9,700 gold ducats to pay off Despot Theodore’s debt to Venice (see below), and 30,000 hyperpyra. The main beneficiaries of his wealth were, however, the institutions and the buildings of the church of Athens.824 Attica and the Corinthia were under immediate Ottoman pressure, and so in quick succession to Nerio’s death Athens was taken preemptively by the Venetians. His sons-in-law Despots Theodore Palaiologos and Charles I Tocco had briefly disputed Corinth in 1394, but quickly decided to relinquish control over the town in favour of the Hospitallers.825 Charles managed to get hold of some of Nerio’s material riches he had held in Corinth, described as jewels, and pawned them at Negroponte.826 Theodore and Tocco827 were also active in the Argolis before the Venetians managed to finally secure Nauplio and Argos. This occurred in 1394 in a rather convoluted transaction

822  Loenertz, “Hospitaliers et Navarrais en Grèce”, p. 357. 823  The tribulations of this town, until the Ottoman take-over in 1414, are considered in some detail by Haberstumpf, “Marchesato di Bondonitsa”, and again by Tzavara, “Nicolò Ier Zorzi, marquis de Bondonitsa”. 824  Saradi, “Acts of private transactions”, pp. 201–202. 825  See for instance Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οι Ιωαννίτες ιππότες”, p. 316. On these developments, see also Baker, “Corinthe”. 826  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, pp. 164–165. 827  Moschonas, “Tocco”.

372

Chapter 3

documented in a number of entries of the Commemoriali.828 For releasing these towns Theodore would be paid in monies which Venice had previously received from Nerio for safeguarding Megara, and which the republic had kept for this kind of purpose. The full sum is revealed in Nerio’s will, 9,700 ducats.829 This sum was composed of one already collected by Theodore’s ambassador in Coron, being 23,000 hyperpyra in the usual monies of CoronModon, and another sum received in Venice amounting to 1704 ducats, 21 grossi, 28 parvi “ad aurum”.830 The implication of the latter specification is that all units are to be treated within the gold system of account and that the grossi and parvi are divisions of the ducat (1 ducat being the equivalent of 24 grossi or 24 × 48 = 1152 parvi).831 In 1397 Argos fell victim to the widespread Turkish raids in the Peloponnese.832 In 1400 the Knights were given control also over the imperial areas of the Peloponnese. The imminent demises of Constantinople and the Peloponnese at the hands of the Ottomans were widely expected during these years. Theodore and members of the imperial family of Constantinople spent these crucial years in Monemvasia, which had only recently been brought under the despot’s control, while his brother Emperor Manuel II sought outside help. Only the Ottoman defeat at Ankara in 1402 and the ensuing civil war managed to ease the pressure on these territories. For a couple of years thereafter, the Knights of St. John extended their rule to Salona and its territory on the northern side of the Corinthian Gulf (until 1404, when this area became Byzantine again). To the east, Antonio Acciaiuoli, who had succeeded his father Nerio as duke, added Athens to his duchy (acquired over 1402–1405). In 1404 Despot Theodore bought back those parts of the Byzantine Peloponnese effectively ruled by the Knights since 1397 and 1400, for 43,500 ducats. 10.3 Epiros and Thessaly, ca. 1402–ca. 1430 The first years of the fifteenth century in southern Epiros and the western Mainland were dominated by warfare between Charles of Tocco and the Albanians, who were supported by Turkish mercenaries. In this climate the Venetians sought to acquire Naupaktos, the most significant town in the area 828  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, nos. 141, 142, 143, 144, 158, 160. Compare also Appendix III.3, p. 1550. 829  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, no. 160, p. 314. 830  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, no. 143, p. 278 and no. 158, p. 310. 831  I owe this interpretation to Alan Stahl, whom I thank. See further Appendix III.6, p. 1578. 832  On the precise events surrounding the fall of the town and the role played by the Venetian administrators, see Saint-Guillain, “Argos”. Compare also Baker, “Argos”, p. 232.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

373

from a strategic and commercial point of view, which they managed to do in 1407–1408, against a payment of 1,500 ducats to the Albanians.833 Soon Venice was paying an annual 100 ducats in tribute to the Ottomans for the town.834 The taking of Naupakots paralleled similar Venetian endeavours at Patra, which came at a time when the Tocco held Clarentza for a few months (see below). Esau Buondelmonti, who had by this point turned against his overly ambitious nephew Charles, died in 1411. Esau’s widow and son were unable to take the succession since they were tainted by their Serbian connections,835 and for fear of an Albanian take-over a delegation of the town offered Ioannina to Charles of Tocco. A ‘joyous entry’ was enacted which featured also the aforementioned gestures of largesse, such as the distribution of gold coins.836 In northern Epiros the Ottoman defeat in 1402 had given the Albanians the upper hand. They formed an alliance against Charles with Centurione II Zaccaria, grandson of Centurione I, the new prince of Achaïa, who had ambitions in the area. Military developments appeared to be going their way, yet this was a temporary impression. Centurione would soon lose most of his territory and power in the Peloponnese. Northern Epiros fell rapidly and alarmingly to the Ottomans under the new Sultan Mehmed I (1413–1421). On this occasion Venice pleaded in vain to buy Valona and Kaninë from them for 7,000 ducats (1418).837 Venetian interest in the entire area is also underlined by an enquiry into Pyrgos on the Seman river to the north, estimated slightly earlier at 1,000 ducats per annum.838 Charles of Tocco continued his ascendancy with Ottoman support, incorporating Arta into his political construct in 1416. His elevated position had already found recognition in the bestowment of the title of despot by Emperor Manuel II a year earlier. Charles considered himself a Greek/Roman ruler of Epiros in the long line of local despots, but by the early fifteenth century the dominant town in this polity, and therefore his main residence, was Ioannina. In turn, the Byzantines considered their despot as an integral part of the empire’s resistance to the Ottoman expansion into Greece, in the period following Mehmed’s taking of power. The sale of Thessalonike, which the Byzantines had re-taken after the battle of Ankara, to the Venetians 833  On the position of Naupaktos in the Venetian designs for this part of the Ionian, see Schmitt, “Lepanto”. 834  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 10, no. 137 (1411); Predelli, Commemoriali, book 11, no. 25 (1419). See also Zachariadou, “La part des Turcs dans les revenus des colonies latines de Romanie”. 835  On the long life and career of Esau’s son, see Ganchou, “Giorgès Izaoul de Ioannina”. 836  See above, n. 265. 837  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 199. 838  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 242. Compare also above, p. 320.

374

Chapter 3

in 1423 for 20,000 ‘Venetian florins’ shows the extent to which such a pragmatic approach to the preservation of power from the Ottomans could be taken.839 For the remainder of his life the main political focus of Charles I of Tocco lay in the Peloponnese, where he was lord of Clarentza for some years after 1421. His military presence there was ultimately detrimental to the principality and the Byzantines alike and opened the way to a major Ottoman invasion. Charles died in 1429. In the following year the Ottomans conquered Thessalonike from the Venetians and directed their armies towards Ioannina, which they swiftly occupied. At this point the Ottomans were ready to come to a truce with Venice. According to the treaty of Adrianople of September 1430 Venice would pay an annual tribute of 236,000 ducats to the Ottomans for her Albanian possessions. These events mark the logical chronological limit of this book.840 According to Kiel’s authoritative account referred to above, Thessaly remained Ottoman throughout the period of the battle of Ankara and the Ottoman interregnum. The exception was a southern fringe between the towns of Pteleon (Venetian) and Neopatra/Lamia, which became Byzantine again for a short while.841 From the time of the conquest in 1393 onwards the new authorities in Thessaly, headed by Governors Evrenos bey (†1417), his son Barak bey, and then Turahan bey, engaged actively with the political and social structures of these territories, particularly in the northerly areas between Trikala and Larisa. The latter town was refounded perhaps around 1400 as Yenişehir. It has been argued that the old Byzantine town had prior to this effectively ceased to exist. In this urban context, religious, social, and commercial institutions and their buildings were created. The town, as well as rural areas, was repopulated with Anatolians from the region of Konya.842 Tyrnavos, in close proximity to Larisa, re-emerged in the same years, probably as Greeks who had previously been dispersed felt it was safe again to settle in the plain and to get organised, possibly with the support of the new authorities. Also Tatars were introduced to the area around 1400. Certain foundations in Trikala date a bit later, to the years of Turahan bey and his successors. The governors also confirmed existing privileges, for instance for the monastic communities in Meteora. The Ottoman governors of Thessaly were important protagonists in the Turkish expansion into Mainland Greece and the Peloponnese: 839  Schreiner, Kleinchroniken, 1, p. 185, no. 33. These coins would have been ducats, since in the Greek-language sources there was a preference for the term florin: Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1313. 840  Preface, pp. xix–xx. 841  Matschke, Ankara, pp. 57–58; see also Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans, pp. 319–320. 842  Compare the earlier discussions in the chapter, p. 192.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

375

10.4 Peloponnese and Eastern Mainland Greece, ca. 1402–ca. 1430 The Zaccaria had long lost Chios,843 but they maintained in the second half of the fourteenth century their lordships at Damala in the Argolis, and at Chalandritsa in the northwestern Peloponnese, keeping the last of these until the end of the principality itself. This family entered into a fruitful alliance with Prince Peter of San Superán, and after the death of the latter in 1402 his widow Mary Zaccaria engineered the succession in the principality in her family’s favour, specifically that of her nephew Centurione II Zaccaria, who was to become the last prince of Achaïa. Centurione facilitated his accession to power by promising the king of Naples the remainder of the 3,000 ducats which were still outstanding from the original 1396 payment. The Zaccaria also took hold of the archbishopric of Patra. Sometime after the battle of Ankara the Ottomans regained their previous holdings in the eastern Mainland and began raiding the Peloponnese again. Duke Antonio Acciaiuoli and Prince Centurione also used them to press their claims against the Byzantines, which were now the main political force in the peninsula. However, Corinth could not be re-taken from the Byzantines. Venetian territories in the Argolis and Messenia also came under renewed threat, as did the southern Thessalian/eastern Mainland towns of Pteleon and Bondonitsa, Lamia and Neopatra, and eventually Negroponte. Lamia, Neopatra, and Bondonitsa became Ottoman after 1414,844 whereas Pteleon and Negroponte were held by Venice until the second half of the fifteenth century. Antonio Acciaiuoli’s re-taking of Athens from the Venetians was an audacious enterprise. He continued to pay homage to Venice for the town and sent – in the usual manner – silks annually (valued at 100 ducats) to the church of St. Mark.845 His rule in the territories once held by the Catalans, with the exception of Neopatra which was intermittently Byzantine again, lasted some thirty years until his death in 1435. Neither the Venetians of Negroponte to the east, nor the Ottomans to the west, seemed to have been overly keen to engage him militarily. Upon his death, however, a direct Turkish threat was perceived, to the extent that, according to Chalkokondyles, Antonio’s widow sent an envoy with 30,000 gold coins to the sultan in exchange for the duchy. Nevertheless, in this same year the Thessalian Turahan bey advanced against Thebes.

843  See Appendix II.9.I, pp. 1464–1466. 844  Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans, p. 322: Lamia held out the longest, until the 1420s. 845  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 10, no. 2 (1405).

376

Chapter 3

At the time of his death in 1407, Despot Theodore I Palaiologos was in alliance with the Tocco against Prince Centurione.846 A year earlier the castellans of Coron-Modon had estimated that this conflict had already cost them 100,000 hyperpyra.847 Charles’ brother Leonardo took Clarentza for a short while in 1407,848 which prompted the archbishop of Patra to seek Venetian help. A year later Patra was leased to the republic, initially for five years, at 1,000 ducats per annum.849 A few years earlier Venice had already considered a possible take over of Clarentza. Venice made it clear to the prince of Achaïa that it intended to continue paying the annual tribute of 3,000 hyperpyra which Patra owed to the Turks.850 A few years later this tribute is documented as being the slightly less 500 ducats.851 We have some diachronic information regarding the value of the see of Patra: in 1360 it was 16,000 florins, intermittently it rose to 25,000 ducats, but in the troubled years 1394/1395 it fell again to 15,000 ducats, according to the information provided by Nicholas Martoni.852 Manuel II became personally active in Peloponnesian affairs again upon the death of his brother Theodore I, and he oversaw the succession of his son Theodore II in 1407.853 In 1415–1416 the emperor was again in the peninsula. He attended to the Isthmian defences, though he failed in his attempt to co-ordinate the powers of the region behind Theodore against the Ottomans. Byzantine expansion in the north and west of the Peloponnese continued in these years, threatening both Clarentza and Coron-Modon. In 1417 Prince Centurione engaged the condottiere Oliverio Franco with Venetian funds (6,000 ducats854), but this backfired when the latter took Clarentza in 1418 for himself and proceeded to sell it on to Charles I of Tocco in 1421 for 6,000 florins.855 In the anarchic conditions which prevailed in the Morea in 1422–1423 Venice finally added

846  On the Byzantine Peloponnese and its relations with the Ottomans, see again the relevant discussions in Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins and Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans. 847  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 533, no. 281 (1406). 848  Compare Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 254. The history of Clarentza in its transition from the rule of the Zaccaria and Oliverio Franco, to the Tocchi and Palaiologoi, is specifically considered by Schmitt, “Glarentza”. 849  Gerland, Neue Quellen, p. 55. 850  Thiriet Régestes, 2, pp. 81–82, no. 1329 (1408). 851  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 10, no. 137 (1411). 852  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 330, no. 166. 853  On Manuel’s engagements with the peninsula, see Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 55–56. 854  Tzavara, Clarentza, p. 71. 855  Chronicle of Tocco, lines 3605 and 3623; Tzavara, Clarentza, p. 72.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

377

Navarino to its Messenian domains for a mere 1,000 ducats. In the years and decades leading up to this, much more significant sums had been discussed.856 In 1423 Venice nevertheless refused to take over the Peloponnese in its entirety, as had been proposed to the republic according to the much later information provided by Marino Sanuto.857 Also in 1423 the Thessalian Governor Turahan bey breached the Hexamilion defences for his Sultan Murad II (1421–1451), causing much devastation all over the peninsula. From this moment the Byzantine Morea re-established its tributary relationship with the Ottomans, against an annual payment of 12,000 gold coins according to the information provided by Chalkokondyles (given, however, in relation to somewhat later payments).858 Charles I of Tocco was already an Ottoman vassal and was ordered by them to continue his pressure on Theodore. Yet this new and rather fluid constellation in the peninsula in 1423 in some way opened up new opportunities for the despot. Theodore II called upon the military help of his brother John VIII to press against the Latin foes, the Palaiologan dynasty having by this point recognised that the Peloponnese was the only Byzantine region with any potential for some successes.859 During this period of Byzantine expansion, family dynamics also led to the introduction of a third brother to the peninsula, the future Constantine XI (and eventually a fourth, Thomas). In 1428 all three together made an attempt on Patra, the see and barony having in the meantime reverted to the archbishop. This attempt failed but resulted in an annual tribute of 500 florins from three small fortified positions in the vicinity.860 A year before his death Charles I of Tocco was forced to sell Clarentza to the 856  See: Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 167, no. 688 (1385): Venice is to negotiate the acquisition of Navarino for 4,000 ducats; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 196, no. 823 (1392): a renewed interest to acquire Navarino for 5,000 ducats is contemplated; as part of this endeavour a further 10,000 can be offered to local notables; Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 79, no. 1318 (1408): 5,000 or even 6,000 ducats are now the considered value of the town. Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 142, no. 1608 (1416): once more 6,000 ducats may to be offered, 10,000 if locations in the vicinity are included. Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 145–146, no. 1624 (1416): the prince may be proposed 40,000–50,000 hyperpyra of Modon, an offer which includes further Venetian protection; Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 150, no. 1635 (1417): 10,000 ducats may be offered to the same prince; Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 158, no. 1668 (1417): again, Navarino may be discussed as Prince Zaccaria looks into a loan of 5,000–6,000 ducats from the republic. Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 201, no. 1874 (1423): records the final sale for 1,000 ducats, given to the archbishop of Patra. 857  Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, p. 324. 858  Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest”, pp. 9–10. 859  John had already been involved in a successful military operation in the northern Peloponnese on the side of his brother in 1417, when the important and wealthy town of Vostitza was conquered: Schmitt, “Vostitza”. 860  Sphrantzes, p. 26.

378

Chapter 3

Byzantines for 20,000 ducats (1428).861 In the next couple of years Patra and Chalandritsa were finally taken by the Byzantines and Centurione II concluded a treaty with them which sealed the end of the principality.862 The unified Peloponnese, with the exception of the Venetian possessions, was partitioned between the two brothers Theodore and Constantine. Centurione died in 1432. 10.5 Venetian Empire The present period saw significant territorial additions to the Venetian empire.863 We have already discussed how Corfu and the related Paxoi and Butrint, and then the Epirote locations of Sagiada, Sivota, and Parga were acquired in 1386 and the following years. As a result, the natural symbiotic relationship of these mainland locations with Corfu was further enhanced, especially commercially.864 Further north and beyond the confines of this book, Durazzo became Venetian in 1392, and in the subsequent years the presence of the republic in northern Albania and in Dalmatia increased dramatically. On the Gulf of Corinth, Naupaktos and Patra were incorporated into the empire in 1407–1408. Navarino in Messenia and Thessalonike followed in 1423. In the Argolis, Argos and Nauplio had already been purchased in 1388. Athens was Venetian for just less than a decade before and after 1400. In terms of Venetian colonial expansion, the complete domination over the island of Euboia, which only occurred in the present period, surpassed any of these in strategic, commercial, and fiscal importance.865 It is clear from this pattern that there was a predilection for strategic and urban locations. Also instructive are those occasions when Venice refused to be drawn into making territorial acquisitions, the Peloponnese in the 1420s for instance. In the 1390s northern Epiros was not attractive enough an acquisition, differently to a couple of decades later, when however the Ottomans rejected the Venetian offers. The prime motivations for Venice in choosing a particular location for colonisation were as a rule the maintenance of the maritime networks, and to support access to wheat and salt.

861  Haberstumpf, “Tocco”, p. 68. 862  Preface, p. xix. On the society and commerce at Patra during late Byzantine rule, years which lie beyond the chronological range of this book, see Schmitt, “Patras”. 863  A convenient if not completely accurate overview over this later medieval expansion is provided in Arbel, “Venice’s maritime empire”, p. 132. See also Moschonas, “Presenza veneziana nell’Egeo”. The Adriatic and Ionian dimension is narrated in great detail in Schmitt, Albanien, p. 217ff. 864  Asonitis, “Κέρκυρα ως εμπορικό κέντρο”. 865  The stages are for instance narrated in Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

379

However, what Thiriet has called a “retour nécessaire à l’expansion” involved more than simply the acquisition of direct colonies. Venice had been overlord over Greece ever since the inception of Latin Romania, and it was in this capacity that the republic sought to steer the fate of Greece in its own favour through diplomatic and military interventions with all the main protagonists, Latin, Byzantine, or Ottoman, often involving the exchange of money. It is also important to consider the wider picture, especially for the years prior to the later 1380s. Greece was part of a mosaic which involved the southern Italian peninsula, the Adriatic, the northern Aegean, and the Black Sea, access to and domination over which were vehemently contested with Genoa, culminating in the 1378–1381 War of Chioggia. The end of the war curbed Genoese expansion into the Adriatic and gave Venice an exalted role in the northern Aegean. Tenedos remained an important base despite the impositions of the treaty of Turin.866 Yet, this was also the point at which Ottoman pressure on all of Romania began in earnest. If there is another thread in the Venetian colonial acquisitions from 1386 onwards, it is that all these holdings had faced Ottoman take-overs, to different degrees and with the partial exception of Corfu. In the case of the latter, Venice was naturally attracted by the strategic position and by access to significant salt resources, and it acted opportunistically in the face of Angevin demise. There, as elsewhere, local interests were also in favour of a Venetian intervention. Yet, certain territorial acquisitions which had proposed themselves in the same way were rejected by the republic because there were no realistic and relatively cost-effective possibilities of defending and holding them. In Negroponte and the central Aegean islands we can witness different processes, which often had similar results, increased control by the republic of Venice itself. These small- to medium-sized units, often urban, were obviously deemed important by the republic, strategically and sometimes agriculturally speaking. In the same measure, it was often obvious to the regional dynasts who ruled over these territories that sooner or later subjugation to Venice would be inevitable as the best of all possible destinies. The first significant developments in the second half of the century concern Karystos on Euboia and Kythira. The latter, and the neighbouring Antikythira, had been ruled by the Venier family, with some progressive social and economic policies. In particular, the populations were replenished with imported peasants from the Peloponnese. The Venier had to surrender these islands to Venice in 1363–1364

866  Gertwagen, “Tenedos”, offers a detailed account of the events and an assessment of the importance of the island.

380

Chapter 3

and were demoted to mere Venetian feudatories there.867 Henceforth the islands were governed by a Venetian castellan and exploited jointly by the republic and privates. Karystos in southern Euboia, in the hands of the Aragonese Fadrique family, was long coveted by Venice and her bailos in Negroponte: it was initially offered by Boniface Fadrique for 12,000 local hyperpyra (1349),868 and finally acquired for Venice rather more expensively at 6,000 ducats in 1366.869 In the duchy of the Archipelago, the Sanudo line of dukes came to an end with the assassination in 1383 of Nicholas III dalle Carceri, son of Florence of Sanudo, who was the daughter of Duke John (1341–1362), and the wife of Nicholas (II) from 1364. Between 1353 and 1383 John, and then either Nicholas II or more likely Nicholas III, issued the rare Naxian tornesi, technically still as vassals of the princes of Achaïa.870 The succession of the Crispo rulers of Milos to the duchy was quickly endorsed by Venice herself mainly for opportunistic reasons, namely the incorporation of the last Sanudo holdings in northern Euboia into the Venetian Regimen of Negroponte. Eventually, the Crispi also managed to extend their domain through marriage to Andros and Syros, against an annual payment of 300 ducats to the duchy.871 Venice proceeded similarly in 1390 upon the death of George III Ghisi, when the islands of Tinos and Mykonos were placed under the direct control of Negroponte, since Venice had difficulties finding a lord to take over from the Ghisi.872 George had also been the last of the terzieri of Negroponte, and with his death Venice managed to extend its domain over the entire urban and rural space of the island of Euboia.873 There was, however, at times some resistance to this process of centralisation. In 1418, after the death of Duke James Crispo, the Venetian senate informed his relatives that the republic would take possession of the Archipelago in the name of Maria Sanudo and her daughter. The Crispi would retain their domains in the islands, similarly to what happened to the Venier of Kythira, but a Venetian representative would henceforth reside in the castle.874 This 867  Koumanoudi, “First Venetian lords of Kythera”; Koumanoudi, “The Venier Kytheran estate records (15th c.)”. 868  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 251, no. CXCIV; Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 67, no. 229. See Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I”, p. 193, and subsequent acts. Compare also Appendix III.3, p. 1537. 869  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 36, no. 788. 870  Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494. 871  Balard, “Andros aux XIV e–XV e siècles”. 872  Loenertz, Ghisi II, pp. 181–182. 873  Dennis, “I rapporti tra Venezia, i suoi domini diretti e le signorie feudali nelle isole greche”; Jacoby, “Consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont”. 874  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 170, no. 1715 (1418).

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: POLITICS AND WARFARE

381

came to nothing and the duchy remained in the hands of the same family until the sixteenth century. Around this central Cycladic core, the political histories of the peripheral islands since the re-conquests of the earlier fourteenth century were sometimes somewhat different. Their lords, mostly Venetian citizens, owed their very positions and the stability of their domains to Venetian military might. They were usually vassals of the dukes of the Archipelago and could also be integrated into the feudal network centred on the Venetian Regimen of Negroponte or that of Crete. Although the islands rarely formally became Venetian colonies, their affairs and those of their lords, even marriage alliances, were at times overseen very attentively by the republic. Conflicts could arise when different families had claims on the same holdings. Serifos came to be divided between three Venetian families, amongst whom the Ghisi of Tinos.875 Kythnos (Thermia) passed from the Castelli to the Gozzadini family.876 The deserted Astypalaia was acquired by the Venetian rector of Tinos, Giovanni Querini, in the early fifteenth century.877 To the south, Santorini also became part of the direct domain of the dukes of the Archipelago, after being held by the Barozzi family, who were Venetians and feudatories of the dukes.878 Amorgos was a very distinctive case:879 in the second half of the fourteenth century it was mostly – though with intervals – in the hands of the Ghisi. After the Cretan revolt,880 it was taken over by Venice, like Kythira, but then placed again under the authority of the duchy. It was evidently neither strategically nor agriculturally of the same importance as Kythira or the northern Cycladic islands as to merit a direct colonial administration by the republic. Karpathos in the southeastern Aegean is not less unusual: since 1307 it had been in the hands of Venetian Cornaro through a contractual relationship with the local population. It yielded almost no income for this family, which had some ties to the duchy and to Crete, but its rule lasted well into the sixteenth century.881 In summary, by the 1420s it was clear that most of the territories under discussion in this book would soon share the same fate and be incorporated into 875  Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Serifo”; Saint-Guillain, “Nicolò Adoldo, seigneur de Sériphos”; Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires”, pp. 38–39. 876  Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Thermia”. 877  Loenertz, “Les Querini. I”; Loenertz, “Les Querini. II”; Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires”, p. 42. 878   Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel et le coton de Santorin”. 879  Koumanoudi, “Η διαμαχή Σανύδων-Γκίζη για το νησί σης Αμοργού”, pp. 65–76; Saint-Guillain, “Amorgos”. 880  Compare Gallina, Una società coloniale, pp. 10–11; Papadia-Lala, Θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων, p. 68ff. 881  Pokorny, “Karpathos, 1307”.

382

Chapter 3

the Ottoman sultanate. However, this was emphatically not the case for those territories which had become Venetian according to different constitutional arrangements. With the exception of Thessalonike, Venice maintained the possessions which she had managed to acquire: this was the case for instance in Albania and Ionia, where her control was eventually expanded to all the islands to the south of Corfu. Also in the Aegean, if anything, the Venetian empire continued to expand, incorporating in the early years of the second half of the century Aegina (1451), the northern Sporades (1454), and Monemvasia (1463). Soon all three continental borders of the Aegean were to be Ottoman, yet in between a vast Venetian-dominated, mostly island, network remained in place for a number of decades yet, from Negroponte, Aegina, and Monemvasia in the west, Tenedos in the northeast, to Kythira, Crete, and Karpathos in the south. 11 1347/1348–1430: Socio-Economic Trends The social, economic, commercial, and administrative profile of Greece has been extensively discussed for our early and middle periods.882 The task here will be to highlight those points which are particular to the third phase, and to show how the latter evolved and diverged from this earlier picture. Feudal, Constitutional, and Administrative Systems in Southern Greece From the middle of the fourteenth century the cohesion of Latin Greece was undermined by the policies, or lack thereof, of the Angevin overlords and rulers, and by the general breakdown in the rule of law. There were, as we have seen, frequent problems of succession and of the recognition of authority, and rights and obligations within the feudal system were often neglected or purposefully contravened. The demographic problems following the Black Death have also already been charted. Movements of populations and the replenishment of populations loom large in some of the sources.883 This picture is nevertheless contrasted with a certain degree of continuity in the main families and fiefholders in the west and north of the Peloponnese, at least during the period of relative peace between Achaïa and what became the despotate,

11.1

882  See in this chapter pp. 234–251 and 287–326. 883  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 203–204; Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”, p. 193.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

383

which lasted to the 1320s and the early 1390s.884 Improvements in the profitability of estates continued to be made there also in the current period.885 The general environment seems to have fostered a certain kind of local, usually Greek but sometimes Latin, entrepreneur, with experience and political connections, perhaps enjoying Venetian citizenship, who could profit from the fluid political and military situation to a build a lucrative career and assemble great wealth. Examples are Konstantinos Porphyrios of Coron, who on one occasion took goods worth 8,000 ducats to Venice in 1361. A native of Constantinople, John Laskaris Kalopheros entered Moreote society through an ill-fated marriage in 1372 or 1373, adding the peninsula to his own extended political and commercial network spanning Cyprus, the Kingdom of Naples, and Provence, and many other places, eventually Venice where he made his will in 1388. John Kormolisis (Cremolisi), a native of Messenia, who rose from petty trader to shipbroker and major provider of monetary services in the Peloponnese, the eastern Mainland, and Dalmatia, in the 1380s and 1390s. He is best known for the substantial loan he provided to Nerio Acciaiuoli, and also the misfortune associated with this and other episodes.886 There are also a great number of Jews who operated in the area between Corinth and Negroponte during the last phase under consideration here, providing financial services to the main protagonists and trading in their own rights.887 The most successful polities and political constructs in our area – the Venetian and Ottoman empires – will be discussed below. Within the Peloponnese and the Greek Mainland there was a great degree of political variety. The Hospitallers and the Siculo-Aragonese crowns attempted, during intense if short-lived and ultimately doomed periods of control, to leave significant imprints on their Greek territories through effective administration. During the second Hospitaller phase in the Peloponnese (1397–1404), which began at the behest of Despot Theodore at Corinth, the Knights soon expanded the territories which they controlled across the Gulf of Corinth in the north, and theoretically over the remainder of the despotate as well.888 A series of documents bears witness to the intensive engagement of the Hospitallers with these 884  This is for instance noted by Bon, Morée franque, p. 278. 885  Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”, p. 198. 886  Jacoby, “Jean Lascaris Calophéros”; Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 312; Chrysostomides, “Merchant versus nobles” (Greek translation: Chrysostomides, “Έμπορος εναντίον ευγενών”); Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία”, p. 63; Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, especially p. 166; Chrysostomides, “Wealth and poverty in Greece”, pp. 2–3. Compare also Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 179, no. 743 (1388). 887  Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”, pp. 162–166. 888  Compare on what follows Baker, “Corinthe”, especially p. 48.

384

Chapter 3

territories, militarily, feudally, and economically, and it has been suggested that these policies also had a strong monetary component. Already during their earlier tenure in the principality (from 1376) it had been noted how burdensome their fiscal policies were for the local Moreote feudatories,889 yet militarily that phase must be considered a failure, in the face of the Navarrese. For the second half of the fourteenth century there is a significant contrast between the political tribulations of what remained of the Catalan duchies on the one hand, and the abundance of the documentation which is extant in the archives of Palermo and Barcelona on the other. The latter has been extensively transcribed in Rubiò i Lluch’s monumental corpus.890 As a result we are left with a rich picture of political and economic engagement with these Greek territories by the respective royal crowns, involving often individuals of Majorcan or Catalan origin.891 In 1370, when early proposals were made to transfer the authority over Athens from Sicily to Aragon, the value of the territories was given as 100,000 florins,892 yet this would clearly have been a theoretical or even symbolic sum: Frederick IV (III) of Sicily from 1355, and especially from 1379 King Peter IV of Aragon, would have regarded the duchies of Athens and Neopatra as prestige objects, and particularly useful for the exercise of patronage, rather than a direct source of income. Peter immediately dispatched new Aragonese vicars general rather than making use of locally entrenched notables.893 Whether the total amount of business conducted in the duchies after mid-century was more significant than previously is difficult to tell. The most lucrative commodity, slaves, may have been even more intensely traded in the 1350s and 1360s than previously, but the Aragonese crown attempted to curb it completely after 1379. Setton is on the whole negative about the economies of the towns during the last Catalan phase, regarding them as centres of consumption rather than production. Similarly to the Latin rulers of the Peloponnese, also the emperors of the Palaiologan dynasty and their despots (after 1382) intermittently faced opposition from the local landholding aristocracy. This was based on the continued 889  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. X (1379): an additional tax burden of 15,000 florins was imposed on the territories, according to a letter sent by Aldobrando Baroncelli to Lorenzo Acciaiuoli. 890  For a recent appreciation of the importance of this material, see Kiesewetter, “La ristampa del Diplomatari de l’Orient Català”. 891  Compare the earlier situation discussed in this chapter, esp. pp. 315–316, and Appendix III.3, pp. 1536–1540. For the present discussion see especially Luttrell, “La Corona de Aragón y la Grecia catalana: 1379–1394” and once more Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece”. 892  Luttrell, “La Corona de Aragón y la Grecia catalana: 1379–1394”, p. 220. 893  Loenertz, “Une page de Jérôme Zurita relative aux duchés catalans”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

385

loyalty of the latter to the Kantakouzenoi, and was also caused by the fiscal pressures resulting from the military preparations against the Ottomans.894 Monemvasia was in a particularly convoluted position and Theodore managed to control the town only from the 1390s. In the same period the outside pressure on him was so great that the Knights of St. John were invited to occupy the despotate and Mystras. But gradually, compared to its immediate neighbours, Byzantine Morea gained some of the trappings of a viable territorial state: stable, even expanding, geographical confines, a resident rulership and administration of some authority, within a larger imperial construct. From Zakythinos’ analysis it remains unclear to what degrees these despots and their ‘appanage’ were integrated into central imperial legislative and governmental processes. He states, however, with confidence that fiscally they enjoyed total liberty. Whether or not this was entirely the case, particularly during the significant imperial interventions in the peninsula, the overall conditions gradually allowed for the application of some social and economic strategies, albeit on traditionally imperial Byzantine lines: the growing imperial domains were exploited, potentates were invested with holdings, the countryside and the towns were re-settled internally and with newcomers from the outside, and Monemvasia was re-established as a main port.895 By contrast, according to a recent interpretation, Mystras may have been the social, administrative, religious, and educational centre of the despotate, but there is no material or written evidence that even in this period it constituted much of a proper town.896 In terms of the monetary policy of the despots, there are two poignant episodes, in addition to the numismatic record itself, Theodore’s promise to Venice not to imitate the republic’s coins (1394), and the complaints to Manuel II of George Gemistos Plethon (1355–1452) regarding the local usage of ‘foreign’ and ‘bad’ coins.897 Plethon’s fiscal and economic models, revealed mostly but not exclusively in addresses to Emperor Manuel II and Despot Theodore II, have been much debated, also with respect to their actual bearing on the historical realities in the despotate.898 His perception that the success of the Byzantine 894  See, in addition to Zakythinos’ account, which is on the whole better inclined towards Despot Theodore I: Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, p. 236ff; Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans, pp 443–447. 895  Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans, p. 174. 896  Papamastorakis, “Mistra”. For a recent summary of the more traditional view of Mystras, see Kalopissi-Verti, “Mistra”. The second of these is based to some degree on the exhibition catalogue Mystras. 897  Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, pp. 406–407. 898  The literature on Plethon is vast, some of the more relevant passages to our subject matter can be found in Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, I, pp. 176–180; Hendy, Studies, p. 299; Baloglou, Plethon; Laiou, “Economic thought and ideology”, pp. 1139–1144;

386

Chapter 3

polity in the Morea was undermined by an ill-organised and foreign army, and by the burden of a multitude of direct and indirect taxes, often payable in monetary specie which was not available, would certainly have contained elements of the truth despite Plethon’s predilection for rhetorical devices. The archons, through their lifestyle, were also identified by Plethon as not pulling their weight in the defence of the realm. They also deposited their wealth preferentially with Latin banks.899 Yet, this same class augmented local prosperity – in addition to their own – by exporting Lakonian produce in this very period, principally through their ties with Constantinople and places in continental Greece. In so doing, the ports of Monemvasia and Coron-Modon benefitted considerably. The fundamental pessimism of these people, however well they were doing materially, and however well the despotate was faring militarily in the first decades of the fifteenth century vis-à-vis the Latins, was manifested in the continued investment of their wealth with the Venetians, which is documented in some sources.900 Epiros and Thessaly: Administrative and Socio-Economic Developments Serbian and Ottoman rule over wide northerly areas of the territory under discussion, beginning in the middle of the fourteenth century, constituted a significant departure from the previous political developments of medieval Greece. The Serbs and Ottomans had an important impact, yet in ways which are not always easy to comprehend and measure. Both administrations were perhaps less disruptive, let alone destructive, than has often been assumed, and were altogether greatly engaged with their territories, with regard to their administrations and their socio-economic formations. Yet, as we will see in the following discussion, apparently heavy fiscality did perhaps not in itself influence the area’s monetisation, or if it did, only indirectly. Even before their large-scale conquests of Greek lands, the Serbs had adopted Byzantine court organisation, diplomacy, jurisdiction, and administrative and taxation systems.901 For this reason, upon the Serbian take-over of Epiros and Thessaly, Dušan and his governors began to operate in a fashion which 11.2

Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, pp. 274–275; Shawcross, “Plethon”. Compare also above, pp. 264 and 319. 899   The examples have often been cited, see for instance Matschke, “Geldgeschäfte”, pp. 187–188. 900  Shawcross, “Plethon”, pp. 432–434. 901  Soulis, Serbs and Byzantium, pp. 60–85. On the self-positioning of Dušan in the Byzantine orbit, see Maksimović, “L’empire de Stefan Dušan”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

387

came natural to them, and in a way which was befitting of imperial authority in the eyes of the new subjects. Throughout the different regimes in Epiros and Thessaly and the adjacent Mainland there was a great deal of continuity in the imposition of direct and indirect taxes, possibly even in areas which passed from Ottoman back to Byzantine rule after 1402,902 yet it is possible that within the agricultural context there was a greater emphasis on payments in kind to support the Serbian army.903 The Serbs sought to impose their designs on the existing social order by variously promoting or demoting members of the archon class, and by creating dependencies with the local monastic (to a lesser degree ecclesiastical) institutions. In addition to the Athonite monasteries, those of the area around Trikala (Lykousada and Zavlantia), and Meteora, were especially patronised.904 Particular political and strategic constellations in the first half of the fourteenth century had already drawn focus on Trikala and its area, and this was continued and accentuated in the Serbian period for similar reasons. The town was the main centre for Serbian Thessaly and intermittently for all of Serbian Greece, as Arta was mostly in Albanian hands and Ioannina had yet to establish itself as a significant administrative and courtly town. Regarding Serbian Epiros, specifically the area between Ioannina and the Ionian Sea, a chrysobull by Symeon Uroš in favour of John Tsaphas Doukas Orsini (1361), though a fake in its present form, sheds some light on the desire on the part of the Serbians to ensure continuity and the proper exploitation of the territory.905 This can be contrasted with the apparently despotic policies attributed to his successor Preljubović by the Chronicle of Ioannina, which was mainly characterised by his lack of respect for established lay and ecclesiastical potentates and the favouring of his Serbian followers. Ottoman Thessaly (from 1393) was governed in a stable and even enterprising manner, as we have seen. The area was generally replenished with new populations from Anatolia and the Black Sea, as much as internally. The resources of the territory were evidently exploited intensively, in the first instance by a class of local landholding beys who operated side-by-side with their established Christian counterparts, and whose activities lay largely underneath the radar of the available sources particularly in the period before 902  See the experience in Macedonia: Oikonomides, “Ottoman influence”. 903  Maksimović, “Poreski system”; Kontogiannopoulou, “Φορολογικές πληροφορίες για τη Θεσσαλία”. 904  Magdalino, Thessaly, pp. 244 and 255; Nicol, Epiros II, p. 139. On the shift in relative importance from eastern to western Thessaly in this period, see also Magdalino, “Between Romaniae”, pp. 98–99. 905  Soulis, Serbs and Byzantium, p. 122; Nicol, Epiros II, p. 140. See further Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”.

388

Chapter 3

the re-conquests of Mehmet I after 1413.906 This same intensity can be gleaned from later fiscal records: in 1455 the village of Mezdan near Trikala, with about 150 households, which lay within the domain of the governor, yielded taxes of ca. 11,500 akčes,907 which is by any measure a considerable sum.908 Also the many urban dues in connection with the new commercial and social foundations in Yenişehir (Larisa), were rigorously recorded in the same currency. Larisa would, by the second or third decade of the fifteenth century, have been amongst the largest towns of Greece. Meanwhile, as we have seen, larger parts of Epiros and Ionia were gradually incorporated into the polity governed by the Tocco, after intervals of Serbian and Albanian domination. It has recently been argued that the main urban centres of these territories, and Arta and Ioannina in particular, suffered from the earlier dismantlement of the privileges accorded to them by the Byzantine emperors, and equally from the repressive social policies which Charles I of Tocco saw himself obliged to pursue to maintain his own precarious construct.909 11.3 Venetian Administrative, Economic, and Military Structures910 Our present period saw in many ways the height of the Venetian colonial empire in Greek lands: a dense network of territories, forming a coherent whole, were held with great purpose. The empire was tightly controlled from the centre, and administered locally in a lean and streamlined fashion. It required a substantial central investment, especially for military purposes, yet also yielded a great amount of profit and advantage, directly and indirectly, for the republic and its citizens. While the core of the Venetian colonial system in Greece remained, as in the previous period,911 Coron-Modon, Negroponte (and Pteleon), as well as Crete, which lies outside of the scope of this book, very important additions were made in the Ionian area, in the Peloponnese, in the Cycladic island, and the island of Euboia itself. By the early fifteenth century this exercise in empire

906  Ducellier, “Rôle de la fortune foncière a l’époque de la conquête turque”. 907  On this and the other examples, see Kiel, “Das türkische Thessalien”, p. 123ff. See also the information on p. 170. 908  Compare Appendix III.1, p. 1521. 909  Zečević, “Four towns”. 910  See again some of the passages in Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, pp. 181–349. Schmitt, Albanien and Papadia-Lala, Θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων also have a lot to offer on the structures of the later medieval Venetian empire, some of which repeated in her “Society, administration and identities in Latin Greece”. 911  See pp. 298–307.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

389

building had been temporarily achieved (more colonies were added only after the chronological limits of this book). Many of the new acquisitions were administratively linked to pre-existent colonies. More so than previously, this colonial empire was legislated for in great detail by the Venetian assemblies, mostly the senate. Drawn from the latter, five former high colonial officials were grouped together as the “Sapientes Ordinum” to provide counsel directly to the doge. The empire was inspected by envoys and ‘syndics’. Officials in the colonies were controlled by the centre and punished severely for wrongdoings since much was at stake and the fates of entire colonies were in the hands of a few individuals.912 The same could also be well remunerated for their increasingly difficult roles,913 even though the republic attempted at times to freeze salaries through the rigid application of certain monies and monetary equivalents.914 The empire was linked by the galley system and a defensive structure centred on the captain of the Gulf, and it relied on administrative, military, and financial solidarity amongst colonies, which was usually ordered and enforced by the centre. Evidently more monies flowed into, out of, and within the colonial system, which was in itself also more profitable in its own right than it had been in previous times.915 The core of this direct profit lay in agricultural exploitation, in the farming of rents and taxes on the land and its produce, and increasingly in indirect taxation and the exercise of monopolies.916 Regarding the latter, we have seen that in the present period very complex systems of indirect taxation were put in place in the Venetian colonies and elsewhere – the principality of Achaïa or Byzantine Lakonia. Additionally there would have been increased number of penalties and fines and simple dues for services rendered by state officials, administrative or judicial, which would have augmented the currency changing hands on a regular basis amongst the population.917 In urban 912   Compare Koumanoudi, “The trial of Bartolomeo Querini, bailo and capitano of Negroponte”; Saint-Guillain, “Argos”. 913  Major, “L’administration vénitienne à Négrepont”, pp. 247–248. 914  Compare here below, and the discussions in Appendix III.3, p. 1551. 915  See in this respect Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, pp. 410–413. 916  Compare pp. 317–320. 917  See again the earlier discussion referred to above. Regarding fines, some instances can be cited: in the 1340s individuals were fined one tournois for rolling barrels on the seashores of Coron-Modon in an inappropriate manner. In subsequent decades a lot of legislation was passed regarding the cleanliness of the colonies: Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 384; in 1350 there was a penalty of 1,000 ducats for shipstewards who do not follow the directions of transports between Venice, Modon and Crete: Predelli, Commemoriali, book 4, no. 369 (1350). In 1362 in Coron-Modon a 10 soldo fine was levied on villeins who did not fulfil their labour services (Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, pp. 111 and 216), and the same

390

Chapter 3

Venetian contexts in Greece also charitable payments were on an increase during these times of crises.918 Even within the Venetian land regime there were ulterior fiscal developments in the present period, for instance, the ‘zovatico’ tax weighing on peasants’ bulls and cows, calculated by Hodgetts as 18 hyperpyra per annum per animal and person, is only known for Coron-Modon from the 1380s onwards.919 Relatively speaking Crete and also Nauplio appear to have done well in this period, and we frequently find monies sent from there to Coron-Modon in particular.920 In the Messenian colonies themselves, Coron was consistently more lucrative than Modon, partially because it had a better harbour, and it would subsidise the latter.921 In the colonies of the Argolis, there is some evidence of monies sent from Argos to Nauplio, maybe a sign that wealth derived from land could still be more important than that brought in through seafaring and commercial activities.922 Key colonial staples were also channelled towards Venice or re-distributed amongst the colonies. For instance the Aegean islands often required provisions from Crete. This form of commerce was therefore useful to the republic for reasons other than profit alone. Wheat and salt lay at the heart of this system, both being subject to monopolistic legislation with regard to prices and quantities.923 As in the previous period, prices at which the republic bought wheat were laid down by the senate, in hyperpyra.924 Arguably, securing wheat sources became a higher priority to Venice as its domestic population began to recover from the mid-century Black Death. Salt was perhaps even more important than wheat to the republic, which devoted central institutional support exclusively to the salt trade from the later thirteenth century onwards. Her succession to the erstwhile Angevin colonies of Durazzo, Corfu, Butrint, and Naupaktos, and the acquisition of new locations in the area, proved to be of great importance in this respect. Salt was a vital commodity for the inhabitants of Venice, but the nature of its extraction and the difficult sum was stipulated for the same localities in 1384 for defaulters tampering with the tax records: Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 167, no. 687 (1384). 918  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, pp. 379–387. 919  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 228ff. 920  See for example: Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 110, no. 1471 (1413); Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 113, no. 1483 (1413); Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 125, no. 1537 (1414); Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 138, no. 1591 (1415). 921  For instance: Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 138, no. 559 (1375); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, pp. 166–167, no. 687 (1384); Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 273, no. 2193 (1430). 922  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 205, no. 865 (1394). 923  See again the discussion above p. 318. 924  Compare above p. 304 n. 547. In Thiriet, Régestes, the wheat prices are laid down every year.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

391

political constellations on the Epirote coastline always meant that Venice could enforce and profit from its monopoly in a particularly efficient way.925 Venice also controlled salt extraction on the Greek Mainland immediately opposite Negroponte, and in the Argolis,926 and it bought salt from other sources in the peninsula.927 More often than not the transportation back to Venice of these colonial products occurred on the galley convoy system of pre-ordained routes (mude) which we have already encountered.928 After mid-century the imbalance increased between the number of voyages to and from Romania, as compared to the totality of the much more frequent Levantine voyages (Cyprus, Alexandria, and Beirut),929 and it was even more pronounced if one considers the total sums which the auctions (incanti) achieved for galley space.930 This reflects the relative strategic problems of Romania in these years, the vastness of the Levantine territories and their markets, and the great attractiveness of the commercial products there. Yet, as Thiriet remarks, by virtue of being situated en route to these more easterly areas, Greece itself could still benefit from such developments, and in fact many of the Levantine galleys also serviced Greek ports. As part of the process of purchasing high end products in places such as Constantinople or Alexandria for Venice, Aegean wine or cheese was first transported in those directions.931 The system of auctions provided many private Venetians with the opportunity to trade in a diversity of products. Venice’s continued subsidies of the state galleys underline the value placed on this system. Unfortunately, the sources pertaining directly to mude and incanti do not systematically reveal the transported products. The defence of the Venetian empire from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards became a very intensive and expensive enterprise.932 Centrally, the captain of the Gulf commanded the fleet and was responsible for 925  Hocquet, Le sel; Hocquet, “L’économie coloniale et les sels grecs”; Schmitt, Albanien, p. 336ff. 926  At Thermisi near Nauplio: Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 207, no. 103 (1391). 927  See Panopoulou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο αλατίου στην Πελοπόννησο” on the very diverse enterprises of salt extraction, practiced by all the interested parties, in the peninsula. 928  P. 298. 929  Stöckly, Incanto des galées du marché à Venise, p. 97 and ff. Compare also Chapter 1, pp. 62–63. 930  Stöckly, Incanto des galées du marché à Venise, pp. 228–230. 931  Jacoby, “An island world?”, p. 106. 932  Gertwagen, “The contribution of Venice’s colonies to its naval warfare” provides a good overview of Venice’s maritime defence system. A much briefer account is given by Dotson, “Foundations of Venetian naval strategy”.

392

Chapter 3

the overall strategy. The merchant galleys, which were usually engaged in the mude, could also be relied upon for military purposes.933 The colonies, and the galleys and arsenals which they maintained, and the men which they recruited in large numbers in Crete, Negroponte, and Tinos-Mykonos,934 often at their own costs, also bore great defensive responsibilities. Even if in this period the empire began to emerge as a very complex structure of many different territories, its defence, at least in the central Aegean section, rested to a large degree with the civic and military authorities in Messenia and Euboia,935 and outside of our area with the Regimen of Crete. Colonies were also of prime importance for the strategic information which they relayed.936 The main objectives were to secure the key maritime routes, the land borders of the colonies, and to maintain internal peace. Piracy, which was in this period either Siculo-Catalan937 or Turkish in origin,938 and intermittently hostile Genoese activities, provided the main problems. The situation was not as endemic as in the previous period, when piracy was a key ingredient of warfare and political expansion, but in the present years Venice was the only power which took it upon itself to combat it. On land, Venice and the colonies erected and maintained defensive structures. Garrisons and soldiers were provided for in a mixed central and local fiscal regime, and also the soldiers and mercenaries were mixed, Italian and Greek. The key administrative positions in the colonies, the bailos or castellans, also had military remits, and they were assisted by admirals.939 There were moments in colonial Venetian history when the engagement of costly mercenaries was necessary.940 In the particularly rich documentation pertaining to the military and strategic roles of Negroponte,941 of Corfu and its hinterland,942 and especially of

933  On the different non-commercial ways in which Venice could deploy these galleys, see Doumerc, “Les flottes d’état, moyen de domination coloniale pour Venise”. 934  See specifically Jacoby, “Les gens de mer dans la marine de guerre vénitienne”. 935  Major, “Le complexe militaire vénitien en Grèce: Méssenie et Eubée”. 936  Gertwagen, “Venetian colonies in the Ionian and Aegean seas in Venetian defense policy”. 937   Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία”, p. 44. 938  For the impact of Turkish pirates especially on Euboia, see Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”. 939  Major, “L’administration vénitienne à Négrepont”, p. 256. 940  See for instance Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 265, no. 720 (1363) and Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, pp. 16–17 and ff (1364) (Crete), or Schmitt, Albanien, p. 517. 941  See the recent summary of previous works, combined with topographical and archaeological observations, in Kontogiannis, “Euripos-Negroponte-Eğriboz”. 942  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, pp. 78 and 167.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

393

the Peloponnesian colonies Coron-Modon,943 which has also been extensively exploited, we can detect both the acute sense of urgency and the spiralling costs:944 particularly in the period after mid-century, and especially in Modon, which had hitherto been more neglected than Coron, extensive defences and other infrastructural features, such as harbour facilities, arsenals, and warehouses, were added.945 Euboia after 1390 was a very peculiar colonial construct: the island was heavily exposed to enemies, with an extensive and difficult territory, yet it hosted the single most important urban centre of Greece, and was in the Greek context one of the most stable places, one that was still able to attract newcomers throughout the later period.946 As such it required complex administrative and social systems.947 Previously we have seen the functioning of the colonies’ finances:948 their incomes from indirect and direct taxation, the monies that occasionally flowed back to Venice, and particularly the organisation of salaries and other significant pieces of expenditure (infrastructure and the military) that were variously carried locally or centrally, and that found expression in different monies according to their origin and the fiscal regime in place. There were two main developments with respect to such monies from the middle of the fourteenth century onwards: with the demise of the Greek tournois, the gradual elimination of the sterling/manus of account, the conversion of the Venetian grosso into a ghost money, and the successive introductions of the Venetian soldino and tornesello currencies, most prevalent systems of accounting in Greece were linked. For this reason it became very easy to make conversions between all the different hyperpyra (Coron-Modon, Negroponte, Corfu/Sclavonia etc.) and pounds and shillings (for example of grossi or piccoli). As we can see in Appendix III, for instance the Venetian pound and the Peloponnesian hyperpyron had the same tornesello or soldino value. The second development, the rise of the gold ducat, as a currency and a value, would have had the potential of complicating matters because its position towards these silver-based systems was forever changing and often 943  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 144ff; Gertwagen, “Venetian Modon”; Karpov, “Ports of the Peloponnese”. 944  Also the recently acquired colony of Argos came immediately under Turkish threat and required its own local structures to keep it safe: Tzavara, “Η οργάνωση της διοίκησης και της άμυνας του Άργους”. 945  A preliminary view of the physical remains was offered by Bon, “Monuments vénitiens en Grèce centrale et dans le Peloponnèse”. 946  These are meticulously presented in Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea”. Papadia-Lala, “Κοινωνική οργάνωση και αστική κοινότητα στην Εύβοια”. 947   948  See esp. pp. 305–307.

394

Chapter 3

uncertain. Nevertheless, as we have also considered in Appendix III, the Venetian authorities were fully in control of these relations and convertibility was always ensured. The overall impression we get therefore from the official Venetian acts of the current period is a less nuanced and more haphazard deployment of the monies of account, indicating in much rarer cases than previously either denominational hierarchies or geographical origins of payments. This is explicit in some rare acts: in 1351, 60 pounds of grossi, usually a money of account associated with Venetian payments, were the per annum salaries of the captain and rector in Corfu and Butrint, which were however taken from local resources.949 The integration of Greek and Venetian monies of account950 was of course not a value-free occurrence, and neither was the introduction of Venetian monetary specie into our territories.951 They were both, on the one hand, part of a conscious policy of the republic to reduce costs and to increase profits, and on the other, and for exactly the same reasons, they were perceived as hostile by the populations. How did soldini and torneselli arrive in Greece from the Venetian mint? As with other currencies, state design or private initiative are the usual possibilities, though in these particular cases, for the period ca. 1350– ca. 1430, the official process is to a large degree much the more likely. Venice evidently used its domestic and colonial issues differently in the various locations. In the southern Greek colonies, as in Crete, there was evidently a gradual shift from soldini to torneselli as the prime objective of Venetian policy. Further to the north the situation was less clear cut, possibly because of the different local traditions and prevailing currencies. Dalmatia for instance was a prime area of soldino diffusion,952 which complemented local colonial coins but not torneselli. It seems that, by contrast, Venice sought to use torneselli in her Albanian colonies around Durazzo, Scutari, and Antivari/Dulcigno (although not much information is available on the latter), and then in the colonies of western Romania (Corfu and its hinterland, Naupaktos, etc.). On one occasion, for the area of Durazzo, we are explicitly informed that torneselli were not current before Venetian colonial expansion.953 Soldini were also part of the Venetian colonial design in the area of Durazzo and to the south: some new officials in Durazzo for instance received salaries that are stipulated in 949  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 72, no. 251 (1351). 950  See Appendix III.3, pp.  1549–1553, Appendix III.4, pp.  1554–1564, Appendix III.6, pp. 1573–1581. 951  On the relevant coinages, see Appendix II.4.D-F, pp. 1306–1332. 952  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 194; Appendix II.4.E, p. 1319. 953  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, p. 102, no. 424 (1388).

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

395

pounds of grossi,954 which appear to indicate payments in soldini rather than any other denomination. The variable introduction of soldini and torneselli to these places may have had an effect on the regional hyperpyra, although the sources are not sensitive enough to give us any hints of this. Weighing up the available evidence as a whole, the tornesello seems to have been even more unpopular in Venice’s Albanian colonies than in Greece itself, and it has been surmised that when this currency did decline in the 1420s the difficulties it was facing especially there may have been a contributing factor.955 Thessalonike only became a Venetian colony at this point in time (1423). The city was heavily subsidised by the republic for a number of years, in sums expressed in the usual monies of account.956 Venice preserved the prevailing fiscal structures in the city after 1423.957 It seems probable from this information that the tornesello would not have been used in Venetian Thessalonike, but this remains to be verified in the numismatic record. 11.4 Commerce and Related Economic Activity in Late Medieval Greece958 More than any other factor, demographics is the key ingredient in any commercial history, and in this sense one would expect to have seen a natural downturn in the present period.959 The political uncertainties which existed in great parts of Greece between the mid-fourteenth century and 1430 would also have impacted greatly on commerce. Yet, the importance of these two factors for commerce is difficult to measure since the available documentation is so uneven.960 With respect to the produce that was traded in this particular period, although one images a great deal of continuity in its respect,961 more emphasis was certainly placed in the available sources on grain and salt than 954  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, pp. 120–121, no. 481 (1392); p. 124, no. 491 (1393); p. 124, no. 492 (1393); p. 134, no. 515 (1394); p. 135, no. 523 (1394). 955  Schmitt, Albanien, p. 334. Compare also the Preface, p. xx: the demise of the tornesello is crucial for the chronological parameters of this book. 956  The relevant acts are contained in Thiriet, Régestes, 2 (1423–). Compare also Appendix III.6, pp. 1578–1581, on late medieval Venetian monies of account. 957  Jacoby, “Thessalonique de la domination de Byzance à celle de Venise”. 958  The commercial context for the entire eastern Mediterranean in the present period is given in Balard, Latins en Orient, pp. 337–365. 959  See the earlier discussions in this chapter, pp. 194–195. 960  Balard, “Latins in the Aegean”, pp. 850–851, considers the period ca. 1350 to 1410/20 as one of commercial downturn in the Aegean. See also Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, pp. 126–127. 961  On the products of the Peloponnese, see the detailed discussions in Laiou, “Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system” and Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy”, p. 233ff.

396

Chapter 3

previously, while it is likely that some manufactured products such as silk became less important in certain areas (Corinth and Thebes for instance),962 but not unheard of.963 Regarding the significant political blocs, we now know relatively more about the commercial integration of Attikoboiotia, thanks to Sicilian and Argonese sources, than we had done for the earlier part of the fourteenth century. This may reflect a general increase in the trade of Romania by people from the Aragonese orbit, which can be measured in all sorts of ways.964 For the Venetian-dominated world of the Aegean, the mude appear to have been the single most important element in the transportation of produce into and out of Greece. In addition, Venetian sources, often centred on Candia, illuminate us about privately organised trade.965 Some Genoese notarial documentation pertaining to Chios and its relations with the Venetian Aegean now also has a bearing, though mostly in the decades after the chronological confines of this book.966 Venetians traded freely within the territories of the despotate (until 1428967), as they did in all parts of Latin Greece.968 By contrast, we know relatively little at first hand about trade conducted by Greeks in southern Greece,969 and also about commerce within Ottoman Greece. By the early fifteenth century key Greek productive and commercial areas were in Turkish hands, and there would no doubt have been significant inland trade, as well as maritime outlets towards the east and the west, for instance on the Pagasetic Gulf and at Valona, to which the Egnatia would have been routed, away from Venetian Durazzo.970 In all of this the commercial significance of Thessalonike changed: up until the 1380s the city was instrumental to new Byzantine presence in Thessaly and the northeastern Aegean. Yet Byzantine 962  Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania”, p. 31. 963  See the dealings in silk by Kalopheros in the southwestern Peloponnese in the 1380s: Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, pp. 217–218. 964  For the evidence of traded items of religiously-inspired material culture, see Duran i Duelt, “Icons and minor arts”. 965  For the Peloponnese itself there is still some untapped notarial documentation available: see Nanetti, “Venetian notaries in the Peloponnese”. 966  Balletto, “Andros veneziana e Chio dei Genovesi”; Balletto, “Negroponte nei traffici commerciali genovesi”. 967  Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 123. 968  Balard, “Latins in the Aegean”, p. 841. 969  The studies by Laiou (“Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system” and “Greek merchant of the Palaeologan period”) are essential here. In the present period more is known about Greek merchants, but more often than not in areas quite far removed from our own, for instance the Black Sea. 970  Schmitt, Albanien, p. 268. Compare also the Preface, p. xviii.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

397

and Venetian Thessalonike in the early years of the fifteenth century suffered from the new geopolitical conditions: it partook neither in the Venetian mude system, nor in the newly created Ottoman structures which dominated the southern Balkans.971 Regarding the particular Epirote coastline of our primary area,972 the complex political developments were also commercially significant: in the period before Venice took Corfu and when Valona and its coastline were united with the relatively stable Serbian empire, under the governorship of John Komnenos Asen in the 1350s and 1360s, Venetian traders had been prominent there.973 Under the subsequent Balsha this coastline diversified somewhat: the port and taxes of Valona were farmed out to the Ragusans, and some Greek traders were in evidence, exporting wheat, wood, salt and slaves.974 The new developments from the 1410s changed the situation more radically by allowing new parties into the Greek commercial space: Tuscans and other central and northern Italians were absent in the Venetian ports of Durazzo and Cattaro in the early fifteenth century, but managed to access the newly unified Balkans from Ragusa and also from Ottoman Valona.975 The main commodity which arrived on the Epirote coastline in this period, grain, would often have originated in Thessaly.976 The large number of potentates and their vassals in the southern Adriatic, between Angevin/Byzantine and Ottoman times, would also have greatly increased the number of customs points.977 By this point, Corfu managed to concentrate a great amount of Venetian-dominated commerce: the island was at the same time a significant stop of the state galleys and the focal point of localised communications along the Epirote coastline.978 In the other parts of Greece in which the Venetian mude were well established, there was nevertheless still scope for small-scale and local commerce by land or cabotage. In fact, these different systems of distribution would have worked in tandem, as we have already stressed in earlier discussions. Crete, which lay on the galley routes to the east, was also an important centre of private shipping in the Aegean (see below). 971  See especially Harvey, “Economic conditions in Thessaloniki between the two Ottoman occupations”, but also Laiou, “Η Θεσσαλονίκη” and Matschke, “Stadtgeschichte Thessalonikes”. 972  On commerce in this area, see especially Zachariadou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο στο δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου”. 973  Soulis, Serbs and Byzantium, pp. 136–137. 974  Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 521–599 passim. 975  Ducellier, “Toscans”. 976  Zachariadou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο στο δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου”, p. 89. 977  Ducellier, “Les échelles de l’Adriatique meridionale”. 978  Asonitis, “Κέρκυρα ως εμπορικό κέντρο”.

398

Chapter 3

Especially in the absence of adequate information from merchants manuals, which had provided such rich information in the earlier part of the fourteenth century,979 much may be expected in this respect from the ceramic evidence. However, the latter becomes more complicated to use by the nonspecialist in the present period, again as compared to the previous ones.980 Overall, there appear to be difficulties in defining the origins and the dates of many of the Byzantine-style types. The studies which deal with the local pottery present in Greek lands during the later medieval period often do not differentiate between the many phases of the fourteenth century, or they jump in their presentations from supposedly earlier fourteenth-century wares to the so-called post-Byzantine (i.e. Ottoman) contexts in the second half of the fifteenth. This may well on occasion be justified, and in such cases it would corroborate the general impression of economic and demographic downturn and dearth of economic activities. Yet in other instances, as we shall also see in our next discussion, obviously pottery types are needed which can match the chronologically important main tornesello phase in Greece (ca. 1380–1410), represented at many of our key sites such as Athens, Clarentza, Corinth, Sparta, or Thebes. What happened in the countryside is no less intriguing: there are already some hints in the ceramic evidence for the late medieval crisis and for the political will to counteract it.981 Amongst the wares present in our territories which can be identified as coherent units with more or less well-established dates and provenances, the different north-central Italian and Iberian wares are the most obvious. In the case of the second of these, a very detailed presentation and thoughtful analysis has shown that such wares came to Greece in precisely the period under consideration, but that their presence might also be explained through factors other than direct commerce between Greece and the area of origin (the region of Valencia).982 It should also be noted that there was a late medieval area of Byzantine-style pottery production in the north, between Thessalonike and Constantinople and associated with Lemnos or the Gattilusio possessions, in which Greece – with the exception of Andros – did 979  Dotson, “Fourteenth century merchant manuals”. 980   For bibliographies and discussions, see above pp.  249–251 and 323–325. Amongst the contributions offering the more useful analyses for the present period are Vroom, Byzantine to modern pottery in the Aegean, pp. 113–137; Clarence, pp. 44–49; Vroom, “Butrint”; Kontogiannis and Arvaniti, “Andros”; Skartsis, Chlemoutsi, pp. 23–29 and 43–57; Vionis, Aegean archaeology, pp. 273–295; MacKay, “Medieval pottery” (completing «385. Zaraka»). François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance”, also has some points of interest for this period. 981  Compare also pp. 197–198 above. 982  Yangaki, “Pottery from the Iberian peninsula”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

399

not partake.983 The same is true for certain Cypriot and other easterly wares. Notwithstanding the difficulties of using this form of evidence, our knowledge of the pottery as it currently stands for the period ca. 1350–1430 does not seem to contradict, and at times corroborates or adds definition to the information gleaned from other sources: complex localised relations affecting all of our territories, perhaps an economic/demographic downturn in certain periods and areas, and an overriding integration of key points in Greece into west-east networks dominated more so than previously by northern Italians, and in fact also by people with Catalan/Aragonese connections. Nevertheless, there were wider international movements between Cyprus and the Levant, and points in the northern Aegean and Constantinople, and in Italy, which passed Greece by altogether.984 In terms of these commercial centres and orientations of Greece within the late period, certain developments can be inferred from other sources: while Mainland Greece and the Peloponnese peaked demographically and economically in the first half of the fourteenth century, many of the Aegean islands seem to have been settled and exploited most intensively in the later period, after the effects of the conflict with the Byzantines and the ravages of Umur bey had been overcome.985 Numbers are available for the second half of the fifteenth century which suggest respectable population sizes of 2,000–5,000 for the larger islands of Naxos, Paros, Tinos, Andros, and Milos, and indicates that even the smallest islands which may previously have been uninhabited for certain medieval periods, for instance Antiparos, Serifos, or Syros, had some form of settlement.986 Naxos had important estates farmed directly by the dukes.987 But even small and much less fertile and populous islands fostered maritime communication and commerce by their very nature.988 Some of their lords now resided in or near their domains and could be directly engaged in their administrations. Beside and beneath the ruling classes, a more complex network of other potentates and vassals, wielding economic power, developed on the islands in this period.989 The isolated positions of some of the islands 983  Described in François, Céramique byzantine à Thasos. 984  This is an impression one can also gain from the discussion provided by François, “Réalités des échanges”. Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires”, pp. 40–44. 985   986  Vionis, Aegean archaeology, p. 37. This general impression is also borne out by the ceramic data gathered by Vionis from locations on some of the more important islands, cited here above. 987  Kasdagli, “Peasant and lord in fifteenth century Naxos”. 988  Consider for instance some of the general remarks in Jacoby, “An island world?”. 989   Saint-Guillain, “Cavalieri, feudatari, borghesi e altri vassalli”.

400

Chapter 3

could lead to short periods of abuse and despotic behaviour, but the long arm of Venetian justice was difficult to avoid.990 Some island lords concentrated their efforts on the populations and settlements of their territories – to name but Astypalaia,991 Antiparos, or Kimolos992 –, and on particularly appropriate products for export, cotton on Santorini, a highly prized commodity in Italy,993 cheese in Karpathos, horses and mules in other islands. Connectivity between even the smaller islands may have been at an increase,994 and ultimately the main items of trade appear to have been traded predominantly through Candia, based on the impression we get from the only extant sources, which may however be to some degree deceptive.995 At times Negroponte appears as an alternative,996 but unfortunately the two towns are very unevenly documented with respect to their commerce.997 Candia gained in commercial stature during this period, to some extent by virtue of the galley system which we have discussed.998 It was home to financiers who facilitated connections between the agricultural and commercial sectors,999 and was also the centre of private shipping in all directions, including the Cyclades and the Peloponnese, although more often than not Constantinople, the areas of the western Anatolian beyliks and those ruled in the same area by the Knights of St. John, and also Egypt.1000 The Knights themselves also purchased grain from the beyliks.1001 In the present period Candia, together with Constantinople, continued to function as one of the most important centres of the regional trade in slaves, who were sourced predominantly

990  See the case described in Saint-Guillain, “Nicolò Adoldo, seigneur de Sériphos”. 991  Specifically: Loenertz, “Les Querini. I”, p. 512 (1413). 992  Some of these kastron habitations are considered in Sanders, “Melos”, pp. 154–158. Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel et le coton de Santorin”. 993   994  Luttrell, “Life in the smaller Aegean islands”. 995   Saint-Guillain and Schmitt, “Ägäis”, p. 220; Gasparis, “Ducato dell’Egeo e Creta 13°–14° secolo”. 996  Jacoby, “An island world?”, p. 99. 997  Moschonas, “Εύριπος”. 998  Compare: Jacoby, “Creta e Venezia nel contesto economico” and Gasparis, “Trade of agricultural products in the eastern Mediterranean”. 999  This environment is best described in Gallina, Una società coloniale, pp. 95–139. See also in this chapter, p. 219. 1000  See especially Gallina, “La navigazione di cabotaggio a Creta”, and some remarks by Jacoby, “An island world?”, p. 103; For the specific case of Patmos: Saint-Guillain, “L’Apocalypse et le sens des affaires”. 1001  Fleet, “Turkish economy”, p. 240.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

401

from the Balkans and the Black Sea.1002 Candia was also a convenient place for Sicilians and Catalans to tap into commercial produce from the entire region.1003 In the Peloponnese itself certain changes were underway in the commercial map. If Clarentza was totally dominant in the earlier fourteenth century, the situation was different at the turn of the fifteenth. The difficult strategic and political situation of the principality is partially responsible for this. The relative stability offered by the archbishopric of Patra resulted in the rise of the latter town. We know for instance that 60,000–70,000 ducats worth of Venetian merchandise was present in the Patra in 1401.1004 This was a situation which no doubt persuaded the Venetians to seek the acquisition of the latter, which was achieved in 1408. In the southwest the commercial importance of Coron-Modon grew as the Venetian territories in Messenia expanded and agricultural exploitation increased. Concerted policies of the republic of Venice further inflated the roles which these colonies played.1005 Venetian Argos by contrast, after the tribulations of 1394–1397, established itself more naturally as a commercial hub, by virtue of the rich and varied produce its area offered and the ability of the Venetian administration to respect the pre-existing socio-economic order.1006 In these same years the main Byzantine harbours of Corinth and Monemvasia may also have gained in importance.1007 The late medieval Byzantine Peloponnese and its overall prosperity, or not, still holds many mysteries. Not only do the internal developments of these two key towns, and of Mystras, and indeed Sparta, still need to be described for the years around 1400, we are also in the dark about the socio-economic importance of locations such as Mouchli or Geraki,1008 as we are about the overall economic significance of the building boom in Byzantine churches which was 1002  Fleet, “Turkish economy”, p. 250. A great many relevant acts were drawn up by Giacomo dalla Torre in Constantinople, 1414–1416: see Sopracasa, Giacomo dalla Torre, esp. the analysis on pp. 79–132. 1003  Duran i Duelt, “Participació siciliana en el comerç oriental”, p. 84. 1004  Gerland, Neue Quellen, p. 90; Thiriet Régestes, 2, p. 21, no. 1030. 1005  Gertwangen, “The Port of Modon in the Venetian Commercial System of Foodstuffs”; Gertwagen, “Venetian Modon”; Karpov, “Ports of the Peloponnese”; Origone, “Travels between the Peloponnese and the Black Sea”. 1006  Haberstumpf, “Commercio veneziano ad Argo”; Koumanoudi, “Η κατάσταση του αγροτικού πληθυσμού του Άργους στα τέλη του 14ου αιώνα”. On the trading careers in agricultural produce of two Greek families in early fifteenth-century Nauplio, see Tzavara, “Devozione, violenza e uva passa”. 1007  Specifically on these Byzantine areas of the Peloponnese, see Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 322–326; Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, pp. 786–789. 1008  On Mouchli, see the numismatic evidence below; on Geraki, see for instance Moutsopoulos and Dimitrokallis, Γεράκι.

402

Chapter 3

perhaps analogous to the situation in the twelfth century.1009 It is undeniable that a certain administrative and political environment was required for such forms of Orthodox religious artistic expression. In Arta and its surroundings by contrast, building work and church decoration, which had flourished in earlier times, ceased during the same period.1010 One wonders whether the negative verdicts regarding the Peloponnese from contemporary Byzantine writers such as Plethon, or Kydones for instance,1011 were rhetorical, impressionistic, or biased. We have so far considered the complete Venetian domination of international trade in and out of Greece, and also local and private commerce within Greece which was conducted either by Greeks or Venetians. Genoese trade played virtually no role in Greece after mid-century.1012 We have also seen Catalans and Ragusans respectively in Attikoboiotia and in the Albanian and Epirote area. Nevertheless, Catalan and Ragusan merchants may also have been more prominent even in the Peloponnese than they had been in earlier times. The Venetian towns of Coron-Modon were their main ports of call,1013 and from the early years of the fifteenth century Ragusans were more prominent in Clarentza than even Venetians.1014 More remarkable yet was the rise of Ancona as a commercial power, which has its origins in earlier times when Ancona played a specific role in the central Adriatic, but which saw its peak from the last decades of the fourteenth century onwards.1015 This was linked to the wider geopolitical situation in Italy as well as in the Levant, but it also impinged on Greece. 12

1347/1348–1430: Money

In the previous phase, from the middle of the thirteenth to the middle of the fourteenth century, the momentous political, economic, and monetary changes underway in Greece were proportionate to one another. This ceased to be the case for the present period: broadly speaking, for the years after the Black

1009  Compare Chapter 1, p. 6. 1010  Papadopoulou, Arta; Giannoulis, Τοιχογραφίες των Βυζαντινών Μνημείων της Άρτας. 1011  Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 83. 1012  Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns”, p. 228. 1013   Laiou, “Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system”, p. 185; DourouIliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία”, p. 63. 1014  Schmitt, “Glarentza”, esp. p. 130. 1015  Ashtor, “Commercio levantino di Ancona”; Abulafia, “Commerce of the city of Ancona”.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

403

Death an increasing political diversity was matched by monetary harmonisation and simplification, which require our particular attention.1016 12.1 Monetisation The money supply for the present period, which has been estimated at an earlier point in this book,1017 saw a dramatic downturn from ca. 1350 onwards in the main currencies underlying the local Greek hyperpyra. Subsequently there was a recovery, with a peak around 1400 which may have been at the same level as a previous peak exactly 90 years earlier, i.e. the high point around 1310 which preceded the temporary collapse after the Catalan conquests. In making these comparisons one must always bear in mind the general cheapening of these same hyperpyra against the main Italian gold currencies in the second half of the century. The latter are indicated in Figure 2 on p. 184 as a grey area. It is uncertain to how much of an extent, if at all, the availability of gold may have compensated for the paucity in silver-based currencies. If it did, this would have been temporary and confined to certain areas and contexts, in line with the broad historical outlines in the last two discussions. The dichotomy between the super-abundance of ducats and florins in the written documentation which was used in the last two discussions, and the lack of pertinent numismatic data, especially gold hoards, during the last years of the Greek middle ages, seems at first view difficult to surmount, though must be sought to a large degree in the manner in which these currencies were used and exchanged. The same sources speak of astronomically high sums which were exchanged in the spheres of warfare and diplomacy. Again, none of our numismatic sources come anywhere near this order of magnitude,1018 but this had already been the case in our earlier period, underlining once more that our numismatic data can only grasp some of the original characteristics of monetisation. The degree to which monetisation and the overall size of the population may have been matched or mismatched is difficult to estimate. Also here one must presume great variation, and in some cases a downward race: especially for some areas of Epiros and Thessaly one wonders which of the respective 1016  As in the earlier discussions in this chapter on pp.  251–266 and 326–359, we will use here the data presented in the three appendices, and the extrapolated information in Chapter 2, pp. 101–105 (overview), 105–124 (sites), 124–149 (hoards), 149–153 (abandoned coins), 153–160 (different objects), 173–176 (control over the currency). We must also consider the discussion on money and the geography and population of Greece in this Chapter 3, pp. 200–217. 1017  Chapter 2, pp. 181–183. 1018  See Table 2 on pp. 129–130: the most valuable hoard recorded for medieval Greece is valued at less than 500 hyperpyra by our calculations.

404

Chapter 3

‘paucities’ may have been more extreme, that of people or of money. The Peloponnese may have been more intensively monetised during these years, yet qualitative and quantitative shortcomings were apparently also felt there since Plethon advocated a return to payments in kind. The uncertainties surrounding some of these questions, which may be contrasted with the rather clearer picture that emerged for the preceding phase in medieval Greek monetary history, is a reflection on the available material and written sources, and also on the much greater fragmentation of the regions of Greece in terms of their political fates and the socio-economic progressions. 12.2 Petty Cash and Urbanisation The situation after 1350 was somewhat different to that in our previous two phases. The stock of Byzantine and Byzantine-style copper coinages, tetartera and trachea, which came to Greece in large quantities between the mid-twelfthcentury reign of Emperor Manuel I, and the early decades of the thirteenth, which was then continued by petty denomination issues, and which persisted in the following decades mostly in urban contexts, was arguably no longer available. This is not to say that similar urban payments – commercial or fiscal for instance – did not persist, on the contrary! What happened after 1350 was that the currencies which increasingly underpinned the hyperpyra of account bore in themselves the hallmarks of petty cash, including a significant fiduciary element: the coins in question were the Venetian torneselli, and to a lesser degree their Byzantine and Naxian derivatives. A single genuine tornesello coin did not contain any more silver, at perhaps 0.05g, than a small module Latin billon trachy of the early thirteenth century. There was also in the present period again a significant tournois counterfeiting wave, both in the western and eastern Mainland and parts of the Peloponnese. Some of these counterfeits were specifically identified with the Navarrese, others with Charles I of Tocco. Some were cancelled in urban centres such as Clarentza, but the coins themselves remained available for usage as petty cash, although some were apparently purposefully dumped.1019 The true extent of tornesello counterfeiting still has not been explored. Another different but rather humble wave of small cash reached Greece in the years just after the lower chronological limit of this book, in the shape of copper coins from Dalmatia and southern Italy.1020 Other lesser coins of foreign origin, which will have arrived in Greece in earlier times, also came to the fore in our

1019  Chapter 2, pp. 152–153. 1020  Appendix II.12, pp. 1508–1509.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

405

present period in which the overall quality of monetisation was deteriorating, and were for instance hoarded more often than previously.1021 In summary, from about the 1380s onwards, when torneselli appeared in earnest and counterfeiting increased again, Greece regained to a certain degree its tradition in small value coins which were prolifically available at urban sites. The process of urbanisation itself in our period was more limited than previously. Athens, and again Corinth and Clarentza, are important sites with numismatic data, Thebes now slightly less so. Considering the statistical overviews provided by Table 1,1022 and the discussion of typical and atypical sites,1023 we notice for instance that the two Athenian units «238» and «239» have produced very considerable tornesello totals as compared for instance to earlier petty denomination issues. Clarentza («262»), whose existence largely post-dates the issue of petty denomination issues, had an extended life in the fifteenth century which may have tailed off somewhat, although it remained rich in petty cash not merely on account of torneselli, but also the very prolific tournois counterfeits. At Corinth (i.e. the ‘Central Area’) the fourteenth century was never as well developed as the thirteenth in view of the comparative single losses of tournois and torneselli. A large gap between ca. 1310 and the 1360s must account for this. In relative terms, some of the Corinthian locations which are the best developed, and which have produced the largest amounts of petty cash, are those away from the ‘Central Area’, for example «223. Acrocorinth», «305. Kenchreai», and «271. Corinth» (the Kraneion basilica), and of course «296. Isthmia». Even «351. Sparta» (the akropolis) produced as many torneselli as tournois, while at the nearby sanctuary of Artemis Orthia («352») the gap in activities was even larger than that at the usual Corinthian locations, spanning the entire period between the petty denomination issues of the 1250s and the torneselli of the 1380s, when the area became relatively vibrant again. We noted in the last discussion that the pottery reports for these respective sites often seem to lack any form of concentration for precisely those years in which the numismatic evidence becomes prolific again. It would seem to me an obvious problem which might require addressing. Usually, however, the urbanisation of Greece in this period must be brought in connection with Venice itself, as we have seen in our previous discussions. Unfortunately very few numismatic data are currently available in this regard, especially for Coron-Modon (see merely «320. Methoni») and Negroponte (for Patra, see below in this discussion). The two Argive units in Table 1 («234» and «236») are both in their own 1021  Chapter 2, pp. 134–135. 1022  Pp. 112–117. 1023  Pp. 120–124.

406

Chapter 3

ways not statistically useful for broad comparisons between the thirteenth and the early fifteenth centuries. The soldini and torneselli at «234» suggest at least some vibrancy in the Venetian town, after its re-dimensioning following the difficult 1394–1397 period. Data for nearby Nauplio have only recently been made available (see «321. Nauplio» and especially Chapter 4, p. 428) and are altogether more revealing. 12.3 Venetian System Leading on from the last point, it is right to focus now on Venice, since the republic provided the single most coherent political and economic vision for our territories in the last phase, and the Greek currency was in these years dominated by Venetian coin issues. To give a picture, hoards «164»–«208» concealed in our period contained about 39,000 Venetian coins as against ca. 14,500 non-Venetian coins. What is more, in excess of 90% of the latter were residual Greek deniers tournois which were not even produced in the current post-1350 period. This last fact alone warns us at the same time about the potential shortcomings of the Venetian currencies, which were promoted so much by their issuer (see below). This all embracing monetary policy of the republic and her colonies also stands in contrast to the previous situation, whereby the appearance in Greece of certain Venetian currencies was primarily the result of commerce, personal movements, and more marginally of payments which were undertaken within the structures of empire. This situation only changed with the soldino of the 1330s, a precursor of the tornesello in some of its attributes. We have already argued in the previous discussion that the direct profitability, or not, of the colonial empire to the republic was one of the main differences between the present and the previous periods. Monetary policy was a significant ingredient in this shift. At the beginning of our present period stands the introduction of the tornesello coinage at the Venice mint, which occurred in 1353, at a short or even very short temporal distance from the last minting of tournois at Clarentza. This step underlines the serious intent of the republic towards her Greek colonies, at a time, as we explored in the last two discussions, when Angevin rule in Italy and Greece was in extreme crisis. Yet, the introduction of the tornesello was no less controversial than that of the soldino a couple of decades previously. The Greek hoards certainly suggest teething problems, as does the entire Moreote system of account in the transition from the sterling to the soldo.1024 Yet by the 1370s or 1380s – again according to the hoards and 1024  Appendix III.3, p. 1522ff.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

407

the monies of account – these currencies had found their respective positions in Greece as means of saving and transferring wealth. There were some fluctuations determined by preferences and occasionally by the workings of Gresham’s Law, but both currencies remained in regular usage throughout our period. The local authorities, Venetian or otherwise, also did not engage in any large-scale withdrawals of torneselli during the decades from the 1370s to the 1420s.1025 This saturation in coins was an important contributing factor in the eventual discontinuation of the coinage at the Venice mint towards the end of our period.1026 Another was the hostility which the tornesello faced in the northern Albanian colonies, a part of the Venetian empire which was gaining in importance in this period. The tendency to retain or revert to tournois – an implicit rejection of torneselli – can be found in the numismatic record for all areas of Greece: the territories ruled for a short time by the Knights of St. John around the Gulf of Corinth (see below), the western Mainland («165», see also some grave inclusions at «214. Athenian Agora»), the eastern Mainland («167», «170»), and the Peloponnese («168»). These hoards in combination underline an occasional disaffection with official Venetian monetary designs for Greece. The silver content of a tornesello coin was considerably smaller than even a quarter soldino (its face value), and especially an earlier Greek tournois coin (its value equivalent within the hyperpyron accounting system). Therein lay its attractiveness to the Venetian authorities. This was all the more necessary since the empire in Greece had become infinitely more expensive for the republic in this period, especially militarily. In the previous discussions we have seen examples of expenditure, and have also been given estimates on costs, especially of warfare, which were variously paid centrally or by the colonial authorities. The respective hoards of armour and large quantities of torneselli from Chalkida, which post-date this book, give vivid impressions of the Venetian defences at work.1027 Some of the decisions of the Venetian state bodies show us furthermore how manipulative the republic could be in the application of favourable rates for their minor denominations.1028 Through rigorous disseminations of these overvalued currencies the republic squeezed the local resources, but also those resources which had been sent from Venice to the colonies, especially manpower. The cementation of Venetian rule through coinage also occurred in other ways: currency was at the 1025  Chapter 2, pp. 173–174. 1026  Compare the discussion in Appendix II.4.F p.  1326, where the different reasons, some technical, are given. 1027  See «211. Chalkida» and Chapter 2, pp.  158–159. See further Kontogiannis, “EuriposNegroponte-Eğriboz”, pp. 40–41. 1028  Appendix III.3, p. 1551.

408

Chapter 3

heart of an extensive system of fines and indirect taxes which ensured social control and cohesion. Torneselli in particular were sent out in large quantities by the republic. Yet, in certain colonial contexts, as we have already underlined in the previous discussion with reference to the monies of account, the soldino remained the denomination of choice until a fairly late period. This is borne out by some numismatic evidence, for example the soldino hoards «184. Eretria 1962B» and «190. Mesopotam». No less important, in a similar vein, is the Messenian Grivitza 1867 hoard and again the new data for Nauplio, both mentioned in Chapter 4, pp. 427–428. In the second half of the fourteenth century coin issuance at the Venice mint was not limited to these two denominations. The production of gold ducats augmented steadily in the second and third quarters of the century,1029 and new grossi of types 2 and 3 were successively introduced in the 1379 and 1394 respectively. The dissemination of both of these currencies towards Greece is not always easy to reconstruct. The situation for the grossi is perhaps a bit clearer, since we can be fairly certain that these never or extremely seldomly came to the territories under investigation. They were, however, quite prominent in the Asian and European parts of the Ottoman state around 1400, and even more so in the Levant.1030 This would have been the result of commerce between Venice and these areas, and in turn reflects rather negatively on the situation in Greece. As we have highlighted elsewhere, actual gold ducats are more elusive in the official Venetian sources dating from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards because of the nature in which monies were cited.1031 Ducat hoards are relatively sparse: some are more suggestive of commercial ties (in the case of the Epirote «162. Nea Sampsous»), others of administrative ties (the Euboian «166»1032), but this is rather impressionistic. The hoards concentrate in the middle of the century (the third relevant Greek hoard, «143», dates one or two decades earlier), at a time when output in Venice was the highest and when the Anatolian imitations commenced. In this book we rejected the attributions of any of the latter to authorities in our territories. From the ample yet difficult information currently available we must conclude that Venetian gold ducats came to Greece through official Venetian administrative channels for certain high level payments in the colonial context; second, through the international money market which was supporting the political endeavours of the protagonists throughout Greece; and third, as part of Italian 1029  Appendix II.4.D, p. 1306. 1030  Chapter 1, p. 52, no. 300. 1031  Appendix III.6, pp. 1575–1581. 1032  Compare p. 344 in this chapter.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

409

(or Iberian) commerce in Greece. Next, this gold coinage would have been used by a certain class within urban (Venetian) Greece to preserve and transfer its wealth.1033 In such contexts these gold coins might have been weighed in bulk, in exagia, sometimes strung up (“auri filati”). Similar masses of silver, sometimes assembled in belts, were used for similar purposes.1034 But we may also surmise that a good percentage of this gold coinage, once in Greece, left our territories again, either for specific payments in the political/feudal context, or to be stored elsewhere, or indeed for the purchase of incoming goods. The commercial dimension is explored further below. 12.4 Elusive Contributors to the Monetisation of Greece If the role of the republic of Venice in shaping the monetisation of Greece after ca. 1347/1348 was absolutely central, then it is much more difficult to pinpoint the contributions of the remaining polities and ruling dynasties of Greece in the period until the first three decades of the fifteenth century: the latter can be summed up as the Angevins, Hospitallers and Naverrese, the Catalans and Florentines, the Serbs and Albanians, the Byzantines and Ottomans, and the lords of the Archipelago. The starkest picture is offered by the Angevins in the Peloponnese and Epiros/Albania. Whereas previously the authorities in Naples and Taranto had offered monetary solutions to key military, and feudal/administrative challenges within these territories, it is very difficult indeed to discern any Angevin monetary designs for Greece after the closure of the mint of Clarentza. An interesting case in point in this respect is the period of the Neapolitan civil war from the later 1370s between the main Anjou and Durazzescho lines. The rapid successions of kings and princes, Joanna, Charles III, Louis II, and then Ladislas, also had bearings on Greece, but our territories were completely unaffected by the intense and diverse monetary production (including deniers tournois) which one could witness in certain areas of the Regno as part of the strife for superiority.1035 The kinds of large scale monetary or bullion transfers from Italy to Greece which we know from earlier phases of Angevin colonial history, involving gros and deniers tournois, florins and grossi, or simply quantities of silver and copper, were largely absent in the later year. The only similar scenario which we may observe in the numismatic sources concerns one particular gigliato type issued at Naples: so-called group 4 may well have been minted during 1033  See the examples given in Appendix III.6, p. 1378. 1034  Appendix III.7, p. 1585. 1035  Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1478.

410

Chapter 3

the short Hungarian occupation of the city (1348) and subsequently systematically offloaded towards the east, though not necessarily, and certainly not exclusively, to the Greek colonies.1036 Just a couple of denari of the Regno dating between 1343 and 1430 have been found in Greece, which must be considered no more than incidental.1037 It is still of note that the local authorities in Clarentza, the most important town in the principality and also for some of this period the most active commercial location in the peninsula – whether under Angevin, or later Navarrese or Tocco rule – evidently continued to be intent on controlling and eliminating undesirable currencies, whether these were Hungarian soldini in the 1370s– 1380s, or counterfeit tournois about a couple of decades later. This is all the more remarkable since during the main tornesello phase of Greek monetisation there was generally very little withdrawal of currency by the authorities, as we have seen. Even in the Ionian Islands the Tocco rulers were evidently more tolerant of the Hungarian issues.1038 It is not certain whether the Angevins, as overlords in the Cyclades according to the settlements in the middle of the thirteenth century, had any influence at all on the shape of the rare Naxian coin issues of the second half of the fourteenth (see below). We argue in this book that the decision to close the Clarentza mint was presumably taken in 1347/1348, or perhaps in 1353, as an immediate consequence of an impasse that was encountered. It is nevertheless remarkable that this step was not subsequently reversed: the memory of a profitable and useful minting operation must have been preserved. On the other hand, it is possible that before the collapse, the profit from the mint of Clarentza had benefitted private individuals or families/firms, possibly of Florentine origin, rather than the Angevin fisc directly, and that the same had also suffered considerably during the years of the Black Death. Also, the Venetian soldino and tornesello will have quickly represented ample and compatible currencies to the Angevin authorities, and perhaps also the changing mechanics and scale of commerce in and out of the Peloponnese may have made local minting less compelling. If the Angevins had ever contemplated a relaunch of a Greek coinage, this would logically have occurred in the 1350s. By the 1360s and 1370s the challenges which their rule faced had increased considerably, and the new monetary conditions, fashioned by the republic of Venice, had taken hold. We must nevertheless underline once more, especially in the light of the great amounts of public and private wealth which, according to the sources explored in the last 1036  Appendix II.11.B, p. 1504. 1037  Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1327–1340. 1038  Chapter 2, p. 176.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

411

two discussions, was still being extracted from Angevin territories especially in the Peloponnese and Corfu, how remarkable it is that there should not have been any greater desire to influence and dictate the shape of the monetary specie in usage there. One may have expected some pressure in this direction also from their Hospitaller allies, who were entering Achaïan politics and feudal structures heavily in the 1350s and 1360s. These two factors – the dominance of Venetian currencies and the dip in trade which may have decreased the supply of good metals to Greece – may also have been significant to other polities which began to establish themselves in south-central Greece: the Navarrese who were ascendant in the last decades of the fourteenth century, the Acciaiuoli of Corinth and Attica, the Tocco rulers of Ionia and the Peloponnese, or the Hospitallers, again in the same areas. What unites these various Latin rulers is the short-lived nature of much of their rule, the uncertainties of this rule, and shifting geographical parameters – notice the military and political peregrinations described in the previous discussion. Also, none of these polities were stably established in one of the main urban and commercial centres which might have provided the kind of environment to support a mint. In fact, the persistent warfare between these parties will have impacted negatively both on urbanisation and commerce, as well as on finances. Even the Acciaiuoli, well established in very lucrative territories, spent most of their revenue on warfare, and also famously needed to borrow more money for the same purpose from Cremolisi.1039 Regarding specifically the Tocco rulers of Ionia and Epiros, it has now been established that these were not responsible for any denier tournois issues on the island of Leukada, as had been thought in the past. The coins in question were minted with great likelihood at the town of Tocco in Abruzzo.1040 The Tocco may have pursued a more active monetary policy in their Peloponnesian possessions, where they may variously either have encouraged the counterfeiting of tournois, or withdrawn the same from circulation (see below and above respectively). Further north the numismatic information is limited to some island hoards which are in general terms testimony to an increased vitality under Tocco rule, and a few other hoards which can be viewed within the general military and commercial history of the eastern Mainland and Epiros.1041 The same Navarrese also wreaked havoc in certain parts of the Peloponnese before finding an accommodation with the locally established powers: again, there is numismatic evidence to vouch for the violence of these developments. 1039  Giannakopoulos, Δουκάτο των Αθηνών. Η κυριαρχία των Acciaiuoli, pp. 94–95. 1040  Appendix II.9.K, p. 1478. 1041  P. 149.

412

Chapter 3

Sometime thereafter, the military campaigns conducted by the Knights Hospitallers around the eastern end of the Gulf of Corinth also left a pattern of hoards and other finds.1042 There were nevertheless marked differences in the monetary policies and responsibilities of these two organisations of fighting men who both ruled parts of southern Greece during short but very intense periods. The Knights of St. John pursued a developed economic and fiscal policy in their territories in the period 1397–1404, in the course of which the thesaurised stock of older tournois came to the fore again.1043 There are also some finds of petty cash in the Peloponnese which underline the movements of people from Rhodes during the 1370s and 1390s.1044 Before this, large parts of the northeastern Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland had for a short while, before the arrival of the Knights and the Ottomans, been united by Nerio Acciaiuoli. The curious «185. Kalapodi» of soldini and denars would seem to underline the proximity to Venetian Negroponte but also the lack of interest in culling the Hungarian issues, as had been done by the Angevin authorities in the western Peloponnese.1045 The significant tornesello hoard «187. Thebes 1973», and some of the Theban and Boiotian stray finds already referred to in this discussion (as well as the two torneselli at «339. Orchomenos»), date to the years of the Acciaiuoli as well. Earlier, the Catalans had already been established since 1311 in the eastern Mainland, where they ruled over territories which were heavily urbanised and economically vibrant, without however any consistent monetary policies. After 1350 they faced significant strategic and political challenges. By the time the constitutional re-structuring took place in favour of Barcelona around 1380, the duchies had already been mortally wounded. An assessment of the economy of these territories in their last Catalan phases has also been rather inconclusive, yet the total theoretical value of the duchies to whomever had the right to exploit their resources was still considerable. Great public and private wealth was still assembled there, and more may have been sent from Sicily on behalf of King and Duke Frederick IV (III): this was, amongst other destinations, spent on urgent matters such as defence, for instance in the employment of Anatolian Turkish mercenaries, and made available on the local money markets to shape political constellations and to gain further profit. It is perhaps possible that commerce, especially with Iberia, actually augmented in this particular period. Our evidence in this respect comes from ceramics 1042  Chapter 2, pp. 148–149. 1043  Baker, “Corinthe” and Chapter 2, p. 174. 1044  Appendix II.6.A, pp. 1343–1344; Appendix II.6.D, pp. 1346–1347. 1045  Compare also the Hungarian denar from «239. Athens».

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

413

and the realm of monies of account.1046 Nevertheless, there are absolutely no numismatic data which can increase our knowledge of public and private finance in this last phase of Catalan domination. In fact the hoards, which combine the usual deniers tournois, soldini, and latterly torneselli (compare «161», «167», «170», «171», «173») are decidedly undistinctive, with the partial exception of «167» and its single carlino. There is some minor written evidence that the latter currency was still used in Boiotia in the middle of the century. The stray data are quite sparse for the years ca. 1350–1380. There are useful runs of soldini and torneselli at the Athenian Agora («238» and «239»), and to a much lesser extent at the Agia Triada plot at Thebes («354») and inside the Kadmeia of the same town («356» and «360»). «298. Kallipolis» had been numismatically inactive before the tornesello phase, and the first numismatic manifestation at «290. Eutresis» since the 1320s dates to around the 1370s. The evidence at «340. Panakto» intensifies also for the years between the 1360s and 1380s. In parallel hereto, there is some information that the usual payments occurring within the land regime of the Catalan areas used hyperpyra and their subdivisions just like any other territory of southern Greece.1047 Often, however, the only visible monetary consequences of the involvements of these varying polities in the affairs of Mainland Greece, Thessaly, and Epiros, were again distinct hoarding patterns.1048 It is to be doubted that the large amounts of money deployed for warfare by Catalans, Navarrese, Hospitallers, or Florentines according to the sources – often expressed in Italian or other western gold – would have been entirely extracted from these cash strapped territories. A large proportion was acquired through constitutional allegiances or through political allies, or via the sophisticated international money market, as we have seen for the case of Nerio.1049 We must assume, nevertheless, that once such currencies had penetrated Greece, they were recycled for much the same (military) payments and other public purposes. One example that can be given is Charles I of Tocco’s display of largesse upon entering Ioannina. They may also have been used in commercial contexts, as we suggest below. We cannot fail to be struck by the fact that counterfeiting of tournois, and finally also of torneselli, emanated to a large degree from the territories controlled by the Navarrese, the Tocco, and the Acciaiuoli, according to the numismatic and diplomatic evidence.1050 There are a number of possible 1046  Compare Appendix III.3, pp. 1538–1540. 1047  See again Appendix III.3, pp. 1536–1537. 1048  Chapter 3, p. 212. 1049  Chapter 3, pp. 217–224. 1050  Appendix II.4.F.2, pp. 1331–1332; Appendix II.9.M, p. 1488; Chapter 2, p. 174.

414

Chapter 3

explanations for this: these were the areas around the Gulf of Corinth which were anyhow the most urbanised and monetised. Also, here the issuance, or at least the toleration, of sub-standard currencies might have had political motives. Yet we must also concede that our impressions have been largely forged by Venice, and perhaps only the republic was meticulous enough to make complaints and to produce the relevant paperwork. Albanians moved into Greece in large numbers from the mid-fourteenth century. Their demographic impact was quite distinctive and of great significance. In a previous section we have already surmised that the great paucity in numismatic data for later medieval inland areas of Epiros and Thessaly may in some measure be explained through the introduction of these new populations. The dichotomy in this phase with the much more monetised Peloponnese, or even the Cyclades, is quite remarkable.1051 By contrast, the short-lived Epirote state formations under Albanian leadership do not seem to have operated any differently to their contemporaries: exploiting the acquired resources to sustain the military effort, receiving and deploying monies in this process, for instance in the exactions of bribes or the payments of Turkish mercenaries. Serbian conquest and rule was in parts more peaceful and more consensual, with respect to the existing populations and the established personal and economic relations, than is often assumed. This is borne out by our numismatic findings. The Serbs failed to make any significant monetary mark on these vast Epirote and Thessalian territories – with the exception of a very humble wave of hoarding (certainly when compared to the other violent events of these regions, which have already been discussed in terms of their monetary repercussions).1052 The Serbs also introduced some of the domestic Serbian and related specie (the latter in the shape of the piece from the Bulgarian appanage in Vidin found at Riziani).1053 The usefulness of this numismatic evidence lies mostly in pinpointing the area which saw the most intense Serbian interest, the inland connection between Ioannina and the Ambracian Gulf. The short-lived adoption of the “de cruce” accounting system in the extreme northwest largely pre-dates the period of conquest, and had a commercial rather than political significance. Further, the Serbs fostered some monetary movements between Epiros/Thessaly and Macedonia/Thessaly, for instance the inferior, coppery Artan tournois. Yet this would have been part of a longer drawn out process determined mostly by monetary conditions. In the light of the overall monetary policy adopted by the Serbs in Greece (indeed lack 1051  Chapter 3, pp. 211–212 and 217. 1052  Chapter 2, p. 147. 1053  See p. 80 and in this Chapter 3, p. 211.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

415

thereof), it is impossible that they would themselves have engaged in the imitative minting of this locally-established Artan type as has sometimes been mooted. While some Dalmatian locations had a Serbian phase of mintage, one may well imagine that the Serbian elites conquering ‘Roman’ territories in the proper sense held the traditions of the latter – also the monetary ones – in high enough regard to limit changes and to keep the introduction of external practices to a minimum. This is perfectly in harmony with the Serbian attitudes to Greece in general, as developed in the previous two discussions. Apart from the specific case of the Artan issues, during the period ca. 1300– 1350, as we have seen, the monetary connections between Greece and Byzantine Macedonia were altogether quite weak. The situation regarding links with Thrace and Constantinople was a little bit more developed, in line perhaps with commercial connections and the beginnings of the galley system. The Byzantine coinage system all but collapsed around 1350. Even the reforms at Constantinople of John V in ca. 1372 were in many respects a false dawn. The new silver stavraton coinage was large and unwieldy and metrologically awkward in its relation to the (gold) hyperpyron of account, the silver aspron was minted specifically to maintain relations with the Ottomans, and the overall rates of production for the tornesi was as low as that of the other two denominations. When Despot Theodore I first became a vassal of the Ottomans in 1387, John V had already reclaimed his throne from his son Andronikos IV for a number of years, and had resumed with the mintage of a silver coinage at Constantinople. Perhaps some of these issues were supplied to his son Theodore for the purpose of paying tribute? We have to await the reign of Manuel II Palaiologos, son of John and brother of Theodore, first as co-emperor and then as sole emperor, before Greece received again consignments of coins – albeit in very small quantities – from the Constantinople and Thessalonike mints which can be certified by actual finds. The products of the latter which have been found in a small hoard from the Athenian Agora may specifically have benefitted from the collapse of Serbian rule in Thessaly and temporary Byzantine ascendancy under the Philanthropenoi in the course of the 1370s and 1380s. It is of even greater curiosity that the same Manuel launched some time later (in the 1390s) the first official ‘Roman’ coinage production in the Peloponnese for more than a millennium, precisely at the time when this Roman rule in the peninsula and Constantinople appeared to be nearing its end in the face of the Ottoman onslaught.1054 On the existing evidence, this tornese coinage, which was perhaps minted at Monemvasia or 1054  Appendix II.1.E.3, pp. 1272–1273.

416

Chapter 3

somewhere else in Lakonia, was ample and may have dominated the despotate for a while, and it also managed to spread towards the north during the momentous political and military events involving Despot Theodore I, Nerio Acciaiuoli, Charles I of Tocco, and the Hospitallers. Despite this rather impressive late flourish in Byzantine coinage, the total lack of silver half-hyperpyra, and their halves and eighths, in the name of Manuel II Palaiologos from our areas is again, as with the Palaiologan gold hyperpyra in the period from the 1300s to the 1330s, notable and requires a similar kind of explanation: if any of these coins ever did enter Thessaly or the Peloponnese in these years, then they would have been most logically returned to Constantinople through monetary mechanisms since in the capital territory they could more easily benefit from the overvaluation which the Byzantine authorities had very likely foreseen for them. As the evidence stands at present, our numismatic data are not particularly conclusive with respect to the perennial question of the degree, or not, of the fiscal integration of the despotate with the remainder of the empire in the years before and after 1400. The first tangible influence of the Ottomans on the monetisation of our area may have lain in the payments of salaries to mercenaries and of outright bribes and tributes. All previously discussed polities, for instance Byzantines and Venetians, the Acciaiuoli and Tocchi, or the Albanians, paid off the Ottomans in one form or another in the course of the present period. Many examples have been given in the preceding narratives. In Byzantium, as we have just seen, monetary production catered directly for these eventualities. This was not at all the case in Greece itself. We must presume that such payments were made by all parties either in the form of fine silver coins: the Venetian soldino is the most obvious candidate because of its availability, fineness, and superficial resemblance to the Ottoman currency: it is in fact now proven that it enjoyed some circulation in places such as Thrace, Constantinople, or western Anatolia. Second, tribute in particular may have been paid intermittently in Constantinopolitan silver coinage should the despots have received such currencies, as we have just mentioned, or in silver gigliati, as we have stressed on a number of occasions. Very few numismatic data pertaining to Greece are available for this latter currency, but we may surmise that it arrived in Greece in some quantities, and we know that a substantial amount of it reached western Anatolia (and perhaps even Thrace) in the decades either side of 1350. Lastly, tributes may also increasingly have been paid in Italian gold coins, and these often fall under the archaeological radar, as we have already seen. A great many Turks were introduced to Greece before and especially after 1402, and commerce revived right across Ottoman parts of Greece – in the entire area between the Ionian Sea and the Pagasetic Gulf. The almost total absence of Ottoman

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

417

coins in the sources and in the numismatic record is quite startling.1055 One must conclude that, at least as a partial explanation, the authorities did not have an active policy of introducing Ottoman monetary specie to these newly acquired areas. On the other hand, as with any potential Byzantine silver coinages (stavrata and their fractions), any such akčes entering Greece may rapidly have returned to the areas in Thrace and Bithynia from which they had originated. Even the different Ottoman raids into the Peloponnese1056 have produced merely a handful of hoards which can be associated, often only in the vaguest sense, with the military events (see «179», «180», «182», and «208»). The monetary policy of the dukes at Naxos, by contrast, sought to cater for local issues in one or two instances during the period 1353–1383. This began within favourable economic and political conditions, precisely in the period in which the Sanudi acquired ascendancy and when the closure of the Clarentza mint cast some doubt on the money supply for these islands. It is quite possible that the violent end to the Sanudi and the dynastic change in 1383 cut short a monetary production which in a different political climate may well have continued. Whatever the case may have been, the issues of the local mint at Naxos have so far failed to leave any significant mark on the numismatic record, yet this record may also be flawed.1057 12.5 Economy and the Late Medieval Monetary Crisis in Greece The main monetary and numismatic indicators suggest that Greece suffered a general demographic and economic downturn and partook in the late medieval monetary crisis, like many other parts of Europe. Yet Greece was politically significantly different to large areas of western, southwestern and central Europe: it was a Latin overseas construct built on Byzantine foundations, which was under mortal Ottoman threat. In this context the colonial traits were coming to the fore and the acute monetary crisis which resulted in the cheapening of the entire monetary and accounting systems could not merely be a hindrance, but might actually be exploited. The one remaining viable colonial power, Venice, did precisely that. It turned this situation in its favour, as we have seen, and supported in this way its own colonial infrastructure, and its particular colonial economy which benefitted the republic and its citizens alike. Yet everybody else could of course make use of the resulting monetary specie, soldini and torneselli, and partake in the Greek economy at increasingly favourable rates. After initial teething problems of the tornesello, 1055  Compare Appendix II.1.F, p. 1277; Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1353. 1056  Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest” p. 7. 1057  Chapter 2, p. 102; Chapter 3, p. 214; Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494.

418

Chapter 3

which can be inferred from irregular hoarding patterns, our numismatic record then becomes correspondingly very rich in these currencies. Many of the sites abounded especially in torneselli, and the same currency managed to eventually provide the means for the hoarding of very valuable assemblages.1058 With respect to the economic development of Greece around the year 1400, we have already discussed some of the urban numismatic phenomena: Athens and Sparta were, perhaps surprisingly, vibrant all the way to the end of our period; Corinth was on a slow ascendancy again after a calamitous fourteenth century; while developments at Clarentza and Thebes were tendentially decadent. Various locations on the island of Naxos show perhaps in combination, compared to all of this, the most remarkable trajectory anywhere in Greece.1059 More so than in our previous period, wealth was gathered in the hands of the few. The urban centres of Greece and the courts of the different potentates provided the setting for a new breed of capitalists, who were prepared to invest their funds in commercial and political/military ventures alike. Very substantial loans are particularly well documented for this period.1060 This wealth was usually amassed and expressed in terms of gold florins and ducats, which by this stage had developed into major coinages throughout Europe, though often flying above the numismatic radar. The Catalan eastern Mainland was an area of monetary vibrancy from the 1350s to the 1370s as we have already seen. This had different reasons, for instance the continued lucrative slave trade for at least the initial part of this period, and the privileged access to the territories by certain Iberian elites. Nevertheless, the cheapening of our area’s produce must also account for a substantial part of these monetary developments – in fact, as we have already seen, its monetisation on the ground took the very usual shape of the overvalued Venetian soldino and tornesello currencies (see above in this discussion). This stands in contrast to the evidence of pottery, which suggests Iberian connections precisely in these years much more emphatically. The area of Epiros and Ionia was, despite the very damaging military events which dominated it for much of the later medieval period, and which caused many of the coin hoards to be concealed and/or not retrieved, was actually, according to the evidence of these hoards, monetarily quite sophisticated. We notice hoards containing ducats («162. Nea Sampsous 1982»), and tournois and soldini («165. Agrinio 1967»; «169. Ermitsa 1985B»), and torneselli («195. Zakynthos 1978»; «197. Kephallonia»; «199. Sterea Ellada»; «204. Leukada

1058  Chapter 2, pp. 122 and 131. 1059  Compare Chapter 2, p. 124. 1060  Chapter 3, p. 219.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

419

1933»; «206. Arta 1985B»). The Corfiot hinterland naturally benefitted from Venetian official or private activities (see «183. Butrint», and «257. Butrint»; and the significant soldino hoard «190. Mesopotam»). The evidence from «237. Arta» is altogether quite disappointing and may suggest something amiss with the data themselves, perhaps the excavated areas were no longer the most relevant for this phase of the town’s history. The one redeeming feature is again the emphasis on soldini, which can also be witnessed on the opposite side of the Ambracian Gulf at Kalydon (see Chapter 4, p. 472). There were also some quantities of torneselli at «304. Kato Vasiliki» and «341. Pantanassa», from the general area. We must conclude that one’s appreciation and knowledge of the area’s commerce in the last phase before the Ottoman conquests can be significantly enhanced by the addition of numismatic data, perhaps more so than for any other of our Greek areas. The overwhelming impression we are left with is that the integration occurred also here via the Venetian mude, supported by private (again largely Venetian) commerce. There is little trace here of the Ragusans and Florentines whom we know from the sources, but of course numismatics provides a relative and approximative, and not always accurate, picture: the data from present-day Albania may not be complete, or the soldini and torneselli may have been so overwhelming as to drown out all other forms of evidence. On the other hand, according to the sources, Ragusans were very adept at adopting the monies which prevailed in the different areas in which they traded, for instance the area between Cattaro and Durazzo, or Romania proper. In the latter, we see a preponderance of hyperpyra and ducats of account, both no doubt also here shorthands for the lesser Venetian denominations.1061 Further to the south, the area of the Peloponnese which was economically the most active remained Elis: the monetary conditions there bear witness to this, and have already been treated in a specific study.1062 We notice that the decline of this area from ca. 1400 is underlined by the excavation data of Clarentza and the hoards alike. Particularly on the ascendancy, according to the analysis in our previous discussion, were Patra and Lakonia, and also some of the Aegean islands, especially Naxos. The numismatic data for Patra and Achaïa are indeed quite varied, especially if one adds the new information referred to in Chapter 4, pp. 427–428 (in addition to «176. Achaïa» and possibly a hoard of jettons of uncertain dating,1063 there is now Patra 1939; Patra 1061  Appendix III.4, pp. 1559–1564. 1062  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”. Compare «168. Elis 1964»; «174. Ancient Elis»; «175. Pyrgos 1967»; «188. Gastouni 1961», and «262. Clarentza». There are also some more stray finds: «226. Agrapidochori»; «260. Chelidoni»; «291. Gastouni»; «310. Krestena»; «313. Lepreo/Strovitzi»; «317. Mazi/Skillountia». 1063  See Chapter 2, p. 159, n. 334.

420

Chapter 3

1978, and Vasiliko in Achaïa. See also the stray finds from «342. Paos» and «343. Patra»). The area of the despotate has given us a respectable range of hoards of soldini and torneselli, and of course Byzantine tornesi («172. Soudeli»; «179. Velimachio»; «180. Mystras»; «194. Sparta 1926A & B»; «200. Gortyna»; «208. Morea 1849»; as well as the unpublished Sparta hoard of late torneselli). There are the odd stray finds from the Byzantine Peloponnese (for instance «308. Kleitoria». «353. Tegea» and «378. Tigani» would bear investigating in this context), and the very significant concentrations at Sparta, already addressed in this discussion, and at Mouchli, which are presented more extensively in Chapter 4, p. 446. After the death of Nerio Acciaiuoli in 1394 and the aggressive policies of Theodore I, parts of the Corinthia and the Argolis became Byzantine again. Despite the almost immediate involvement of the Knights of St. John, and the Ottoman incursions which began again soon after the battle of Ankara, it is possible that in some way the integration of these territories into a larger imperial Peloponnesian bloc created some stability and facilitated commerce, thereby introducing the usual torneselli. This may partially account for the further upsurge of the Corinth and Isthmia area after 1400, and also some other Corinthian and Argive finds («182. Troizina», «314. Ligourio», «344. Nemea»). Plethon’s comments regarding coins of foreign mintage in the territory of the despotate, if this is indeed the right interpretation of the nature of his complaints, would certainly ring true. A specific lack of specie in the overall record is not immediately discernible, but on the whole the numismatic data available for the late medieval Greek landscapes are never dense enough to effectively support or reject such contemporary observations. Naxos has one hoard («193. Naxos 2005») and ample stray data, so much so that this is the one area of Greece which can truly be said to have experienced saturation, in contrast even to the neighbouring islands.1064 Precisely because of the harmonisation of the currency the numismatic record is on the whole not useful in describing the demographics and geography of commerce. This is particularly poignant for relations within Greece, as has already been pointed out in the discussions of monetisation in the previous period: for instance, there are unfortunately few numismatic data after the 1340s for movements between Epiros, the Peloponnese, or the eastern Mainland and the Cyclades, not even from all of these areas to Crete. Trade within the large continental Ottoman bloc of our region, and towards its coastal outlets, is virtually unsupported by numismatics, with the exception of some of the very late Epirote hoards from the Veneto-Turkish trading interface (see above), a single 1064  Compare on Naxos above, p. 399. The other Cycladic evidence is limited to «231. Andros».

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

421

soldino from Small Lake Prespa signalling commercial movement perhaps from the Valona area («500. Agios Achilleios»), a single coin from the Pagasetic Gulf area («312. Lamia»), and finally another rather remarkable hoard: «209. Larisa ca. 2001B» contains soldini in proportions which can in the fifteenth century otherwise only be found around the coastal Venetian locations. It may underline the vitality, commercial or otherwise, of this revived inland community (the finds from another such community, «381. Trikala», are by contrast disappointing). The Larisa hoard is the only hard piece of evidence from our area for a possible symbiosis of the Ottoman and Venetian silver currencies.1065 Overall, the strong evidence of soldini and torneselli would seem to support the notion that even within Greece the greatest bulk of Greek produce was traded via the mude system. The general paucity of coins in our period which are neither Venetian nor from old tournois stock suggests this, yet this can of course be only part of the story. Other outside connections are clearer: a more significant northward and eastward spread of soldini and torneselli took place in our present context: to locations such as the Macedonian seaboard, to Thrace and Constantinople, to the eastern Aegean islands, but to a much lesser extent western Anatolia. The area between the Black Sea/Thrace and Constantinople/ and western Anatolia and the eastern islands had a monetary circulation system in its own right from the middle of the fourteenth century, which largely by-passed Greece,1066 although Chios (and to a lesser degree Lesbos) continued to have some direct commercial contacts with our area.1067 Such connections also find confirmation in the ceramic evidence. Despite what we have said in the discussion above on trade, according to numismatics the connections between Greece and the Levant in this period look almost inexistent: the only positive pieces of evidence are the tornesello finds «470. Tel Akko» and «482. Paphos» (the contemporary finds of Cypriot pennies in Greece are mostly interpreted in the light of the Hospitaller rule in the Peloponnese: see above). Additionally there are some stray finds of tournois, the arrivals of which are of course more difficult to date (for instance «471. Acre»; «473. Caesarea Maritima»; «481. Nahariyya»). Looking towards the west, soldini were also present in Puglia and in Dalmatia. This is perhaps the only, rather meagre, evidence which can be mustered for the increasing importance of Ragusan traders (in addition to the enigmatic information currently available for «176. Achaïa»). Anconite coinages support the aforementioned ascendancy of Ancona in this particular period (and 1065  Compare also the discussion in Appendix III.4, pp. 1563–1564. 1066  Chapter 3, p. 213. 1067  Appendix II.6.E and F, pp. 1347–1350.

422

Chapter 3

related to these may have been the slightly earlier Pisan and Maceratese issues contained in «174. Ancient Elis 2005»).1068 A combination of these commercial enterprises in Greece and the Neapolitan civil war may have strengthened the presence of the denier tournois in the Marche and Abruzzo in this period: see «421. Collecorvino» (and less compellingly «430. Loreto»). To all of these areas Greece would have constituted an inferior partner, one who could evidently be coerced to parting with its produce at relatively cheap rates. By their very nature, soldini and torneselli of the Venice mint which have been found in Greece describe monetary movements from Italy to Greece. The evidence of these two currencies in combination represents, at face value, an overwhelmingly positive balance of payments of our territories with the west in the period from the 1350s to the 1420s. One must nevertheless ask a number of pertinent questions: how much of this movement was commercial, how much administrative? We have already given an answer to this in the above discussion: it is most likely that torneselli in particular came to Greece overwhelmingly via the official route. This is not to say that they were not used to trade goods and services once they arrived there, in fact this was their main purpose, but these activities have little bearing on the balance of exchange between Greece and other areas. We should also bear in mind that the official hand was also at work within Greece: for instance the monetisation in Venetian Messenia was often assured by imports from Venetian Nauplio or Crete.1069 Second, how relevant is the fact that there are hoards of Greek deniers tournois deposited in the territory of the Regno, and in Italy more broadly, which post-date 1350 (see «396»–«403»)? It is certain, because of some of these hoards’ compositional features, that a number of specimens which they contain would have arrived in Italy approximately during the period in which the coins were still issued before the closure of the Clarentza mint in mid-century. Nevertheless, as we have seen, tournois were widely used in Greece after that date and also some of these coins, which were of higher quality than torneselli and even soldini (the latter not intrinsically, but in accounting terms), continued coming to Italy. This was a movement of specie which should not be underestimated and signifies a drainage of currency out of Greece towards Italy (the evidence from other western areas for this period is by contrast entirely negligible: «538»–«540»). In the other direction, significant hoards of deniers tournois dating to the post1350 period have also been found in Constantinople and Thrace and again show 1068  Appendix II.5.C and D, pp. 1340–1342. 1069  Compare also the curious episode of 1416 whereby public funds were transferred from a merchant’s galley to the crew of the captain of the Gulf somewhere near the Dardanelles: Appendix III.4, p. 1563.

ISSUERS AND USERS: 1347/1348–1430: MONEY

423

that Greece was prepared to alienate its currency possibly to acquire produce there (see «496» and «497» and the presentation in Chapter 2, pp. 99–100). The stray losses of tournois in all these overseas territories may also date later than their date of issue. As ever, the Italian gold coinages represent also in this context an uncertain entity. It is conceivable, for instance, that such issues would have come to Greece through administrative and political contexts, only to return to the west through trade. Commercially this would suggest a negative balance of exchange of our territories – albeit somewhat artificial. Silver gigliati would also after 1350 have moved in and out of Greece in rather unusual fashions – some no doubt related to tribute, others to trade. In combination with ducats these suggest an imbalance of sorts with Anatolia. Finally, one must ask oneself whether one must regard it as positive that Greece was prepared to part with its wealth for rather weak currencies such as torneselli and soldini, in whatever quantities these might have arrived. The total absence there of the second generation of Venetian grossi, which were used as trading coins in more sophisticated markets, is a strong negative indicator. In terms of routes (see the discussion on the galley system), and the products, and prices which could be achieved, Greece fared badly compared to some of her neighbouring territories. In this book I have generally rejected the model advocated by Laiou and others, whereby Byzantium and Romania had negative balances of exchange with the west for the entire post-1204 period.1070 However, some components of this theory may well begin to ring true in the present phase of our study: the reduction in the main Greek exports, in certain times and contexts, to wheat and salt; and the hunger for Italian luxury produce by the new Greek elites with their rarefied early Renaissance tastes, may be the causes for this if it were to be proven that this was the case: the numismatic data are not useful enough – particularly our lack of precision for the gold currencies – to resolve the question of the balance (or balances) of payments conclusively. The main currencies of our last phase, soldini and especially torneselli, were available in great quantities in key areas and towns of south-central Greece, and also on the Epirote coast and the islands. Yet this was also a period of monetary paucity, as we have seen. Reasons for this varied: in addition to the international availability of bullion, they may be found in the demographics and economics of great parts of continental Epiros and Thessaly, for instance. In the same areas, these reasons may have been structural: the new Serbian and Ottoman fiscs may have had a predilection for the collection of some of the direct land taxes and rents in kind, in support of the conquering armies. 1070  See p. 36 (see especially the quote from Plethon cited by Laiou and Morrisson).

424

Chapter 3

The same was also the case in parts of the Palaiologan empire, which was re-gaining control in some parts of our territories.1071 Even in areas in which coinage abounded, Byzantine Lakonia for instance, the money supply was apparently so dire, if one believes Plethon, that payments in kind were often the only option. The new forms of petty cash which have been discussed above may have been much more prevalent in urban contexts. Byzantium had traditionally placed great emphasis on its copper coinage, in town and country, yet this was no longer the case in the last Palaiologan phase, when the follis became a minority denomination, no doubt a reflection on the general move away from direct taxation and rent as the main sources of revenue. Ottoman coinage was quite sparse in the parts of Greece under Turkish rule, and copper mangır issues were completely absent there. Yet one imagines nonetheless that locally, and even in the countryside amongst the peasantry, there would have been mechanisms in place to overcome these shortages, as there were in parts of the Latin west.1072 In summary, monetisation at the lower level varied greatly in Greek lands between ca. 1350 and 1430, and its connection to demographics or the economy was not always direct. The kind of support on these questions which one may require from material sources in particular, for example ceramics, is currently rarely available.

1071  Chapter 1, p. 28. 1072  Dyer, “Peasants and coins” p. 46.

chapter 4

Coins in the Regions and Towns of Medieval Greece Coins have been found in the Greek towns and regions as hoards, singles or strays, or in excavations. Some are from overtly urban, others from rural or semi-rural contexts. Coins were deposited in graves, or discarded in rubbish dumps. The aim of this chapter is to consider specifically and afresh the coins in their archaeological and topographical settings. Our interest is to see how the different data sets can illuminate one another. Information presented already in the other chapters, and in the appendices – while taken as given – will not unduly weigh down the current discussions, and cross-references are made sparingly. Maps 1–4 on pp. 1599–1605 allow for the location of a large proportion of the finds considered here. 1

Peloponnese, with Special Reference to Corinth, Argos, Sparta, and Clarentza Relevant hoards: «1. Kaparelli 1927», «3. Mapsos 1991», «33. Arkadia 1958», «35. Sparta 1957», «36. Corinth 15 July 1929», «37. Corinth 15–16 June 1960», «38. Argos 1984», «39. Methana», «43. Corinth 1898», «45. Erymantheia 1955», «46. Patra before 1940», «47. Seltsi 1938», «50. Sparta 1926C», «52. Xirochori 2001», «53. Corinth 15 June 1925», «54. Berbati 1953», «56. Corinth 16 April 1929», «57. Corinth 1938», «59. Argos 1988», «60. Nemea 1936», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «69. Capstan Navy Cut»(?), «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «76. Corinth 20–21 August 1928», «77. Corinth 1992», «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «87. Vourvoura», «89. Epidauros 1904», «90. Limnes 2006», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «142. Patra 1955A», «146. Mesochori», «158. Petsouri 1997», «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «164. Kiras Vrisi», «168. Elis 1964», «172. Soudeli», «174. Ancient Elis», «175. Pyrgos 1967», «176. Achaïa», «179. Velimachio», «180. Mystras», «182. Troizina», «188. Gastouni 1961», «192. Corinth BnF», «194. Sparta 1926A & B», «200. Gortyna», «201. Vasilitsi 2000», «208. Morea 1849», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Relevant grave finds: «216. Clarentza», «217. Corinth 31 May 1932», «218. Corinth», «221. Palaiochora». Relevant excavation and single finds: «223. Acrocorinth», «224. Agios Nikolaos», «225. Agios Stephanos», «226. Agrapidochori», «227. Ai Lias», «233. Argos», «234. Argos», «235. Argos», «236. Argos», «255.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_005

426

chapter 4

Bozika», «260. Chelidoni», «261. Chloumoutsi», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «272. Corinth», «273. Corinth», «274. Corinth», «275. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «277. Corinth», «278. Corinth», «279. Corinth», «280. Daphniotissa», «286. Drovolos», «291. Gastouni», «293. Gortys», «296. Isthmia», «297. Kalavryta», «305. Kenchreai», «306. Kiato», «307. Kladeos», «308. Kleitoria», «309. Kleonai», «310. Krestena», «311. Lakonia», «313. Lepreo/ Strovitzi», «314. Ligourio», «317. Mazi/Skillountia», «319. Messene», «320. Methoni», «321. Nauplio», «334. Nemea», «336. Olena», «337. Olympia», «339. Orchomenos», «342. Paos», «343. Patra», «349. Pylos in Elis», «351. Sparta», «352. Sparta», «353. Tegea», «378. Tigani», «380. Trianta Zourtsas», «382. Troizina», «385. Zaraka». Of the above, specifically for Corinth: «36», «37», «43», «53», «56», «57», «70», «76», «77», «192», «212», «217», «218», «223», «263»–«279». Of the above, specifically for Argos: «38», «59», «233»–«236». Of the above, specifically for Sparta: «35», «50», «194», «351», «352». Of the above, specifically for Clarentza: «216», «262».

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE

427

In addition to the finds of Appendix I listed here above, there a few others which have appeared quite recently, mostly as a result of the Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο (Coinage in the Peloponnese) conference, Argos, May 2011, whose publication appeared in 2018. The Argos 2005a and Argos 2005b hoards were excavated at the corner of Danaou and Kapodistriou Streets, in what is now central Argos.1 The first hoard contained florins, grossi, gigliati, pierreali and gros and deniers tournois, concealed before 1340, based on the fact that the Achaïan deniers end in the issues of John of Gravina. The Argos 2005b hoard was composed of 233 French and very early Achaïan deniers tournois, with a date of concealment around 1270. Eight completely unknown hoards in the collection of the NM were published in another contribution to the same conference proceedings.2 These are, in chronological order: – Pp. 87–88, no. 2, Epidauros 1891–1892, in the Argolis, found in the sanctuary of Asklepios. It contained deniers tournois to ca. 1308–1309.3 – P. 89, no. 4, Sikyon 1938, in Corinthia, ancient town inland from Kiato. 14 soldini to Bartolomeo Gradenigo. Concealment might have occurred within a year either side of 1340. – P. 89, no. 5, Phychti 1898. This location, now Phichti, lies just to the west of the ancient site of Mycenae in the Argolis. It contained a small number of tournois and soldini to ca. 1350. – P. 89, no. 6, Isari 1894. This village (Isaris) lies to the west of Gortyna in Arkadia. It is similar in composition and date to the previous hoard. – P. 89, no. no. 7, Mantineia 1867. This hoard comes from the other end of Arkadia, due north of Tripoli. This is a small single soldino hoard, dated perhaps a decade later. – P. 89–90, no. 8, Patra 1939, of 177 soldini and two tournois dating to ca. 1400. – p. 90, no. 9, Chatzi Vouphrada 1927. The village of Chatzis in Messenia is located halfway between Pylos and Kalamata. This is single type tornesello hoard dating similarly or perhaps just later than the previous one. – P. 90, no. 11 Grivitza 1867. This village is now called Evangelismos and is located 5km northeast of Methoni. The hoard contained only soldini and dates ca. 1410. In the same publication three previously unknown hoards, also now at the NM, are briefly mentioned but not further substantiated4: Patra 1978, from Pantokrator Square in the upper or old town, containing soldini and dating 1  Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομίσματων”; Kossyva, “Άργος”. 2  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, pp. 86–90. 3  Compare Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”, p. 247. 4  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, pp. 83–84.

428

chapter 4

1365–1368; Vasiliko in Achaïa, a village due south of Patra, also a soldino hoard dating 1382–1400 or later; and Sparta in Lakonia (private collection), torneselli to 1414–1423. Regarding new single coin find data: surface finds from Mouchli castle, which lies in proximity to the village of Partheni in the extreme east of Arkadia, included two soldini of Andrea Dandolo and Andrea Contarini, and six torneselli of the latter to Michele Steno, and one akče of Mehmet II (1451–1481).5 In the adjacent Argolis, surface surveys in the Mygio, Pyrgos, Lakouvitsi-Konisela areas (all close to Limnes), which have resulted in hoard «90. Limnes 2006», produced also genuine imperial and counterfeit tetartera, petty denomination issues, and deniers tournois, though nothing later than the early 1300s.6 Further to the south, from Akronauplia, the original akropolis of Nauplio, systematic excavations by the former 1st EBA in 1971/1972 resulted in a very large and significant body of stray finds and an important recent publication:7 there are again genuine tetartera and their counterfeits, Latin Imitative trachea, petty denomination issues, amongst which that of Negroponte already noted in the 1970s, deniers tournois, one Venetian quartarolo of the thirteenth century, one soldino (F. Dandolo) and 13 torneselli until Michele Steno and their counterfeits, and one Lakonian tornese in the name of Emperor Manuel II.8 The next phase in the monetisation of the site begins with Doge Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501). Finally, we should include in this list two deniers tournois (William II of Villehardouin, GV111, and Robert of Taranto, RAA1) excavated at a church in Riganokampos near Patra.9 At the same Argos conference of 2011, Ch. Stavrakos and A. Bakourou presented middle Byzantine and early Frankish graves from the lower town of Sparta; and K. Sidiropoulos some hoards and stray finds from Messene. These contributions did not appear in the proceedings, but some of the information has been used elsewhere in this book. The Peloponnese is numismatically the richest of all of our areas, because of the excavations at Corinth, Argos, Sparta, Clarentza (and now Akronauplia), and at many other locations, and also because of the significant body of hoards.

5  Lagos and Karyanos, “Μουχλί”. 6  Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. 7  Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”. See also entry «321» which does not contain the newer data. 8  Another unpublished specimen is now housed in the depot of the Corinth Ephorate and derives from the Justinianic wall of the town: #167. 9  Moutzali, “Αγία Ειρήνη Ριγανοκάμπου Πατρών”, p. 143.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE: CORINTH

429

1.1 Corinth (See specifically Map 2, p. 1602) The evidence from Ancient Corinth is phenomenally important to this book. I have handled or had access to a large number of medieval coins which were unearthed by or under the auspices of the ASCSA from 1896 onwards. I am nevertheless not in a position to present in the appendices a complete catalogue of all the coins found at the site with a 1200–1500 dating. This has a number of reasons: some American excavations, notably those of the Theater after the World War II,10 and the Gymnasium, were undertaken by universities and not the school as such, and publication rights rest with other individuals. Second, some of the pre-World War II data were so vast that recording them in their entireties was not realistic. Also, when I first embarked on studying the site finds from Corinth I agreed with Orestes Zervos, the site numismatist, that I would not occupy myself with counterfeit deniers tournois and tetartera, which were subjects he was working and publishing on. I refer to such issues in my catalogues and discussions as far as they have been published. Byzantine-style coins whose datings are vaguely twelfth- or thirteenth-century, as is the case with counterfeit tetartera, have also as a rule not been given entries in the listings for the excavation units «263»–«278». The presence of such coins, whatever their dates of production, can be ascertained from the stratigraphical fills in Appendix I.13, nos. 1–90. We should note finally that recent analyses of Greek deniers tournois of the period 1289–1313 were undertaken on material from Ancient Corinth.11 The statistical evaluation of the Corinthian stray finds relating to the thirteenth to fifteenth century takes place therefore in logical units, that is to say areas of the site excavated in particular periods, and for such units all coins have been included in order to be statistically viable. These are (compare also Map 2 on p. 1602): the ‘Central Area’ is the wider forum area which was the centre of the Roman, yet not the medieval, town («263»: 1896–1914; «264»: 1925; «265»: 1925–1926, specifically the Theater; «266»: 1930–1935; «267»: 1940–1988; «268»: 1976 and 1989–1997, specifically the Frankish complex; «269»: 2007, specifically the Nezi field; «270»: 1995–2007, specifically the Panayia field). Further, there is the Kraneion basilica in the east («271»), the northern quarter around the Asklepieion, the Lerna, the Gymnasium, and the Baths of Aphrodite («272»), the Great Roman Bath also in the north («273»), and various other small sites to the west and south («274»–«278»). Acrocorinth, though excavated by the 10   American-style spelling and dates have been retained in the description of this material. 11  Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”.

430

chapter 4

ASCSA in Corinth, has been placed separately in Appendix I.4 («223»). In the immediate vicinity of the site of Corinth (Map 2), also excavated by the ASCSA are, on Map 1, pp. 1600–1601), the stray finds from «296. Isthmia» and «305. Kenchreai». Many hoards of Appendix I.1 are from the same ‘Central Area’, as are two of the three Corinthian hoards which are more difficult to date within the period of the twelfth and thirteenth century which are not included in the appendices.12 Topographically noteworthy, amongst this the latter group of hoards, is Corinth 1971 found in the Gymnasium. Interesting is also the fact that «57» was found to the east of the modern village, and the significant early tournois hoard in the Odeion («77»), the only coin find specifically listed from this location. The late-fifteenth-century hoard «212» was found in what may at the time still have been a religious structure. Ancient Corinth is also significant for the considerable grave evidence which it has produced («218»). From the vicinity of the town, again from Map 1, we need to point to the «3. Mapsos 1991» hoard found just to the south of Acrocorinth, and «164. Kiras Vrisi» from the Isthmos. While we are naturally focusing on finds of coins dating to the medieval period, the absence of such same coins from certain excavations might be equally interesting and revealing about the topographical developments of the town. Williams has cited the evidence from the Theater in general terms (compare «265. Corinth») in order to demonstrate the town’s contraction from Byzantine to Frankish times.13 Numismatic statistics are, however, not particularly compelling in this regard, first because twelfth-century specie might have been used and lost in the thirteenth, second because thirteenth-century specie was generally of higher value and therefore less prone to casual loss, and finally because the coin list given by McIsaac is really quite healthy as far as issues from 1204–ca. 1310 are concerned. The negative evidence elsewhere is more interesting: the late Roman Lechaion basilica, at the northern harbour of the town, was excavated by Pallas in the 1950s and 1960s. None of his reports in PAE, which mention numismatic evidence sporadically, ever indicate any habitation or frequentation later than the twelfth century.14 The same is true for the Kodratos basilica in the northern part of the late antique town, excavated by Stikas.15 Recently a map and table have been drawn up which show the frequentations of the different Corinthian areas during the various periods 12  These are discussed elsewhere in this book: Appendix II.5, p. 1335. 13  Williams, “Frankish Corinth. An Overview”, p. 425, n. 6. 14  The coins of the Latin Empire in PAE 1958, p. 131, n. 2, are none other than Anonymous Folles. 15  See PAE (1961), p. 134 and (1962), p. 56, for coins of Manuel I. The basilica of Skoutela, northwest of the town, does not even appear to have a middle Byzantine phase: see Pallas in PAE (1953–1955).

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE: CORINTH

431

between ca. 500 and ca. 1500.16 These are useful comparisons to our own numismatic data, even if one wonders whether the transition phase from the ‘Middle Byzantine’ to the ‘Crusader Period’ is entirely accurately represented therein.17 In general terms, favouring the former over the latter has a very long pedigree amongst the scholars working on and at the site, including members of the American School, who during the formative inter-war period may have been seduced by the allure of Byzantium.18 The most obvious piece of information to retain during our present discussions is that the ‘Central Area’ of the Corinth Excavations was an extra-mural suburb in Byzantine and Frankish times, termed the ‘Emporion’ on Athanasoulis’ map, whereas the town’s centre lay to the east (‘Chora’ on the same). The high status character of this commercial area, which must also have had administrative functions in the light of some of the finds there, has recently been pointed out with respect to the pottery.19 This is an impression which is certainly borne out by the numismatic evidence. The three hoards dating more likely to the twelfth rather than the thirteenth century, containing respectively and predominantly coins of Clermont, and of Lucca and Valence, Corinth 1905, Corinth 1907, and Corinth 1971, were found in the ‘Central Area’ and the Gymnasium (compare in the last case the information from «272»). These finds underline, in combination of course with other data, that perhaps in this transition phase into our period very diverse parts of the town were frequented. Specifically in the case of the first two hoards their inclusion in building trenches is testimony additionally to the continued developments perhaps in the conquest period itself, or thereabouts. These coins are also part of a larger body of numismatic evidence dating to the twelfth century, but with implications for the immediate period of political change, which reveal Corinth as the most inter-connected location in our entire area: these are copper coins of Seljuq Syria (the interesting Corinth 1928 of such issues has been found in yet another area of town, the Theater), and other copper issues re-attributed recently from Trebizond to Syria20; further they are also copper

16  Athanasoulis, “Corinth”, pp. 194–195. 17  See for example the conclusion on pp. 200–201: “The period of great prosperity finally came to an end with the conquest of Corinth by the lord of Nauplion, Leo Sgouros, in 1203”. 18  See Kourelis, “Byzantium and the avant-garde”, for a very thoughtful and interesting treatment of this phenomenon. 19  Sanders, Recent finds from Ancient Corinth. On my disagreement with the proposed dating, see here below. 20  Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1351.

432

chapter 4

coins of Norman Italy and crusader Antioch,21 and again French pennies of sometimes vague dating.22 The ‘Central Area’ has very concentrated numismatic activities in the first decade of the thirteenth century (see especially in this regard «263», «264», «265», «267», «268», «269», «270»): there are good quantities especially of Faithful Copies and type A Latin Imitatives. There is little variation within the ‘Central Area’, for instance hoard-like assemblages deposited in different parts of the forum were equally strong in the same two categories of trachea («36» and «37»). «217. Corinth 31 May 1932», from exactly the same years, is different in that it contains counterfeit tetartera and not trachea, but this might be explained with reference to the fact that it is a grave assemblage. On the whole, counterfeit tetartera of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ are known in different but not all units of Corinth (note that I did not work on this denomination systematically, as explained above). The quantities, where known, are on the low side, certainly when compared to regions to the south and east of the Corinthia. These discrepancies have made a contribution to determining the possible production centre of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’. Another possible exception to the general chronological picture is the Theater («265»), which is relatively weak in the immediate post-1204 years but increased in finds towards 1210. The area which later developed into the Frankish complex is marked on the other hand by a lack of a break around 1204, and overall by very large quantities, in consideration of its size (compare «268» for instance with «263» or «267»). In other parts of Corinth the conquest years have also produced numismatic evidence: this is true for the Kraneion basilica («271»), and the Great Roman Bath («273»), and no doubt the aforementioned Asklepieion-Lerna-Gymnasisum-Baths of Aphrodite area to the north (which is in this respect understudied and underpublished: «272»), and the site of Kokkinovrysi to the west («275»). The particular concentration of early-thirteenth-century coins at the Kraneion basilica has in fact already resulted to the re-dating of the later phases of this church to the post-conquest period.23 Evidently the general prejudice against the Latin period had previously stood in the way of this kind of chronology. Beyond the confines of the town, the conquest hoard from Mapsos near Acrocorinth is also of note. From this akropolis itself the evidence is not entirely satisfactory, but a combination of my observations and Bellinger’s information suggests that also there the immediate 1204 period saw activity («223»). The general belief that a substantial portion of what we consider to be Corinth was actually contained in 21  Appendix II.5.B, p. 1338; Appendix II.6.A, p. 1344. 22  Appendix II.5.A, pp. 1335–1337. 23  Coulson, “Early Christian Basilica at the Cenchrean Gate”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE: CORINTH

433

Acrocorinth, from the twelfth century onwards, can at present not be verified numismatically for lack of data.24 All in all, Corinth reveals itself through the particular concentration of numismatic data as an absolutely key area in the period when the Latins first entered southern Greece and attempted to subdue it in the face of some regional opposition from local potentates. This is true for the forum area, other parts of the lower town (there is no evidence from the actual centre of the Byzantine town, which was located inside the walls), and from Acrocorinth. We note furthermore that the material from Isthmia and Kenchreai has not been studied in an appropriate manner with respect to this period, that Lechaion however shows inactivity. As Latin rule was established in the town its numismatic developments were unabated, and in different directions. «43. Corinth 1898», from the Lechaion Road part of the ‘Central Area’, is a very early if small Venetian grosso hoard. The gold hoard «53. Corinth 15 June 1925», from Temple Hill, contained issues of Byzantine Nicaea and Latin Constantinople, and «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», from the West Shops, is a rich silver assemblage deposited a short while before the first tournois issues of Achaïa. Corinth was chosen as the seat of the first Achaïan mint (for petty coins) in the 1250s, and the issues produced there soon dominated the various parts of town. Two assemblages vouch for this («56» and «57»), one being from the area to the north of the grosso hoard which has just been mentioned, the other being from the far end of the medieval town. The period between the Latin conquest of Corinth and the establishment of Angevin rule sees numismatic manifestations in all parts of town: on Acrocorinth there is a sizeable group of petty denomination issues, which has been interpreted in different ways, though none of them particularly compelling (compare «223»). There are also later French feudal and royal tournois finds from this akropolis. The ‘Central Area’ was well supplied with Thessalonican and Nicaean trachea,25 gold hyperpyra, petty denomination issues of Achaïa and much more rarely of Athens, and the same French tournois, English sterlings, Sicilian denari, deniers of Champagne and Hungary, grossi and quartaroli of Venice, Armenian tanks («263», «264», «265», «266», «267», «268», «269», «270»). The reader can judge for her- or himself, but according to my observations there are no discernible quantitative divergences amongst any of these find units which might suggest that one area might have been different to another, in terms of chronologies and human frequentation. Also other areas away from the forum diverge only to the extent that they are very small 24  See for instance Athanasoulis, “Corinth”, p. 204. 25  Appendix II.1.B.5, p. 1235: Corinth (and Thebes) are amongst the few places in Greece to receive later coins of Nicaea.

434

chapter 4

(«271»–«279»). Whereas in all previous phases Corinthian money supply originated in Constantinople, this was no longer the case now, although a sizeable proportion of the currency was still Byzantine in style, especially if one considers petty cash in general and the matter of the Byzantine pedigree of the Latin petty denomination. It is also difficult to make a clear-cut quantitative comparison between the twelfth and the early thirteenth century because of the distribution and usage of the coins, yet one may surmise that the overall curve for the monetisation of Greece (see Figure 2 on p. 184) can also be applied to the site of Corinth. In the later 1260s the money supply changed considerably at Corinth, at the same time as significant demographic changes in the town, which we have indicated in different parts of this book. The numismatic changes obviously began with Achaïan tournois minting at Clarentza (NB: there was, according to the arguments brought forward in this book, no tournois production at a Corinthian mint as is sometimes stated). This is not to deny that some of the older specie, for instance some of the French feudal tournois, may have reached the town also into the 1270s or later. It is also clear that some of the pre-1267 coins, whether they arrived in Corinth before or after 1267, were in usage for some decades to come. We have acknowledged this fact in different parts of the book. Nevertheless, it must be understood that the available profile of coins present (and absent) at the site give us some idea on the chronological development of the same. During the Greek tournois phase this denomination is all dominant. «76. Corinth 20–21 August 1928», from the Odeion, of Achaïan tournois, is an early and potentially useful hoard. «77. Corinth 1992», which was not excavated by the ACSCA and whose exact provenance from the Corinth area is unknown to me, is no less interesting in that it combines foreign tournois and grossi still in the 1270s or later. In the main excavated units there were invariably significantly more Greek tournois than there had been French tournois during the earlier period, even if this more recent phase spanned just over 40 years (ca. 1267–ca. 1311). This is a significant element in the narrative of steadily increasing monetisation. This holds true for the ‘Central Area’ («263», «264», «265», «266», «267», «268», «269») as well as other areas (esp. «271», «272», and «276»). Also «296. Isthmia» and «305. Kenchreai» have significant concentrations of Greek tournois. It is of note that amongst hundreds of tournois found in the Corinthian ‘Central Area’, only a handful of Achaïan specimens date, in terms of production, later than the PTA-Γ issues which can be dated around 1311 (1312–1313 at the latest): one of Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) at «266» (the excavation period 1930–1935), and three of John of Gravina (1321– 1332) at «265» (Theater) and «267» (the 1940–1988 seasons). In other areas this pattern holds, with the exception of Kenchreai, which in fact only begins with

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE: CORINTH

435

Achaïan coins from the later 1310s, at the earliest. Coins that date positively after the battle of Almyros in 1311 and before the 1360s at all the Corinthian units are, beside the Kenchreian coins, in fact confined to eight Catalan counterfeits (which cannot date much later than 1311 itself) at «263», «266», «267», and «271»; one Artan tournois of the later 1320s at «266»; and one soldino of 1339–1342 from Kokkinovrysi in the west («275»). There are from the same units of course countless counterfeit tournois, whose dating is a priori uncertain, yet we may surmise that also these date to a very large degree to before 1311. This conclusion is reached for a number of reasons, the quality and prototypes of the specimens, their significant concentrations in the ‘Central Area’ and the Frankish complex in particular, where many of them were pecked and cancelled, and the fact that human activities at the same also came to a significant halt at that point in time.26 In summary we can express the prevailing picture before and after ca. 1311 in other terms: the prolific Corinthian units «266»– «268» produced for instance in combination 25 coins for Isabelle (1297–1301), 21 coins for Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6), and 12 Achaïan coins for Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313), but altogether only four coins positively datable to the first few decades after the princeship of Philip of Taranto. The period between ca. 1270 and ca. 1311 has produced fewer unusual monetary specie than the previous one, precisely because of the overall harmonisation: there are very low quantities of Palaiologan copper coins, of Neapolitan denari, and Venetian multiple pennies; a few Venetian and Serbian and counterfeit grossi; and a royal French obol perhaps associated with the arrival of the Catalans (all these coins are contained in units «266»–«268»). According to the numismatic data we can state without hesitation that Corinth saw relatively seamless, and at times dramatic, developments from one period to the next between the twelfth century and about 1311, when such developments came to an abrupt halt. The ‘Central Area’ of Corinth, and what became the Frankish complex in particular, were intensely frequented for instance in the first decade of the thirteenth century, and then again in the years just before and after 1300. If these same areas had continued to develop in a linear or even upward manner beyond the period of production of the Achaïan coins of Philip of Taranto, which we identified here above a significant cut-off point, we would have seen many more issues for his more prolific successors, Mahaut, John, and then Robert, than we actually do. It is also impossible to post-date, in bulk, the periods of usage of a whole range of coins – English sterlings, French tournois, and Frankish tournois themselves – by anything up to 100 to 150 years. This is the implication of the recent re-dating of the largest 26  The arguments are given in some detail in Appendix II.9.M, p. 1487.

436

chapter 4

concentration of activities in Latin-period Corinth.27 Yet, for this to be argued one would, amongst other considerations, need to explain where for instance these sterlings from the first half of the thirteenth century, and French tournois from around 1250, spent the intervening period before being introduced to Corinthian usage and subsequently lost. It is difficult for me to second guess the validity of some of the data which have been put forward as part of the same arguments – the location of one jetton within the foundations at one of the structures of the Frankish complex, and the pottery itself from these areas. The numismatic position would still have to remain that the overall frequentation and vitality of these areas were infinitely higher in 1250, 1270, and especially 1300, than they were in 1350 or indeed 1400, as we shall see. Furthermore, a break around 1311 is equally undeniable according to the same information provided by the coins. The idea that Corinth suffered significantly from a raid by the Catalans in 1312 had gained currency particularly through the excavations and writings of Charles Williams,28 and this interpretation is vindicated by numismatics even though the precise event cannot be identified numismatically. None of the Corinthian jettons published by Saccocci and Vanni can be dated with confidence before 1350, even though amongst this rather ample material it would not be surprising to find a few specimens that do. As with coins, or perhaps even more so, individual pieces may have been used and lost at some distance from their production dates.29 The first securely datable numismatic manifestation at Corinth in the second half of the century is a soldino of Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) from «268». The other data thereafter, and for the entire period until the middle of the fifteenth century, can be summarised for the ‘Central Area’ as 51 torneselli from the 1360s to the 1410s («263», «264», «265», «266», «267», «268»), one tournois of Campobasso («267»), and a few Anconite coins which are quite difficult to date.30 At Ancient Corinth, the earliest Ottoman coins are issues of Mehmet II (1451–1481).31 «223. Acrocorinth» is comparatively rich with one tournois of Campobasso, 18 torneselli spanning the same years, and one soldino of the period 1423–1457. Also the Kraneion basilica produced comparatively rich tornesello finds (10: «271»), as did the other outlying areas, if on a smaller scale («272»–«277»). In summary, the stray data are clearly indicative of an increasing frequentation of the ‘Central Area’ towards 1400, but never in a way that would allow one to state that, amongst 27  Sanders, Recent finds from Ancient Corinth. 28  Summarized by Sanders, “Corinth”, p. 652: “The near extinction of Corinth in the fourteenth century can largely be attributed to the Catalan sack in 1312”. 29  See in general terms Chapter 2, pp. 159–160. 30  Appendix II.5.C, pp. 1340–1341. 31  Appendix II.6.G, p. 1351.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE: ARGOS

437

all the post-1200 medieval phases, this was the most developed and prolific. Far from it, this phase makes a rather weak impression compared to the situation nearly a century earlier. However, it is very possible, indeed likely, that the increasing importance of the town, under Acciaiuoli, Hospitaller, and Byzantine rule, in fact finds reflection in the numismatic developments in other areas of town. This clearly requires testing once more data become available. Hoard «192. Corinth BnF» from this period, which cannot be located in any particular part of Corinth, is a strong element in this narrative.32 It is testimony to the new impetus on the entire area brought on by political events and the elimination of the old and decadent protagonists in this part of southern Greece, the Angevins and Catalans. The hoard from the monastery of St. John («212») is too late to be considered here in terms of the topography and progress made by the ‘Central Area’, yet some of the specimens it contained give us an impression of the kind of data one may be able to expect should parts of fifteenth-Corinth be more intensively excavated in the future: Lakonian Byzantine issues, more Anconite coins, and southern Italian small change. 1.2 Argos Argos has been excavated by two institutions: the École Française d’Athènes for the ancient site, which lies in the southwestern part of the modern town, at the foot of the akropolis; and the various Ephorates of the Ministry of Culture (and Sport), mostly in central parts of the modern town, towards the south of the central church and the square of St. Peter’s.33 Traces of the Byzantine and medieval walls have been found there too, which means that this area was variously inside and outside of the walls, whereas one may consider that the centre of the medieval town was congruent with the ancient centre to the southwest. The available numismatic data are not particularly ample, but thanks to their idiosyncrasies are especially interesting. They can be summed up as follows: the French school has so far neglected to make available any of the relevant coins unearthed during many excavation campaigns. The list in «234» of French material is based on my own observations in Argos museum, but is limited to soldini and torneselli («233» is part of even older French material which was transferred to the NM. The status of «235» is not certain). «236» (and the related hoard «38» and «59»), on the other hand, covers all the relevant coins I have been able to discern amongst the material discovered by the late Mrs Oikonomou-Laniado for the erstwhile EBA in the modern town. In 32  For more details see Baker, “Corinthe”. 33  For the topography and archaeology of the town, see for instance Baker, “Argos” and Vassiliou, “Argos”.

438

chapter 4

the same part of town the former EPKA excavated the Argos 2005a and Argos 2005b hoards summarised at the beginning of this discussion. Also largely excluded from Appendix I, to the northeast of the town, the area around Limnes has produced some material (see also «54» and «90» for this location), as has the area of Mycenae due north of Argos (see «227. Ai Lias» and Phychti 1898). Finally, medieval-period coin finds from Akronauplia have also only recently become available. Argos is sporadically documented for much of the thirteenth and fourteenth century, and then especially for the Venetian period from the turn of the fifteenth century onwards. The archaeological materials relating to the town are by contrast few and far between, limited to a large degree to some ceramic evidence.34 In this sense the coin data are able to propose a valid narrative in their own right: «236», «38», and «59», show that, much as Corinth, Argos saw intense attention during the conquest period itself. This is exemplified by Faithful Copies and by the very first generation of Latin Imitatives. The particular concentration of counterfeit tetartera around 1204, and their typological variety, underlines that the town must have been located quite close to their area of production, more so than Corinth. In the subsequent decades the town, and its region, were well supplied by petty denomination issues, English sterlings, French tournois and other penny types. It was evidently subsequently supplied with tournois from Clarentza in quick succession to the opening of this new Achaïan mint, bearing in mind always that Argos was not part of the principality. At «236» the tournois cover the period until the princeship of John of Gravina (1321–1332), which, in combination with the exceptional and valuable Argos 2000b hoard which closes in the same Achaïan issues, must induce one to believe that this part of town was affected negatively in these years, very likely by the arrival of the troops of the Aydınoğulları just before 1340. The same hoard is the earliest and largest assemblage of gold florins, a fact which must have qualitative implications for Argos itself, and is at the same time the only Peloponnesian hoard which displays some of the specie usually associated with Catalan eastern Mainland, no doubt because of the geographical proximity and the previous constitutional link between the Argolis and Attica. Judging by «234», developments in the central parts of town continued after ca. 1340: considering the rather small overall quantities, the numbers of soldini (dating 1332–1365) and torneselli (which begin with the first doge to issue this denomination, Andrea Dandolo) are of note. Importantly in this regard, Argos was not a Venetian colony until 1394. Three years later the town suffered destructions at the hands of the Ottomans. The sharp downturn of torneselli 34  Which is summarised in Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”, p. 414.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE: SPARTA

439

around 1400 suggests that these events were perhaps more significant than the changes in the town’s colonial status. Even the coin finds from nearby Nauplio, which have recently been published, cannot shed much light on this matter. 1.3 Sparta The Spartan akropolis, and the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia to the east, were excavated by the BSA in significant campaigns during 1906–1910 and 1924–1928, resulting in the discovery of thousands of coins which are currently kept at the NM, although they have never officially been integrated into the collections of the latter and remain in an administrative limbo. I have been given the opportunity to study all of these coins in Athens, and this work has resulted in the identification of hoards «50. Sparta 1926C» and «194. Sparta 1926A & B»,35 and the complete lists of stray finds «351» and «352». The BSA has conducted excavations subsequently in the town, but these have never resulted in particularly high quantities of coins: some (from the seasons 1992–1997) have been integrated into «351». The authorities of the Ministry of Culture have excavated parts of the modern town in recent decades: these have revealed that the area approximately between the municipal stadium, at the foot of the akropolis, and the main square in the centre of town, was densely inhabited in the middle Byzantine and medieval periods. The only numismatic data which are currently known from this area are those presented by Stavrakos and Bakourou at the 2011 Argos conference, though not subsequently published. There are two further hoards which are said to be from Sparta and which cannot be located more precisely within the town, the late tornesello hoard from a private collection mentioned in the beginning of this section, and «35. Sparta 1957» which is kept in the NM. This latter hoard, in combination with the earliest coins listed under «351», demonstrate that the town saw intense frequentation in the conquest period, like Corinth and Argos, which have already been discussed. Sparta has one counterfeit type A Latin Imitative of the kind that one would associate with more northerly Peloponnesian locations. This heightens further our impression of a common fate. Sparta is not usually rated highly amongst the urban settlements of the medieval Peloponnese, and it is thought that it was abandoned altogether after the establishment of Byzantine Mystras in the middle of the thirteenth century.36 The coin data negate both of these presumptions: during the first decades of the thirteenth century they are rich and diverse, especially in consideration of the fact that overall quantities are not particularly 35  See the accompanying publication Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”. 36  Bouras, “City and village”, p. 621.

440

chapter 4

high. Petty denomination issues dominate: they were arguably first introduced during the Latin conquests, but may then have continued circulating. The arrival especially of French coins is noteworthy. A gap of sorts of a few decades, at «351» (and more substantially at «352»), between the last of the French royal issues and the Palaiologan coin on the one hand, and the tournois of Isabelle on the other (that is to say perhaps between the 1260s and the 1290s), needs to be conceded, yet it is still possible that – given the overall small numbers – this is merely an impression. The numismatic information suggests, in general, quite regular developments throughout the fourteenth century, in line perhaps with the respectable annual contribution which the bishopric of Lakedaimon still made to the patriarchate, according to the information of 1324.37 The denominations in question are especially soldini and deniers tournois, while the site lacks any of the counterfeits which were so current for instance at Corinth, Clarentza, or Athens. This fact has induced us to state elsewhere in this book that this counterfeiting may have had an internal Latin political dimension, namely the conflict between the houses of Anjou and Savoy after 1300. Monetisation at Sparta was then continued in the usual manner by torneselli, with good quantities also around 1400 and later, and then with indigenous Lakonian tornesi which were first identified thanks to the copious finds from Sparta. None of these significant phases are currently matched by any other archaeological manifestations, not even pottery sequences.38 The obvious suggestion would have to be to adjust the latter to the numismatic evidence. There is one parallel coin find from nearby Mystras, a tornesello hoard concealed during the dogeship of Antonio Venier (1382–1400) («180»). 1.4 Clarentza Compared to Corinth, or even Sparta and Argos, the medieval town of Clarentza was excavated much more recently and in one single sweep, if less intensely. It has yielded one of the most interesting runs of coin finds for the medieval period. These have been published in their entireties, and their interpretations and that of the site as a whole were undertaken concurrently, so that there are none of the obvious historiographical discrepancies that we have for instance witnessed for Corinth or Sparta.39 Unlike these towns (and Argos), Clarentza did not have a particularly significant late antique or classical precursor. For 37   Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine empire”, p. 254. 38  Armstrong, “Sparta” and Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”, p. 414. 39  The best overviews of this archaeological work is contained in Clarence; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE

441

this reason it has not seen the same level of archaeological investigation, which also renders our numismatic data from Clarentza more concentrated and perhaps topographically less interesting. The coins of «262» are contained in a chronological arc from the early 1260s to the second or third decade of the fifteenth century, which corresponds entirely to the lifespan, or the period of greatest vitality, of the town.40 The socalled Eastern Gate Dump,41 and grave assemblage 19 of «216», meanwhile, can perhaps be dated to a particularly trying period in the history of the town, when a serious threat was posed by the Tocchi of Leukada and Epiros. The other graves cannot be dated with any degree of accuracy. The denier tournois coinage displays, perhaps surprisingly in view of the fact that the Achaïan mint was located in the town, the usual spread amongst the three largest mint of Latin Greece. This shows that circulation anywhere in the principality was open and inclusive. The same conclusions must also be drawn from the two Athenian petty denomination issues of the later period, which match the four, again later, Achaïan specimens of the same denomination. The finds of these coins underline that they were indeed issues of the local mint, rather than a supposed Corinth mint as has been stated. Returning to the tournois, the profile of finds at Clarentza may suggest that in this part of the principality any arrivals from France after the 1260s may have been insignificant, or in fact they may have been taken out of circulation more effectively here than elsewhere. The latter might also be concluded from the absence, for instance, of the later Hungarian denars. The single early gigliato of Robert of Anjou, on the other hand, is representative of the coins that would have slipped through the net (unless of course, the excavations themselves have somehow revealed this ‘net’). The coin of the Golden Horde underlines the significant reach of Clarentza as a trading centre already in the thirteenth century. Already from the 1330s onwards Venice is dominant according to the evidence of the coins. The site has produced a truly significant quantity of torneselli. These, in combination with the two Cypriot coins, may perhaps be seen in relation, more than anything else, to the Venetian galley system which serviced Clarentza as well as the Venetian colonies of the Peloponnese and the Mainland. Clarentza is amongst those sophisticated locations in Greece for which Italian (and local) fourteenth-century jettons are attested (the others being Corinth, Thebes, and Patra). These may have had a monetary function.

40  The foundation of the town has been discussed in this book; on the destruction in 1429 at the hands of the Byzantines, see for instance Lock, Franks p. 27. 41  Compare Chapter 2, p. 153.

442

chapter 4

1.5 Other Towns and Landscapes Of the total Peloponnesian finds, a very substantial quantity – especially in terms of single coins –, have been treated in the four preceding discussions of the most significant urban areas. The limitation of the remainder of the material is one noteworthy consideration, and it is the result both of modern science and methods of recovery, and of medieval realities themselves. An interesting case in point is «334. Nemea», the single most important Peloponnesian assemblage of stray data beside those produced for the four towns. Ancient Nemea does have some medieval archaeology to match,42 but the location is by no means amongst the most prominent within the medieval historiography of the peninsula, so that the site demonstrates that excavations which are primarily focused on ancient remains, and therefore often relatively extensive and well established, are still those from which one may expect the most useful runs of medieval coins. «334» underlines both the impact on the area of the post-1204 conquests, and the local character of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ of tetartera. There is evidence for the usual high-end silver denominations – one English sterling and one Venetian grosso – and of petty denomination coins from the nearby Corinth mint. The site may even display the same fourteenthcentury gap as Corinth, between tournois and soldini. The tornesello phase is well developed. Having said this, one specifically medieval excavation has also given us a particularly instructive sequence of numismatic evidence, «385. Zaraka».43 The coins show how this rural site, which was monastic for the first half of its medieval existence, was nevertheless integrated into the usual monetary currents of petty denomination issues, deniers tournois, soldini and torneselli. Its destruction and abandonment by the Navarrese in the latter part of the fourteenth century can be charted fairly well. At the other chronological end, it is interesting that one conquest-period trachy is present, but no tetartera, which were perhaps shunned by the resident monks. The medieval usage of this tetarteron denomination is on the whole badly documented for the Peloponnese. We usually lack the means for dating the later circulation of twelfth-century issues, and the latter have therefore been omitted from the entries in Appendix I. Hoard «1. Kaparelli 1927» reveals perhaps the situation at the time of the conquest, although at present it is a lone testimony for the Peloponnesian areas outside the main urban centres. There are no Peloponnesian sources for the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ of counterfeits other than those already cited. It appears to be an urban phenomenon. 42  The site and the region are analysed in Athanassopoulos, “Nemea”. 43  Discussed at great length in Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE

443

The tetarteron counterfeits from the more westerly «336. Olena» and «349. Pylos in Elis» are of different mintages. There is merely one possible conquest hoard of billon trachea from the first decade of the thirteenth century for the countryside, «33. Arkadia 1958». Also the stray trachea are few and far between: there are finds from «382. Troizina» and from «261. Chloumoutsi», and others possibly from Arkadia («293») and Elis («380»). These data would suggest that in the post-1204 conquests were more protracted in urban centres than in the countryside, but that there was otherwise a spread of activities beyond merely the northeast of the peninsula. The findings for the next denomination, petty denomination issues, are to be considered even more starkly. Beyond the urban centres, and two locations in the Corinthia and the Argolis («306» and «382»), there is a considerable concentration merely in Lakonia, which fits in with our above observations with respect to the Spartan situation. No doubt, this pattern identifies the denomination as one used or transported in the context of the Achaïan expansion into this part of the peninsula in the 1250s (see «311», «378», and perhaps «224»). Before the inception of the Achaïan tournois, foreign silver is rare in the countryside, even in hoarded contexts: with respect to fine silver coinages, see the sterling hoard «39. Methana» and a single grosso from the Corinthia, «309». Nicaean and Latin hyperpyra are relatively speaking more prominent: see the Achaïan «45», «46», «47», and especially «52. Xirochori 2001» of the 1250s or 1260s, composed of three hyperpyra and only one grosso. There is a short phase in the 1250s and 1260s of French tournois hoarding in the northern part of the Peloponnese («54. Berbati 1953», «60. Nemea 1936», «63. Kordokopi 1972»), which is curiously a decade or two later than a small grave assemblage from the extreme southern part of Lakonia («221. Palaiochora»). The latter might be considered a one-off, if it were not for the evidence from Sparta which has already been discussed, and the one specimen at «225. Agios Stephanos». It is of great note that French tournois are in fact quite rare in the Peloponnesian countryside as single or stray finds: beside Nemea and Zaraka, there are merely two additional French issues from two provenances, Agios Stephanos as we have just said, and «317. Mazi/Skillountia» in Elis. The situation could not be more different for the main tournois phase between ca. 1267 and the middle of the fourteenth century. There is a great number of hoards, now from nearly all parts of the peninsula: the Argolis has «81. Troizina 1899»; «89. Epidauros 1904»; «90. Limnes 2006»; and the Epidauros 1891–1892 and Phychti 1898 hoards, which have now been made available. This concentrated information for Epidauros, more precisely the ancient sanctuary in the location officially known as Asklepieio, together with the

444

chapter 4

incidental information provided by the early excavator Kavvadias, would suggest that, much like Nemea, this is an unexpected medieval habitation worthy of further investigation. From Arkadia there are «87. Vourvoura» and the Isari 1894 hoard. At Elis there is «83. Xirochori 1957» and «158. Petsouri 1997». Messenia has produced the considerable «92. Pylia 1968/1969», and also a hoard from Messene which was presented by Sidiropoulos (see above), and «146. Mesochori», both of which are also significant since they advance knowledge of the Greek circulation of the series they contain. The area of Patra has three hoards («142», «159», «160»). Very soon after the first mintage of tournois at Clarentza, there was very little trace left of the French coinages which preceded it, already by the time of the earliest hoards «81» or «83». Coinages other than tournois are rare in the hoards, apart from a few grossi (again «81», «83»), until the arrival of the soldino coinage in the 1330s (at «146», «158», «159», «160», and at Phychti 1898 and Isari 1894). The Sikyon 1938 hoard from Corinthia is a single soldino hoard. Lakonia is nevertheless hoardless for this period, even the town of Sparta. This is an important observation for such a large stretch of territory. Our belief that this may be a modern accident rather than a reflection on medieval realities is based on different stray findspots for such tournois in the region, specifically in the Mani («378. Tigani», which also has soldini), in the southerly harbour of Sparta («225. Agios Stephanos»), and perhaps at «224. Agios Nikolaos» in the extreme southeast. A similar scenario might apply to its westerly neighbour Messenia: the only relevant stray data are those that have so far been presented orally by Sidiropoulos (compare «319»). Otherwise, stray tournois abound especially in Elis, which has had a specific study dedicated to these finds («226», «260», «261», «307», «310», «313», «317», «336», «337», «349», «380»).44 For adjacent Achaïa the only excavated tournois are those from Riganokampos near Patra published quite recently (see above). In the light of these, often rural, data it would appear that, in terms of monetisation, a certain shift occurred from the northeast to the northwest of the peninsula: the Corinthia, Argolis, and Arkadia, outside of the sites which have already been discussed, have produced less than a handful of stray tournois: see «255. Bozika», «314. Ligourio», «339. Orchomenos». A final feature of the latter part of the tournois phase, and later, in the Peloponnese was that, much as in the hoards, Venetian soldini came to be available in all areas: Lakonia, as we have said («378»), Arkadia («308» and perhaps «353»), and especially in Achaïa («286» and «342») and Elis («226», «261», «313»). The Peloponnesian stray data have contributed significantly to our general conclusions on the monetisation 44  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: PELOPONNESE

445

of Greece, that is to say the dramatic augmentation of the same from the middle of the thirteenth to the middle of the fourteenth century.45 The same is true for the final flourish on the same Figure 2 just before and after 1400, which is not as high as the previous one but still noteworthy: this was carried almost totally by the Venetian tornesello. However, a particular Peloponnesian feature, which is not matched by all of the other Greek regions, is a relatively strong middle phase of Venetian soldini between the 1350s and the 1370s, for which some of the stray soldini have just been cited, and in which the hoard «168. Elis 1964» is particularly impressive. In other parts of the peninsula we find the soldino hoards Mantineia 1867 and Patra 1978, dating to a similar period, and referred to at the beginning of this section. This phase was notably absent at Corinth, and the site was still weak during the main tornesello phase, in contrast to the other urban areas which were discussed in the earlier part of this section. Even during the 1380s and later some hoards were still confined to soldini, such as «175. Pyrgos 1967» and «176. Achaïa», and now Patra 1939, Grivitza 1867, and Vasiliko, all cited in the beginning of the section. About ten more or less majority tornesello hoards from smaller settlements and the open Peloponnesian countryside are known, many of which have already been analysed in earlier chapters in the light of the momentous political and military history of the peninsula in these years. These hoards are invariably large or very large, and are spread amongst most of our areas: the Argolis («182»), Arkadia («172» and «200», both also containing earlier soldini, and «179»), Elis («174» and «188», both containing also earlier and contemporary soldini), and Messenia («201», and now Chatzi Vouphrada 1927). There are additionally a few hoards in Appendix I which are perhaps from the Peloponnese, another without precise findspot within the peninsula («208»). We know that torneselli were very much present in Lakonia: see Sparta and its region, and additionally «224. Agios Nikolaos» and «378. Tigani». For Messenia the information is to date limited to a few coins from the Venetian colony of Coron-Modon («320»), yet we know from written sources that this was one of the most economically vibrant and best supplied parts of the entire peninsula. The distinctive hoarding pattern away from Messenia and Lakonia (and even Corinthia), especially around Arkadia and the inland part of Elis, is therefore a reflection on the fact that these were indeed the areas that were militarily the most intense. This impression finds corroboration in the large numbers of fortifications present in this area during the dying middle ages, as we can deduce from the various Venetian lists of Peloponnesian castles which were produced during the 45  Figure 2 on p. 184.

446

chapter 4

1460s in the context of the conflict with the Ottomans.46 The stray data from Mouchli, provided by Lagos and Karyanos (see above), must also be viewed in the context of the warfare between Byzantines, Venetians, and Ottomans. The stray data from the more northerly modern nomoi are much more spread out than the hoards, and they propose thereby a rather even monetary coverage even in this late phase of the peninsula’s history. A certain concentration in maritime Elis reflects either on its continued vibrancy, or on the fact that it has been investigated more thoroughly: see Elis («261», «280», «291», «310», «313», «317»); Achaïa («286» and «343») Argolis («314»); Corinthia («255», in addition to Nemea and Zaraka, discussed above); and Arkadia («308» and «339», perhaps «353»). 2

Eastern Mainland Greece, with Special Reference to Athens and Thebes Relevant hoards: «9. Thebes 1993A», «10. Thebes 1993B», «11. Thebes 1993C», «12. Thebes 1997A», «13. Thebes 1997B», «15. Oreos 1935», «16. Kastri 1952», «17. Athenian Agora 1933», «19. Peiraias 1926»(?), «25. Brauron 1956», «26. Athens 1933» (?), «40. Athens 1928», «44. Thebes 1967», «49. Eretria 1962A», «51. Athens 1963B», «55. Athens 1963A», «61. Attica 1971», «71. Chasani ca. 1860», «74. Thebes 1998», «75. Salamina», «78. Sphaka», «79. Athens 1982», «80. Athens/Agios Andreas 1937», «88. Delphi 1933», «91. Thebes 1987», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «96. Kapandriti 1978», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «101. Megara», «103. Spata», «104. Tatoï 1860», «109. Eleusina 1862», «111. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B», «112. Pikermi/Spata 1936», «116. Amphissa ca. 1977», «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972»(?), «120. Athenian Agora 1939», «121. Delphi 1894Δ», «122. Thebes 1967», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975»(?), «124. Attica 1950», «125. Eleusina 1894», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «135. Orio 1959», «138. Tritaia 1933», «139. Atalandi 1940», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «150. Elateia before 1885», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «157. Thebes 1990», «161. Thespies», «166. Euboia», «167. Kaparelli», «170. Eleusina 1952», «171. Thespies», «173. Lamia 1985», «178. Athenian Agora 1936», «181. Thebes 1995», «184. Eretria 1962B», «185. Kalapodi», «187. Thebes 1973», «191. Ritzanoi», «196. Delphi 1894B», «198. Delphi 1894A», «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B», «211. Chalkida».

46  See Fenster, “Nochmals zu den venezianischen Listen der Kastelle auf der Peloponnes”, which replaces the individual studies by McLeod and Carile.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND

447

Relevant grave finds: «213. Aliartos», «214. Athenian Agora», «215. Athens». Relevant excavation and single finds: «228. Aktaio», «229. Amphissa», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «240. Athens», «241. Athens», «242. Athens», «243. Athens», «244. Athens», «245. Athens», «246. Athens», «247. Athens», «248. Athens», «249. Athens», «250. Athens», «251. Athens», «252. Athens», «259. Chalkida», «282. Delphi», «283. Delphi», «284. Delphi», «285. Delphi», «289. Euboia», «290. Eutresis», «298. Kallipolis», «300. Karditsa», «303. Karystos», «312. Lamia», «315. Livadeia», «318. Melitaia», «338. Orchomenos», «340. Panakto», «344. Petalia», «345. Peta», «354. Thebes», «355. Thebes», «356. Thebes», «357. Thebes», «358. Thebes», «359. Thebes», «360. Thebes», «361. Thebes», «362. Thebes», «363. Thebes», «364. Thebes», «365. Thebes», «366. Thebes», «367. Thebes», «368. Thebes», «369. Thebes», «370. Thebes», «371. Thebes», «372. Thebes», «373. Thebes», «384. Ypati». Of the above, specifically for Athens: «17», «19»(?), «26»(?), «40», «51», «55», «71», «79», «80», «98», «103», «111», «112», «120», «149», «178», «214», «215», «238»–«252». Of the above, specifically for Thebes: «9», «10», «11», «12», «13», «44», «74», «91», «122», «157», «181», «187», «354»–«373».

448

chapter 4

In addition to the finds listed above, there are a number of others which are not contained in Appendix I. There is a small hoard entitled Thebes 2011, which may originally have been larger, dumped in a bothros in the area of the bus ­station.47 The extant coins are five tournois dating ca. 1301–ca. 1316, although the hoard itself may well have been abandoned in ca. 1330.48 In the publication I have also used some information on other coin finds to which I gained access during work on the new displays of Thebes Archaeological Museum, but which are not all listed in Appendix I. In the same year 2011 various dumps in Mitropoleos Street in Chalkida produced a number of coins. Of these 37 petty denomination coins of the Negroponte type (Metcalf type 11) and four small module Latin imitative trachea belonged to one hoard (Chalkida 2011) dating to mid-century, and transferred to one of the dumps perhaps in the first years of the fourteenth century. The other strays finds and related objects were two jettons, a few more trachea, one denier tournois and a couple of later torneselli.49 Our knowledge of Eretria in Euboia has also been enhanced by the publication of what appears to be the entirety of the Roman to medieval material from the Swiss excavations: it is noteworthy that there is no thirteenth-century material and that the site becomes active again in the dying days of the middle ages, with eight separate tornesello finds (one of Contarini, four of Venier, two of Steno, one uncertain).50 2.1 Athens (See specifically Map 3, p. 1603) Athens, the capital and largest city of the Hellenic Republic, and the centre of classical Greek civilisation, has rightfully provided us with some useful numismatic data also for the medieval period. This said, in the light of the urban expanse of modern Athens and the intensity of the archaeological investigation of its many historical sites, and the metro excavations at the end of the twentieth century, these same data are on the whole still rather disappointing. Casting an eye on the map can explain this further: the Byzantine (and presumably medieval) town had a relatively large size which can best be gauged by the many extant churches.51 At its centre were two foci: the akropolis, re-fortified under the Latins, home of the cathedral (the Parthenon), the palaces of the archbishops 47  Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. 48  See further Chapter 2, p. 146. 49  This material was discussed by S. Skartsis, I. Vaxevanis, and me at the 12th International congress on medieval and modern period Mediterranean ceramics, Athens, October 2018, and will be published in a future contribution. 50  Spoerri Butcher, “Erétrie”, pp. 434, 446, 450, 452–453, 460–462. 51  Most of the work on the general topography of Athens has been carried out with reference to churches and to the middle Byzantine rather than the Latin period. See, first

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: ATHENS

449

and later the dukes of Athens, and humbler settlements52; and to the north the area contained within the lower walls around what had been the Roman Agora and the Tower of the Winds.53 Beyond the Post-Herulian walls, in all directions, habitation and other activities would have continued: in the general direction of the modern National Gardens and Syntagma Square via the Plaka district; to Hadrian’s Library in the north, and the modern Monastiraki and Psiri neighbourhoods; and of course towards the west of the Roman Agora, the area of the ancient Athenian Agora, the Areopagos and Pnyx hills, and the Kerameikos. In the immediate vicinity of Athens were other sites frequented by the Latins, often churches, foremost amongst which the katholikon of the monastery at Daphni where the de la Roche dukes were buried.54 Well in excess of 90% of our stray coins from Athens dating after 1200 are from excavations conducted by the ASCSA in and around the Athenian Agora («238» and «239»). Despite of the richness of this material, it therefore often poses more questions about the overall topography and development of the town in the Latin period than it necessarily provides answers for: was this area frequented more or less than the upper and lower towns inside the walls; or was it frequented differently, for instance did it have a commercial, an artisanal, or perhaps even military, function? Was it perhaps favoured as a habitation by certain populations? On the whole, few comparisons between the Athenian Agora area and other parts of medieval Athens – numismatically or otherwise – are possible. One contribution on the medieval archaeology of the town, which in fact contains useful data which are otherwise unavailable, has limited itself entirely to evidence from the Athenian Agora.55 Also Bouras, who went through the various inhabited areas very systematically in his exceedingly interesting and useful book, inevitably dedicated a large section to the evidence from the Agora.56 For the medieval period proper there are a greater number of contemporary descriptions of Athens, for instance by Ludolf von Sudheim (1336–1341), Nicholas Martoni (1395), or Cyriacus of Ancona (1436 and 1447), yet the information which they have conveyed may be of interest for and foremost, Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα. Further, see Bouras, “City and village”, pp. 625–628 and Bouras, “Byzantine Athens, 330–1453”. On the town on the eve of the Latin conquest, see Setton, “Athens in the later twelfth century”. On church building in middle Byzantine Athens, see also Chapter 1, p. 6. Useful as a broad artistic and topographical overview of Latin Athens is also Kalopissi-Verti, “Athens and Thebes after 1204”. 52  From the large bibliography by Tasos Tanoulas, see for instance his “Η Αθηναϊκή ακρόπολη υπό καταλανική κυριαρχία” (for the Catalan period), and Tanoulas, “Acciaiuoli palace in the Propylaea” (on the Florentine phase). See also Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα, pp. 29–46; 61–62. 53  See specifically Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα, pp. 62–72. 54  See again Kalopissi-Verti, “Athens and Thebes after 1204”, with extensive bibliography. 55  Setton, “The Archaeology of Medieval Athens”. 56  Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα, pp. 72–85.

450

chapter 4

certain buildings or because of other incidental remarks, yet they do not contribute qualitatively to a medieval topography of the town.57 The work which I undertook on the material kept in the storage rooms of the Athenian Agora has been summarised in the relevant entries «238» and «239», and also «17», «51», «55», «120», «178», «214», and in Appendix I.14: I attempted to verify the attributions of Latin coins made by Shear and Thompson in their entireties, I added coins found after World War II, and I sought to include pertinent information, as best as I could, on Byzantine and Byzantine-style coins, without being complete and able to add these data to the total find lists. Further, I separated graves (from the Hephaisteion area) and hoards, and omitted them from the lists of single finds. I presented some of the find data in context in Appendix I.14. Finally, in «239» I added a new body of nearly 400 unpublished coins. The finds from «238» and «239», and the other indicated units from the Athenian Agora, allow us to construct a rather complex survey of the monetisation of what was evidently an important part of town. In fact it is the only such narrative that can be constructed for anywhere in Athens, and we cannot do more at present than to group the finds from other topographical areas of town around it.58 The Latin conquest of Athens may have been more peaceful than, for instance, that of Thebes or Corinth, or at least briefer and, after the elimination of Leon Sgouros, without organised resistance.59 This seemed in the 1960s to find confirmation in the fact that Metcalf had failed to find any pertinent numismatic material when he worked at the site at the time.60 This can now be rectified by some of the basic data offered in the introductory note to «238»: there are low quantities of Faithful Copies and early Latin Imitatives. No such stray finds are currently known from anywhere else in Athens (for «239» coins of this period have not been systematically treated), although some of the units between «240» and «250» still have the potential of having contained some. At the adjacent Kerameikos («251») we can be more certain that such coins are not present, since this matter was kindly verified for me by the DAI. Hoards «19. Peiraias 1926» and «26. Athens 1933», which were concealed in about 1205– 1206 and contain, amongst other issues, so-called ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives, may actually not have been found in these respective places. If there were hoards or hoard-like assemblages of Latin trachea and related issues from Athens with 57  See specifically Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 15ff. 58  There are parallels here with the ceramic evidence for Athens, which is again rich and diverse for the Athenian Agora (summarized in Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”, p. 414, with many references), though largely inexistent for other parts of the town. 59  Setton, “Athens in the later twelfth century”, pp. 204–205. 60  Compare Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1231.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: ATHENS

451

more secure findspots, as there are at Corinth or Thebes, we might also have found them amongst the ample material in the Athenian Agora, or otherwise have heard about them more readily than in the case of simple stray finds. We may conclude then that Metcalf’s suspicions and rationale were tendentially right, if not quite as extreme as he had stated. Athens was highly monetised in the twelfth century: hyperpyra are in good evidence,61 and the area traditionally used the copper tetarteron, of which there are thousands of finds. As I explain elsewhere, it would have been unrealistic to target this denomination systematically in order to extract information from it relating to medieval, rather than merely middle Byzantine, times at the Athenian Agora. Through Appendix I.14 we nevertheless appreciate the quantity of such imperial issues which were still in some way available in the subsequent medieval, and indeed Ottoman, centuries.62 We have some additional information from hoards: «55. Athens 1963A», concealed on Areopagos hill after 1255, contained one imperial twelfth-century tetarteron; «79. Athens 1982» from the far end of Adrianou in Plaka, dating to the late thirteenth century, actually had eleven.63 In the stratigraphic lists of Appendix I.14, such coins were supplemented by counterfeits, which have been divided into crude and nicely executed specimens. The latter can be identified as issues of the socalled ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ which we have already encountered at Corinth, and even more so in the Argolis. The finds from Athens (and Attica: see below and «16» and «25» from the Attic countryside near Athens) are so substantial that a local production cannot be excluded, even if it is not likely. If it were not for these finds the coinage may well have been called simply ‘Argive Group’. The 27 tetarteron counterfeits at «239» can virtually all be assigned to this group, and the numbers are substantial since the local petty denomination issues were only 31 strong (at «238» there are about 274 such Theban issues, while no complete numbers for the Saronic Gulf Group are available). Amongst the material now kept at the Stoa of Attalos, Zervos and the late MacIsaac had worked on an assemblage, from Section H’, of more than 100 coins of the Saronic Gulf Group («17»). The parallel availability of coins of this group in Athens, Corinth, Nemea, and Argos and the Argolis, underlines the good communication, by land and sea, between these areas in the pivotal years of transition from Byzantine to Latin rule. As with billon trachea, no other information either on twelfth-century tetartera or their thirteenth-century counterfeits are forthcoming amongst the units «240»–«250». It is of note, finally, that one of the 61  Appendix II.1.D, p. 1254. 62  For this and what follows, see also Baker, “Thessaly”. 63  See also Appendix II.1.A.1, p. 1202.

452

chapter 4

medieval graves surrounding the small church built against the western wall of the Library of Hadrian contained a single tetarteron of Manuel I («215»). I did not separate out the many graves containing tetartera grouped around the Hephaisteion to the west of the Agora («214»). Further westwards, at the Kerameikos, many decades of German excavations have produced merely three tetartera, a reflection no doubt, despite of what may be said about early excavation techniques, that this area was on the edge of the inhabited town of Athens in Byzantine/medieval times («251»). Athens is one of the few southern Greek locations for which there is currently information on foreign coins of twelfth-century mintage which were in circulation in imperial, and perhaps also in Latin, times: these are coppers and pennies of Sicily and Lucca and the crusader states in the Levant.64 Athens has given us some tremendously interesting numismatic data for the first decades of the thirteenth century: at a short distance north of the Agora, outside of the medieval walls, a hoard of ten hyperpyra in the name of John III Vatatzes was found dating to the 1220s or 1230s («40»). The evidence from the Agora and the North Slope («238»–«239») suggests that Venetian grossi and French tournois were available in good quantities (see additionally «51. Athens 1963B»; consider also «75. Salamina» excavated on this nearby island), not however English sterlings which would have allowed us to integrate Athens into the triangle which existed between the Argolis/Corinthia, the west coast of Anatolia, and Crete. The single coin of Armenia continues the eastern theme, as does the Rhodian coin of Gabalas, while the two Venetian quartaroli are in themselves significant since, being such menial coins, they might suggest genuine Venetian frequentation of the area. Around 1250 monetisation of sorts shifted significantly towards the petty denomination issues. This denomination, in the precise context of the Athenian Agora, has already been discussed extensively, in this book and elsewhere. No topographical patterns of losses are discernible and no government interventions contributed to their abandonment, for example the alleged demonetisation of one issue. Nevertheless, rates of availability and loss were clearly influenced by warfare. «55. Athens 1963A» has a military aspect in the presence of Negropontine issues of William II of Villehardouin, and also the remainder of the site has three and one specimens of the same type («238» and «239»). The two areas also have many more Achaïan than Theban issues of types 1 and 2, especially the facing head and CORIHTVä types 8 and 9. The overall quantities of petty denomination issues of Achaïa and the lordship of Athens, in relation, for instance, to French royal and feudal tournois, is impressive, especially if we compare the 64  See the introduction to «238» and Appendix II.6.A, p. 1344.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: ATHENS

453

figures with Corinth. For instance at «238. Athenian Agora» the ratio is 489:11 = 44.5; at «239. Athens» it is 41:2 = 20.5; but at «268. Corinth» it is merely 144:41 = 3.5; at «263. Corinth» 55:7 = 7.8; and at «266. Corinth» 276:35 = 7.8. The reason for this discrepancy must be sought in the fact that Theban issues of the lordship almost never circulated in the Peloponnese, and that Corinthian issues on the other hand entered Attica massively during the Achaïan offensive. Looking beyond the Agora, the parts of Athens which have some kind of numismatic evidence for the period ca. 1210 to ca. 1260 are the Roman Agora («242» and perhaps «243»), Kerameikos («251»), the Zappeion area («252»), and that of Athens University to the northeast («240»). The information regarding other plots in the centre is more vague and there may well have been more relevant finds also there. The picture which the petty denomination issues are able to provide of the monetary vitality of Athens is decidedly uncertain, yet this coinage is of undoubted topographical significance considering its spread amongst the modern city. The Greek tournois coinage in subsequent decades is, as in many other parts of Greece, testimony to processes of economic and political expansion. The sequence at «238» is impressive: there are copious Achaïan issues, spread evenly and resembling a hoard, without undue concentrations for certain princes. The series ends in the princeship of John of Gravina. Also the numerical relationship with the Naupaktos, and even the local Theban issues, is hoardlike and suggests open and good circulation. This is corroborated by the presence of some of the rarer tournois issues dating before and after 1311, from Arta, Salona, and Tinos. The transition from Burgundian and southern Italian to Catalan rule cannot be gleaned from these data, were it not for the presence of 32 counterfeits of the Catalan Company itself. The spread of these distinctive issues across Athens and Corinth provided me with a strong lead in making this identification in the first place. By far the largest quantity of tournois at the site are other kinds of counterfeits, which may be divided into those of good style (52), and others which are cruder (104). Leaving aside the Catalan issues, at «238. Athenian Agora» there were 156 counterfeits as against 77 genuine Achaïan issues (156:77 = 2). At the Frankish complex in Corinth («268») this ratio was higher (3:1), yet there counterfeits were rounded up on purpose for elimination, which was not at all the case in Athens. These statistics underline just how endemic counterfeiting of tournois was in Athens during the Catalan and presumably later periods. At «238» the main tournois period is enriched by Venetian grossi, a Florentine penny, and a Neapolitan gigliato. The concentration of 18 soldini dating to before 1350 is truly staggering. «239. Athens» replicates, on a smaller scale, most of the information which we have derived from the

454

chapter 4

adjacent «238». It is also equally strong on counterfeits but has produced no soldini. Hoard «120. Athenian Agora 1939» of Neapolitan gigliati (carlini) was concealed in the 1310s or 1320s to the south of the Stoa of Attalos. Less than 100m to the east, inside the walls, we find hoard «111. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B», similarly small, and of similar date. This hoard contained rather more Sicilian than Neapolitan carlini. The same plot within the nineteenth-century city (Lytsika and Azape) brought to light another hoard which was composed of deniers tournois and soldini, with an approximate date of concealment in the 1330s («149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A»). There were also some interesting stray finds there, a Neapolitan gigliato complementing the single find from the nearby Agora, and a Chiot silver issue of the period of the Zaccaria («242»).65 The «79. Athens 1982» hoard has already been discussed: it was found at the other side of the central medieval habitation, just to the east of the walls, and is yet again compositionally quite different, with mostly tetartera and one later Theban petty denomination issue dating it before 1300. The same excavation brought to light a denier tournois («245»). Close by, on the eastern slopes of the akropolis, another Theban tournois was found («248»). The centre of town has otherwise yielded only few data for the period from the 1260s to 1350. Graves I and XII surrounding the church of Agios Asomatos, and perhaps some others, date to the main denier tournois and later petty denomination phase («215»), as do many graves sunk into the area around the Hephaisteion at the western edge of the Athenian Agora («214»). At the Kerameikos there is again some faint evidence of activities («251»). All in all, it is noticeable that outside of the Athenian Agora itself, the sporadic stray coin finds are often of Athenian, rather than for instance Achaïan, mintage. The urban developments of greater Athens over the decades have also resulted in some medieval numismatic data: «80. Athens/Agios Andreas 1937», a pure Venetian grosso hoard dating to the Burgundian period, presumably at a point in time in the later 1280s when the Thebes mint had already begun issuing deniers tournois. It was excavated in a church by Orlandos in an area which, in modern terms, lies in the north-central part of the city, but which would in medieval times have been a few kilometers beyond the town’s walls in the general direction of Boiotia and Thebes. In ca. 1311 a large number of hoards were concealed in Attica and surroundings, as a direct result of the Catalan invasions of the area. Infrastructural work in recent years has revealed two more of these hoards, both being small assemblages of deniers tournois: the first was found at the foot of the Pentelikon mountain, during the construction of the Attiki Odos («98»). The second derives from the area of 65  For another silver issue of the Zaccaria, see «239» and #383.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: ATHENS

455

Athens airport, more precisely a church in Spata («103»). To the north, in the modern suburb of Pikermi, a hoard of gigliati and pierreali and deniers tournois has been found («112»). The hoard has not yet been studied to the required standard: it may also date to 1311, but it may equally have been concealed one or two decades later. Finally, in the southern suburb of Elliniko, near the former airport on the coast of the Saronic Gulf, a denier tournois hoard was found in the nineteenth century («71»). It too remains unstudied and dates generally ca. 1267–ca. 1350. The numismatic evidence for the period after ca. 1350 at Athens is decidedly mixed. With the exception of one small, if unusual and interesting, hoard from the Athenian Agora which will be discussed below, no other hoards are known from anywhere in the centre of town, nor even from anywhere else in the greater Athens area of modern times (on «210», which is later than 1430 but may have had an Athenian provenance, see below). In view of the fact that torneselli were so prolifically hoarded throughout Greece, even within the towns of Thebes («181» and «187») and Chalkida («211») which will be dealt with in the further course of this discussion, this dearth must surely be considered in negative terms. Despite of this, «238» boasts an impressive range of coins dating to the last of our medieval phases: quite apart from the many lowgrade tournois counterfeits which may well have been produced in this period, and the older stock of genuine and counterfeit tournois, and even tetartera, which may have been in usage according to the evidence of the stratigraphic list in Appendix I.14, there are Venetian soldini, Rhodian, Anconite, and Ottoman coins, and a grand total of 455 Venetian torneselli dating between 1353 and 1423 (as compared for instance to a mere 77+49 tournois from the Clarentza and Thebes mints dating between ca. 1267 and 1332). These proportions are even more striking at the adjacent «239» (respectively 14+9 tournois and 160 torneselli). Despite of the smaller numbers, this excavation has yielded some interesting additional finds of Chiot, Lesbian, and Hungarian coins. The coin hoard which I have mentioned, «178. Athenian Agora 1936», was found near the Panathenaic Way inside the medieval walls and was composed of five Byzantine copper coins of the 1380s.66 This is a completely unique find for southern Greece and stresses the exceptional position of Athens even in the transition phase from Catalan to Florentine rule. These coins had previously been classified as tetartera of Manuel I, which underlines the potential of re-checking all other tetartera of the site. The graves at the far side of the Agora also continued into the time of the rule of the Acciaiuoli, although according to the numismatic evidence no new graves may have been added after about 1400 («214»). Curiously, the graves to the east, around the western wall of 66  Appendix II.1.E.4, pp. 1273–1274.

456

chapter 4

the Library of Hadrian, may have had a similar chronology («215»). Torneselli have been found elsewhere in this former library («246») and at the adjacent Roman Agora («242», maybe «243»), and also on the akropolis («247»), and perhaps its easterly slope («250»), not however any more faraway locations such as the Kerameikos («251») or the Zappeion («252»). On the evidence of these data, the expanse of Athens may have contracted after the middle of the fourteenth century, and activities in what would have been the near countryside (in modern terms greater Athens) scaled down. At the same time the frequentation of the most central areas inside and outside the western lower walls, and monetary exchanges there, seem to have intensified. In broad terms, this impression finds reflection in some of the incidental information offered by the foreign visitors mentioned above: von Sudheim found the town to be rather desolate, and Martoni estimated the size of the town as a mere 1,000 hearths. 2.2 Thebes (See specifically Map 4, pp. 1604–1605) Thebes has produced far fewer stray coin finds than Athens. Still, they command a great interest because of their typological and topographical diversity. The Theban hoards are also particularly revealing. Overall, the contribution made by numismatics to our knowledge of the developments of the town during the medieval period is therefore of very great significance. In relation to the forthcoming publication of the small Thebes 2011 hoard, found dumped near the bus station, I have already attempted to cover the Burgundian and early Catalan phases in the light of the monetary data.67 Thebes has been extensively, if not systematically, excavated over the last decades.68 The medieval, Byzantine, classical, and Mycenaean phases sit tightly packed one upon another over the entire akropolis, known as the Kadmeia, and also in the lower lying areas of town, and on the surrounding elevations. Excavations have invariably been conducted by the Archaeological Service as modern habitation and other functions have evolved, and some foreign missions have also been involved. A few publications of medieval archaeological finds, mostly pottery, but also some coins, have emerged over the years. Medievalists have also been drawn to the town by some of the extant structures indicated on Map 4, the three towers on the edges of the Kadmeia, especially the best preserved one 67  Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. 68  A good impression of archaeology and topography can be gained from the successive Bouras, “City and village”, pp. 622–625; Symeonoglou, Thebes; Louvi-Kizi, “Thebes”; Koilakou, “Thebes”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: ATHENS

457

in the northern part, remnants of the walls that surrounded the Kadmeia, a dozen or so churches with medieval phases, and the fame of the so-called palace of St. Omer which is said to have covered a substantial central part of the Kadmeia. The recent re-structuring of the Archaeological Museum of Thebes has also necessitated members of the Service and their collaborators to re-visit many of the finds that have been made. Some small scale excavations towards the new buildings of the museum also resulted in relevant finds. In these processes I was given access to coin finds from the town and its area, and I refer to some of this information here.69 Thebes, like Athens, used tetartera in the middle Byzantine period. I have seen a great many from the town myself, and they are otherwise known from the publications of Galani-Krikou.70 The only indications which we presently have on their prolonged availability and usage in medieval times is one of the hoards which she has published («91. Thebes 1987», from the lower area to the west of the Kadmeia), and another published by Mrs Oikonomidou from the northern part of town, «44. Thebes 1967». The kind of stratigraphic work which would otherwise be required to investigate this matter has so far not been undertaken. We can however state categorically that tetarteron counterfeits of the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’, which have just been discussed for Athens, were not present at Thebes, nor anywhere else in Boiotia. The ca. nine tetarteron counterfeits listed under «357. Thebes», which I studied, were not part of this group. The first decade of the thirteenth century saw particularly vivid numismatic developments, especially just to the south of the Kadmeia, on a ridge which still today provides the easiest point of access to this akropolis. In recent decades construction work, especially of the town’s new law courts, has unearthed four coin hoards of billon trachea, none of them published to the required standard, but all with very great likelihood concealed before ca. 1210: these are «9»–«11» from the court itself, and «12» from an adjacent street about 100m away. Between these two locations more stray trachea from the same period have been excavated: «368», «369», «370». Much further to the south, at the old slaughterhouse, Latin billon trachea have also emerged.71 Down the hill from the law courts towards the east, in the so-called Tabouri Rouki neighbourhood, another hoard with the same dating has been found («13»), as have 69  Access to the materials was kindly granted by former Ephors Ch. Koilakou, E. Gerousi, and P. Kalamara. 70  See for instance Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματικοί θησαυροί”. 71  These are not in Appendix I: for the relevant museological information, see Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”.

458

chapter 4

similar stray finds which are not in Appendix I. Nearby, in the valley of the Chrysoroas stream, more were excavated during the 2000s.72 Uphill, two plots which lay just outside of the Kadmeia, «368» and «372», again produced stray trachea. Whether the same was true for the excavations for a shopping centre at the southern entrance to the Kadmeia is uncertain («371»). There are more billon trachy finds of the first Latin and ‘Bulgarian’ period inside the Kadmeia itself, in the northern («360», «359», «355»), and southeastern («364» and «373») sections.73 An excavation was undertaken to the west of the Kadmeia, in the Agia Triada district («354»). The information which derives from there is doubly significant: it is the only information from this part of town, and it provides the largest assemblage of coins of this kind, with statistical implications: we cannot fail to notice the strong concentration around the Faithful Copies and Latin types A, B, and D (this is corroborated by the smaller quantities at «355»). We can conclude that the strength and coherence of all this evidence suggests that trachea were carried in some quantities, and with some purpose, from Constantinople to Thebes in quick succession to 1204. They are testimony to a significant influx of people, and to prolonged military operations, perhaps around the different southerly sides of the Kadmeia, to the west, south, and east. These events, which were numismatically speaking concluded by 1210, influenced Theban monetisation also beyond this point. Thebes was in the unusual position not just to have seen the circulation of subsequent Byzantine issues from Thessalonike and Nicaea, which it shared with Corinth (see «354» and «358» for stray finds),74 but also to have been the location of a very substantial and interesting hoard of such issues, «44. Thebes 1967». This hoard is top heavy, with very large numbers of early Latin (and ‘Bulgarian’) issues in line with my previous arguments. The remainder are coins of the Anatolian and European successor states of Byzantium. Two further matters are of interest: the find was made in the Pyri neighbourhood to the northwest and is presently the only medieval monetary manifestation known from this part of town, even if Pyri has been documented by Bouras, Symeonoglou, and then by Louvi-Kizi, as inhabited and active in this period. Second, «44» may well have had, like the earlier trachy hoards, a military context: the ascendant Michael II of Epiros attacked Thebes approximately at the time when the hoard was concealed, 1235–1236. One imagines that before the first silver minting in Latin Greece in the late 1260s, Venetian grossi, English 72  Again, for all these data, see Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. 73  «356» and «357» were probably also from the Kadmeia, and other relevant finds not contained in Appendix I are again referenced in Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. 74  Appendix II.1.B.5, p. 1235.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: ATHENS

459

sterlings, and French deniers tournois may have been current. The only evidence currently available to that effect is a royal French issue («361») and one of Poitou («354»),75 and grossi of Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) concealed in a later hoard («74»). Intriguingly, in this period the Theban hyperpyron was said to be based on sterlings, but this cannot presently be backed up by actual finds of the same from the town, or indeed anywhere in Boiotia.76 Thebes minted types 1 and 2 petty denomination issues in the name of Guy I de la Roche substantially in the 1250s. Such coins, and their Corinthian counterparts from the same decade, are available in the western («354»), southern («367», perhaps «369» and «370»), and eastern part of town («366», perhaps «372»77). Maybe a few also derive from inside the fortified akropolis («357» and «364»–«365»), but overall the previous pattern is asserting itself in these central years of the thirteenth century, whereby the numismatic evidence is evenly spread out within the town, but certainly not with an emphasis in the Kadmeia. Regarding the petty denomination issues, their overall humble quantities, and the relative importance of Corinthian specimens with this coinage, is perhaps surprising in view of the fact that Athenian types 1 and 2 were locally minted. It is quite possible that this underlines the fact that the quantities of such issues at the Athenian Agora might have been artificially inflated. Perhaps this can be explained through the intended (military) usage of this coinage. Or indeed, it might be a reflection on Thebes itself and the monetary aspirations of its own residents. In this respect it is particularly striking that there should have been no hoards or even small assemblages of such issues. The next logical unit is the period of the tournois issues of Latin Greece (and their rare petty denomination equivalents), from the 1260s to the 1340s or 1350s. The cataclysmic events of the Catalan conquest cut right through this period. Deniers tournois were present in large numbers, but during this long phase other coinages also became available in the town, in line, often, with the influence of the various southern Italian, Catalano-Aragonese, Venetian, and French protagonists of the area. The Agia Triada plot is again the singlemost important provenance of stray data, with deniers tournois spanning most of the indicated period. There are also two Angevin denari from South Italy («354»). The «91. Thebes 1987» hoard of deniers tournois (and one tetarteron: see above), concealed maybe in ca. 1308, was also found there. Inside the Kadmeia, 75  Another French issue, not listed in Appendix I, derives from a more northerly area towards the railway station: Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. 76  Appendix II.2, p. 1282; Appendix III.3, p. 1525. 77  Consider also the aforementioned plot in Tabouri Rouki, which had four petty denomination coins: Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”.

460

chapter 4

one uncertain denier tournois was found in its northern section («355»), while an issue of William II of Villehardouin was excavated in the southeast of the walled area («361»). Maybe a few other deniers tournois of Frankish Greece derived from the Kadmeia: the following data are uncertain, either with respect to provenance or the precise identity of the coins in question: «357», «361», «364». The evidence outside of the Kadmeia in general northerly direction is again quite sparse. The plot towards the railway station which we have mentioned has yielded one tournois.78 Just to the east of the northern part of the Kadmeia, at the foot of the Kastelli hill, a small grosso hoard «74. Thebes 1998» was excavated. This belong to a generation of pure or majority grosso hoards concealed at the time of the inception of the indigenous Greek coinages. Directly south of the Kadmeia, there were tournois from plots around the law courts and the old slaughterhouse («368», «369»). In more easterly direction, a gros tournois from the slope towards the valley is a truly significant single find which may well have been brought to the town in line with the events of 1311 («363»). Further downhill was the location of the Thebes 2011 hoard mentioned at the beginning of this discussion. This was a denier tournois hoard concealed probably in the vicinity and transferred and dumped perhaps rather rapidly in its final position. In the final publication of the hoard it is tentatively suggested that the destruction of the Kadmeia by the Catalans in 1331, as a military measure to fend off the invader and pretender to the duchy, Walter of Brienne, might have been the occasion on which the hoard was finally abandoned. In making this case reference was naturally made to the remarkable hoard «122. Thebes 1967», with which Thebes 2011 may have shared a date of concealment. Unfortunately, the precise findspot of «122» is unknown. This hoard represents a very valuable assemblage in contemporary terms and must, in view also of its composition and the high quantity of Sicilian and Neapolitan issues, be seen in connection with the Catalano-Aragonese elites. The hoard also demonstrates that in this part of Greece, perhaps as a result of the demise of the Thebes mint in 1311, the Venetian silver grossi may again have become quite prevalent.79 A decade and a half after «122», «157. Thebes 1990» was concealed in the Agia Triada district. This hoard exemplifies what we had already observed from the stray finds: during the 1330s the Frankish denier tournois was abandoned by the Theban coin user in favour of the Venetian soldino. Finally, a couple of Frankish coins (deniers tournois?) are reported from Moschopodi in the southeast («362»: contained on Map 1 rather than Map 4).

78  This is referenced in Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”. 79  Appendix II.4.B, p. 1299.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: THEBES

461

We note from all these data that the last years of Burgundian rule and the first two to three decades of Catalan rule resulted in an unprecedented monetary expansion and numismatic diversity. The Catalan take-over does not appear to have had an immediate effect on the specie that was in usage, with the odd exception, as in the case of the gros tournois. We note also that there were none of the so-called Catalan tournois counterfeits, dated to 1311 or just thereafter: these bore Theban (but also Clarentzan) mint signatures, but on the evidence of their geographical distributions one might well wonder whether they were struck in a location other than Thebes. The most evident influence of the Catalan rulers on the topography and monetisation of Thebes – as witnessed through numismatics – occurred in the early 1330s: the wilful destruction of the upper part of town may have completed an ongoing process: we had already commented on the relative dearth of coin finds in the Kadmeia, and there are no coins from there whose losses can with any degree of confidence be dated to the fourteenth century with the exception of the last decade. These events also resulted in the abandonment of the remarkable «157. Thebes 1990», and of Thebes 2011 which, in its own right, has an interesting story to tell. By about 1400 the situation inside the Kadmeia, and in other areas, may have normalised to some degree. Following on from the Catalans and the Navarrese, the town was incorporated into the polity of the Acciaiuoli. However, in this context it was always less favoured than Athens, and also more exposed. Thebes was threatened by the Ottomans in 1392–1394, and in 1435.80 The last monetary phase to be discussed here is short and humble, although it has one intense moment in the shape of «187. Thebes 1973». This large tornesello hoard may well have been concealed during the first Ottoman occupation. It cannot presently be located within the town. The second tornesello hoard dates more vaguely to around 1400 but actually derives from the northern part of the Kadmeia («181. Thebes 1995»). The same plot also produced a Lakonian tornese of Manuel II («355»). Adjacent to this, the two late tournois of the Giustiniani of Chios are quite unusual («360»).81 Some torneselli were found just outside of the southeastern part of the walls of the Kadmeia («366»), others further to the south in the plot of the law courts («368»). The torneselli from Agia Triada («354») are some of the only evidence from the last phase of Catalan rule in the 1360s and 1370s. There are additionally the soldini from this period at «356» and «357», yet we cannot locate these excavations with precision. It would appear, in summary, that monetisation experienced a downturn during the second half of the fourteenth century. This may have been turned around under 80  Preface, p. xx. 81  Appendix II.6.E, p. 1349.

462

chapter 4

Florentine rule, for a short while, when the Kadmeia became active again, and when certain one-off coin finds suggest once more wide-ranging contacts, which this town had traditionally enjoyed. 2.3 Other Towns and Landscapes Outside Athens and Thebes, the regions of the eastern Mainland and their medieval coin finds can be divided in the following manner: one unit is the Attic countryside to the east, north, and west of Athens (including the island of Salamina). Second, Boiotia, especially to the north of Thebes (and a few sites to the south), which flows seamlessly into neighbouring southern Phthiotis, has produced numerous coin finds. Within the latter nomos, the area around the Malian Gulf and the towns of Lamia (Zetounion) and Ypati (Neopatra) are geographically separate. Next, there is the mountainous area to the west of Boiotia, around Delphi and then Amphissa, and its coastline on the Corinthian Gulf (all in the nomos of Phokis). Finally, Euboia has been considered part of the eastern Mainland even if it is an island and had a different political history: it runs parallel to the northern and eastern coastlines of Phthiotis, Boiotia, and Attica, and its capital Chalkida was in many respects closely tied to Thebes. The Attic countryside has very few excavated coins and the evidence is currently limited almost entirely to hoards. «16. Kastri 1952» and «25. Brauron 1956», to the north and west of Athens, were tetarteron hoards containing genuine imperial issues and coins of the Saronic Gulf Group. Interestingly, there are no conquest hoards of trachea from Attica – there were none also from Athens, but plenty from Thebes, as we have seen. In Attica there are also no hoards of petty denomination issues, which we know from Corinth and Athens (and Chalkida: see below). The next numismatic manifestations are from the denier tournois period: «61. Attica 1971» and «75. Salamina» are small hoards of French tournois, concealed ca. 1262–1270. The second of these is from a location on the island facing the mainland. The next group of hoards dates already to the period of the Catalan conquest: «101. Megara», in close proximity to Salamina, contained deniers tournois; «109. Eleusina 1862», found some 20km to the east of Megara, dates similarly but is composed quite differently: it is in fact the earliest of the hoards displaying the large silver issues that can be brought in direct connection with the Catalan Company itself, since the other coinages it contained locate the date of concealment to 1311 or shortly thereafter. A single specimen of the same coinages was found in the extreme east of Attica («345»). The other cluster of conquest-period hoards is to the north of Athens: the denier tournois and grosso hoards from Kapandriti («95» and «96»), and the denier tournois hoard from Tatoï («104»), were all concealed

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: THEBES

463

around 1311. «97. ANS Zara», with the same dating, also had, with great likelihood, an Attic provenance. The subsequent hoards demonstrate that deniers tournois were also current beyond this watershed. In fact there is rather an impressive concentration of such hoards all dating between the late 1310s and perhaps 1331: «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972»; «124. Attica 1950»; «125. Eleusina 1894»; «126. Attica (?) 1951»; «131. Attica (?) 1967». On the evidence of this, outside the towns the Siculo-Provençal silver coinages evidently did not assert themselves. Some three to four decades later, at «170. Eleusina 1952» the same pattern persisted, with the addition, as is to be expected, of Venetian soldini. The discovery of three hoards from the area of Eleusina dating between ca. 1311 and ca. 1368 is of note. The town is known as a fortification, protecting Athens from the west, but not as a settlement.82 There are currently no Attic hoards dating to the period of the Acciaiuoli, though «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B», however inadequate, may give us some impression that the preferred specie during the early decades of the fifteenth century remained miscellaneous tournois, which resonates somewhat with the information gained from the Athenian Agora. In summary, stray data from the Attic countryside would be as desirable as stray data from an area within the town of Athens other than the Agora. Only on the basis of such data would one be able to verify the very distinctive developments at the Agora, with respect for instance to tetarteron counterfeits, petty denomination issues, counterfeit tournois, soldini and torneselli. Only through excavation data will one be able to measure the impact especially of the numerous political transitions – from Burgundian to Catalan, from Navarrese and Florentine to Ottoman times. The medieval Attic coin hoards, in so far as they can be located with greater precision, indicate quite clearly two clusters along the western and northern approaches to Athens, in plains which would have been of strategic, and perhaps also demographic, importance. Boiotia, by contrast, has given us sequences of stray coins from five distinctive sites: information from Karditsa/Akraiphnion due north of Thebes is mostly, with the notable exception of one hyperpyron of the Latin Empire in the name of John III Vatatzes («300»), currently unpublished but accessible to me through my work on the new archaeological museum in Thebes.83 It has the most significant Boiotian accumulation outside of Thebes of conquest-period billon trachea, it continues with Theban and Corinthian petty denomination

82  T IB 1, s.v. Eleusis. 83  The data are discussed in Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes”.

464

chapter 4

issues, and good quantities of tournois. No torneselli have to date been reported from the site, even if it is documented especially for the later Catalan period.84 A short distance to the southwest, older excavations at «338. Orchomenos» found material which, superficially, could well have a similar profile and which bears studying at the NM. To the west, «315. Livadeia» has a later chronology (tournois and tornesello), perhaps in line with the general importance of this town in Catalan and Florentine times, though the numismatic material is to date merely indicative owing to its small size. In the area to the south of Thebes, «290. Eutresis» boasts a complete sequence through all the main denominations from 1204 to the later fourteenth century, which is impressive for such a rural site.85 The same must be said for the equally rural «340. Panakto», from the mountainous border between Boiotia and Attica, even if the chronology is later by about half a century (ca. 1250 at the very earliest to post-1420). Of particular interest is the presence of two soldini. This is in many respects a model site resulting in a model publication.86 The interest of Panakto lies precisely in the ordinariness of this settlement: there are absolutely no signs of any urban/commercial/industrial trappings, though the location might have had a defensive function. This characterisation of the site speaks, in turn, very highly of the monetisation of the Boiotian countryside during these different and at times difficult phases. Hoarding in Boiotia outside of Thebes is much less impressive: as in Attica, there are no conquest-period hoards around 1204, nor later ones of petty denomination issues. However, the entire period of the first western silver imports, the early deniers tournois issues of Greece (with the exception of the very small grave inclusion «213. Aliartos»), and even the invasion of the Grand Catalan Army in 1311, remains also hoardless. The subsequent sharp augmentation in the hoarding pattern, and the concentration of these hoards between ca. 1330 and the 1390s, and in a confined area between Atalandi in the north and Thebes in the south, is remarkable. The hoards themselves can sometimes be brought in connection with different invasions, from Walter of Brienne to the Ottomans, which may account for their quantity. The coinages which were hoarded in this period were deniers tournois («139. Atalandi 1940»), soldini («150. Elateia before 1885»; «161. Thespies»; «185. Kalapodi»), or both of these mixed («167. Kaparelli»), until we arrive at torneselli («171. Thespies») (NB: the ducat hoard found to the north of Lake Kopaïs, «78. Sphaka», cannot presently 84  T IB 1, s.v. Karditsa. 85  This site is apparently so insignificant that it was omitted from TIB 1 completely. 86  Gerstel et al., “Panakton”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND: THEBES

465

be dated). Even though they are partially the result of emergencies, the hoards also reveal a lot about regular monetisation in a tightly packed, fertile area, which, via Thespies (producing two of these hoards), also communicated with the Corinthian Gulf. As in the Attic countryside, there was relatively little sign of the fine silver coinage of the Sicilian tradition (the exception being «167»). The area around the Malian Gulf has provided three rather humble complexes of stray finds. «312. Lamia» is the largest of these, uniting finds from the area of the modern town: they show a steady progression through the denier tournois phases and the subsequent Venetian coinages, going beyond 1400. Also «318. Melitaia» and «384. Ypati», to the north and southwest respectively, had deniers tournois, whereas the last of these locations, the medieval town of Neopatra, had a previous phase of Thessalonican billon trachea of the 1220s. Two hoards have been named after the town of Lamia, although their precise findspots are not entirely certain: «100» is a tournois hoard dating – in line with other hoards discussed in this section – around 1311; whereas «173» is a relatively late soldini hoard which mirror the developments in nearby Boiotia. Moving now into Phokis, the first cluster of finds which we encounter is from the Delphi/Chrisso area. The first is the site of the classical sanctuary of Apollo, the second its harbour, and latterly the harbour also for Salona/ Amphissa.87 Given that nothing is documented at all for Delphi after the late antique period, one wonders whether all finds labelled Delphi in general terms were actually found closer to Chrisso. The matter cannot presently be resolved. The single finds are, diachronically, issues of the twelfth century which might also be thirteenth («282»), a relatively early grosso («285»), good amounts of stray deniers tournois («283», «284»), and single torneselli («284»). Six hoards blend in with this chronology: a couple of denier tournois and grosso hoards date ca. 1305 and ca. 1311 respectively («88» and «99»). The second of these is significant since, together with a hoard from Naupaktos, it shows the possible attempts made by the Catalan Company to conquer territories in westerly direction in quick succession to the battle of Almyros. The next hoard, «121. Delphi 1894Δ», is differently significant: it is the only substantial hoard of gigliati and pierreali outside of Thebes and Athens dating to the main early Catalan phase around the 1320s. «154. Delphi 1894Γ», dating one or two decades later, combines in the usual fashion soldini and tournois. The later hoards «196. Delphi 1894B» and «198. Delphi 1894A» are both characterised by the presence of substantial quantities of older deniers tournois. I have proposed datings of 1404, possibly in line with the Ottoman re-conquests following the battle of Ankara. In the light of all these data we must emphasise once 87  T IB 1, s.v. Delphoi; Krisa; Pétridis, “Delphes, Castorion, Castri”.

466

chapter 4

more the probability that all or most of these finds were made closer towards the sea than the sanctuary. In other words, it would be difficult to imagine that over the years different hoarders sought out an uninhabited classical sanctuary to leave coins, and then not retrieve them. The seminal importance of Chrisso, one might say strategic and no doubt commercial, is crystallised by these coin finds in a way that no other historical source has been able to do. Some of this might have been tied up with the developments of Amphissa/ Salona, in Burgundian, Catalan, and Ottoman times. The local numismatist Kravartogiannos has not looked at stray data evenly: his observations in this regard cover the period around 1204, and then the fifteenth century (a single Anconite coin): see «229. Amphissa». Nearby, at «298. Kallipolis», there was a tornesello phase. «116. Amphissa ca. 1977» and «138. Tritaia 1933», from the coast, are pure denier tournois hoards dating to the first one or two decades of Catalan rule in the area. These finds add to the overall richness of our data, which are also very diverse, but still internally coherent. The island of Euboia has, like the Attic countryside, very few stray finds, not even from Chalkida (Negroponte), which would intermittently have been the most populous and commercially most important town of my entire area. The hoards are considerably more numerous but also have some shortcomings. For the very early post-1204 period there is one tetarteron hoard from the extreme north of the island, «15. Oreos 1935». Zervos has identified some counterfeits in this assemblage, hence the dating. It remains unclear whether the latter can be considered part of the Saronic Gulf Group, which would be interesting in view of the hoard’s location. Regarding trachea, which are so often associated with the military activities of the first decade of the thirteenth century, these are currently limited to two locations, a small island off the south coast («344. Petalia»), and certain plots within Chalkida (see «259» and the excavations from Mitropoleos Street described above). According to the evidence of «49. Eretria 1962A» French tournois were imported to the island by about 1250, and very shortly thereafter a wave of petty denomination issues from the Corinth mint, and specifically the Negroponte type 11, came to its capital as part of the military conflict between Achaïa, Athens, and Venice: see «289» and especially Chalkida 2011, a reject hoard also from Mitropoleos Street. The single gold coin from the north coast of the island is the only testimony to the long drawn out war between the Latins and the new Palaiologan emperors («228»). The next numismatic evidence dates already to the period of the Turkish threat to the same coastline, the denier tournois hoard «135. Orio 1959». The fact that tournois established themselves regularly also on this island is further underlined by some of the strays from the Mitropoleos Street excavations. The same

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EASTERN MAINLAND

467

also unearthed jettons, usually testimony to urban sophistication. The remainder of the numismatic evidence dates from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards, during the time of the Venetian domination of town and island: appropriately, virtually all money lost or deposited was Venetian: there is a significant gold ducat hoard which was found in the north of the island («166»). Hoards deposited between the 1380s and the early 1400s, from Eretria and from the former eparchy of Karystos, contained soldini and torneselli («184» and «191»). New excavation data from Eretria also show that the site blossomed again precisely in the tornesello period (see above); and the same can be witnessed at the castle of «303. Karystos». These data are sparse but seem to indicate that the southerly part of Euboia was able to flourish after the final unification of the island under Venetian rule: perhaps this area was able to profit from the relatively stable situation in eastern Attica (itself between Venetian and Acciaiuoli domination) and the significant distance the activities of the Ottomans in eastern Greece. With respect to Eretria, it is of interest that seemingly no medieval archaeology is associated with the site as such which can be matched to the numismatic record. However, the ancient city was clearly of strategic importance also in our period, as recent medieval finds from nearby Amarynthos, especially some nautically-inspired ceramic graffiti, also testify.88 The situation changed in the further course of the fifteenth century: «211. Chalkida» was concealed considerably later than the chronological limits of this book, in 1470 on the occasion of the Ottoman take-over. Because of its size, the hoard is significant for our knowledge of the tornesello coinage at the height of its production between the 1370s and the 1410s, and the instances of its counterfeiting. It also shows us how few coins may have been added to Greek circulation in the decades immediately before 1470: in this hoard, no more than a handful, out of thousands of coins, if one discounts the counterfeits. Two other hoards were deposited in the town of Chalkida in the same year: one of precious jewellery, and another of armour.89 It is unfortunate that the only topographical information in relation to this hoarding regards the third of these. Which was found inside the town walls which were still to a large degree extant in the nineteenth century. 88  I thank Tobias Krapf of the École suisse d’archéologie en Grèce for this information and references to the relevant literature: at Eretria the later phases do not go beyond late antiquity according to Gerousi, “Die letzten Jahrhunderte der Stadt”; on recent discoveries at Amarynthos, see Nakas and Krapf, “Amarynthos”. 89  For these hoards, with the relevant references, see Chapter 2, pp. 158–159.

468

chapter 4

3 Thessaly Relevant hoards: «4. Ithomi 1900», «14. Thessaly», «22. Mikro Eleutherochori 1971», «23. Livadi 1974», «24. Livadi 1976», «27. Volos 1907», «32. Thessaly 1957», «34. Karatsol 1888», «62. Trikala 1949», «82. Larisa ca. 2001A», «105. Thessaly 1992», «153. Larisa 1955», «209. Larisa ca. 2001B». Relevant excavation and single finds: «287. Elassona», «301. Karditsa», «346. Pharsala», «348. Platykampos», «350. Skotoussa», «374. Thessaly», «375. Thessaly», «376. Thessaly», «377. Thessaly», «381. Τrikala», «383. Tyrnavos». Compared to all the other continental areas covered in this book, Thessaly has produced by far the least amount of numismatic evidence for the medieval period. This has a number of reasons: no medieval sites of any note have been excavated and/or published. The region is vast but relatively sparsely populated, then as now. The area changed hands very frequently but was often marginal to whatever polity was occupying it. None of the latter ever minted locally. From the second third of the fourteenth century onwards it was variously governed by Byzantines, Serbs, and Ottomans, who all had hands off monetary policies in this faraway region. In medieval times Thessaly had three obvious areas of greater focus. The first was the Pagasetic Gulf region. Locations there which have been discussed in the course of this book are, from north to south, the twin monasteries of Makrinitissa and Nea Petra; the port of Almyros which was also the location of the famous battle of 1311; and then Pteleon, a Venetian colony from 1318. The only numismatic manifestation from the entire gulf is, rather disappointingly, the conquest-period hoard «27. Volos 1907». Most of the information to be discussed here is therefore from inland. Two urban centres dominated their respective plains, which over the decades, under sub-Byzantine and restored Byzantine, Serbian, and then Ottoman rule, enjoyed privileges and particular political and social attention. These were Larisa and, further to the west, Trikala. The latter town is one of only two locations in the entire region which has produced some kind of monetary sequence, but even this cannot be used in its entirety for statistical purposes («381»): it has billon trachea of Nicaea and, especially, of Thessalonike down to the first emperor of the Palaiologan dynasty. It is interesting furthermore that there should have been more grossi than even the much less valuable deniers tournois. Even in the very last phase the

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: THESSALY

469

numismatic evidence is that of a Venetian tornesello, rather than, for instance, a Byzantine issue of Thessalonike, or an Ottoman issue of Edirne, as one may have expected. Regarding the grosso coinage, its domination in the stray record for Thessaly and the adjacent Epiros is noted on different occasions in this book, and it harmonises also with the documentary evidence from Mount Pelion.90 «62. Trikala 1949» is a grosso hoard dating to the period of the Angeloi Doukai: it may well have been concealed on the occasion of the town’s sacking by imperial troops before or after the battle of Pelagonia in 1259. The hoard is interesting in the extent to which it united all the current coinages of the period which can otherwise be found in potentially better connected parts of Greece, French tournois and hyperpyra in the name of John III Vatatzes. This said, it is a unique testimony to the Thessalian situation at this early a date. Even the stray grossi known otherwise for Thessaly all date slightly later. The ancient city of Skotoussa, due south of Larisa, has seen some illegal and legal excavations, the second by an Italian team in recent years which is in the process of publishing the results. The sequence that can be established by some confiscated stray finds suggests frequentation during the conquest period itself just after 1204, and then a good supply of billon trachea from the Thessalonike mint between the 1220s and the 1260s («350»). The results of the Italian enquiries which have to date been published do not include numismatic material later than twelfth-century imperial issues, yet the pottery report is chronologically entirely in sync with the confiscated coins.91 Thessalonican stray finds from Thessaly were targeted in a specific study by Nikolaou, and we therefore have a number of finds in Appendix I to complement the information from Trikala and Skotoussa. These are from Elassona to the north of Larisa («287»), from Tyrnavos a few km southeast of the latter («383»), from Platykampos to the east of Larisa («348»), another from an unspecified Thessalian location («376»), and finally from Karditsa in the southerly part of the region («301»). To the east of the latter, perhaps in a different political and monetary climate, the Palaiologan trachy found at «346. Pharsala», originated in the Constantinopolitan mint (NB: also one of the trachea at Skotoussa was from that mint). If these stray data converge in the years from the 1220s, the evidence of the hoards is highly concentrated in an earlier period, that immediately after 1204. We should note in this respect two specific military operations, the first being the initial entry of the crusaders into Thessaly in 1204 itself, the second the 90  See for instance Appendix II.4.B, p. 1301. 91  La Torre, “Skotoussa”.

470

chapter 4

attempts made by Emperor Henry of Flanders in 1207–1209 to subdue rebels there.92 There is a remarkable early cluster of hoards in the very north of the region («22»–«24») which do not go beyond types A for Constantinople and ‘Thessalonike’. Meanwhile, to the south of Trikala, a small electrum trachy hoard may well have been concealed in the same timeframe («4»). By contrast, «34. Karatsol 1888» near Larisa was probably concealed during the second period of military intensification. There are two billon trachy assemblages of generic Thessalian provenance, «14. Thessaly 1973» and «32. Thessaly 1957». Only the second of these has some ulterior typological information, and we may place it in the same period as the hoard from Karatsol. Also the mentioned «27. Volos 1907» cannot be dated with precision. How Thessaly may have been monetised during the later years of the local Angeloi Doukai, by the Orsini, and then by the successive Byzantines, Serbs, and Ottomans, can be reconstructed at best piecemeal. The height of medieval silver monetisation might initially have been carried locally by the grosso rather than the tournois, as we have mentioned: there are four stray finds of grossi dating from the second half of the thirteenth century onwards, one from Trikala, another from Karditsa (see above on both accounts), and two generically from the region («374» and «377»). Additionally, there is one small hoard from the Larisa region dating before or after 1300 («82»). The tournois hoard «105. Thessaly 1992» may have been found in our region, but this is far from certain. With respect to verifiable data, beside the one specimen at Trikala, these are quite late, with one single specimen of John II Orsini («375»), and a hoard from Larisa («153»), both manifestations of the 1330s. The extraordinary interest of «209. Larisa ca. 2001B», a hoard at the extreme lower chronological limit of this study, is addressed elsewhere in this book. This is both denominational – the late and early presence respectively of soldini and akče –, and topographical, since the town of Larisa held a pivotal position in early Ottoman Thessaly. This cannot mask the fact that there are no other numismatic data at all from the region for a good century, barring the one tornesello of Antonio Venier, 1382–1400 mentioned above from Trikala, another important Ottoman centre. We must close then by emphasising once more the unfortunate inadequacy of the available evidence, which can only to a limited extent be blamed on contemporary medieval conditions themselves.

92  Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 137.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EPIROS

4

471

Epiros, Aitoloakarnania, and the Ionian Islands, with Special Reference to Arta Relevant hoards: «8. Philippiada 1929», «21. Kephallonia 1932», «28. Metsovo 1979», «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», «42. Albania» (?), «48. Ioannina 1983», «64. Ioannina 1821», «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915», «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina», «69. Capstan Navy Cut» (?), «72. Bular», «73. Mesopotam», «84. Agrinio 1973», «93. Apollonia», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «102. Naupaktos 1970», «110. Arta 1985A», «115. Shën Dimitri», «118. Akarnania ca. 1960», «119. Ioannina 1986», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975»(?), «127. Roussaiïka Agriniou 1966», «128. Thesprotia 1974», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966», «137. Kafaraj», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965», «147. Nivicë», «148. Naupaktos 1976», «151. Brussels 1904»(?), «155. Lepenou 1981», «156. Shën Jan», «162. Nea Sampsous», «165. Agrinio 1967», «169. Ermitsa 1985B», «183. Butrint», «186. Epiros», «190. Mesopotam», «195. Zakynthos 1978», «197. Kephallonia», «199. Sterea Ellada», «204. Leukada 1933», «206. Arta 1985B». Relevant grave finds: «220. Neochorio». Relevant excavation and single finds: «232. Apollonia», «237. Arta», «253. Ballsh», «254. Berat», «256. Butrint», «257. Butrint», «258. Byllis», «288. Epiros», «292. Glyki», «294. Ioannina», «295. Ioannina», «299. Kaninë», «304. Kato Vasiliki», «316. Mashkieza», «335. Nikopolis», «341. Pantanassa», «347. Plakoti». Of the above, specifically for Arta: «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «110. Arta 1985A», «206. Arta 1985B», «237. Arta».

Since the compilation of Appendix I, the following finds have appeared or have come to my attention from the wider Epirote and Ionian area: from the conquest period, although with uncertain precise chronologies, are a hoard of billon trachea from Butrint93; and, also from Albania, the Vërzhezha hoard of

93  Papadopoulou, “Butrint” and “Butrint2”; Appendix II.1.B, p. 1209.

472

chapter 4

electrum trachea (municipality of Skrapar, Berat county).94 From Kalydon in Aitolia there are two stray soldini of Franceso Dandolo and Andrea Contarini, and one tornesello of our period (Antonio Venier).95 To the north, there were Frankish coins in graves at Doliani in Thesprotia,96 and close to this site (at Riziani) a single Bulgarian grosso has been excavated.97 Finally, three torneselli (Doges Contarini, Venier, Steno) are now known from Kephallonia.98 4.1 Arta Historically, the most important structure of medieval Arta was its castle, yet the town and its region are rightly defined through the many extant churches.99 From the evidence of the latter we gain the impression of a complex urban and suburban system of settlement and patronage which reached the height of its sophistication during the years of Despots Michael II and Nikephoros in the second half of the thirteenth century. There is relatively little archaeology to match this, but at least the available pottery sequences suggest a similar chronology.100 «237. Arta» is a fairly extensive body of about 350 coins, studied in the 1980s by Oikonomidou and Galani-Krikou at the NM. Most of the plots from which this material derived lay in the heart of the medieval/modern town. This is an area situated within the arc of the Arachthos river, between the castle in the northeast and the Paregoritissa church in the southwest. The remainder of the coin finds from Arta listed above are topographically less specific, only some finds from the wider area of the town can be located more precisely (for example the grosso and hyperpyron hoard from «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915»; or the three coins excavated at the Pantanassa monastery, «341»). All in all, the material from Arta and the immediate surroundings falls into a clear pattern of monetary circulation and usage. It would appear that tetartera were not circulating in large quantities in Arta in the twelfth century, and it is difficult to measure to what extent they still retained any relevance in the thirteenth.101 Between the political revolution in around 1204 and the 1270s local monetisation was very heavily ensured by billon trachy issues of 94  Touratsgolou “Ήλεκτρα τραχέα”; Appendix II.1.C, p. 1246, n. 274. 95  Alexopoulou and Sidiropoulos, “The coins”, pp. 560–561, 563, 572. 96  Aidonis and Emmanouil, “Doliani”; Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”, pp. 77–78. 97  Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”. 98  A D, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 84. 99  In fact the two overviews of medieval Arta that might be cited, Papadopoulou, Arta and Papadopoulou, “Arta”, cover churches to a very large extent. 100  The pottery has been summarized by Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy”, p. 414, with relevant references. 101  Appendix II.1.A.1, pp. 1201–1203.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EPIROS: ARTA

473

the Constantinople and Thessalonike mints. There were comparatively few other coins: for the same period, there is one silver trachy of Thessalonike, one French tournois, and three grossi. From ca. 1280 onwards local monetisation changed radically: after that date only a few additional trachea were added to the picture, and the main currency was the tournois, with a few additional grossi, and then soldini and torneselli. The Artan hoards were, similarly, initially composed of trachea («66. Arta 1923»; «67. Arta 1983») and grossi («65. Kirkizates Artas 1915»), and then later again of grossi («110. Arta 1985A») and torneselli («206. Arta 1985B»). The finds from the Pantanassa monastery were tournois and torneselli, dating between ca. 1285 and less than a century later. At «237. Arta» there are three times as many ‘Bulgarian’ and early Latin Imitative issues as Greek tournois. For the sake of comparison, at «267. Corinth» or «268. Corinth» the ratio weighs more towards Greek tournois, but not dramatically so. This indicates that the two locations were similarly monetised in the period 1204–1210, and again after ca. 1270. This impression is underlined by hoards «66» and «67»: by the 1260s these early trachea were no longer particularly current, so we must surmise that Arta, like Corinth and many other southern Greek towns, received good supplies of the new issues in quick succession to the political events of 1204 in Constantinople. The difference between Arta and Corinth lies in what happens in the intermediate phase: both received grossi, the former perhaps more so than the latter, but at Arta the continued arrival of trachea from Constantinople, Nicaea, and Thessalonike was truly staggering. Additionally, there were issues that were minted locally, others perhaps nearby, in the case of the coin of Manfred. In a similar, if more confined, timeframe petty denomination issues of Achaïa and Athens entered certain southern Greek urban contexts, including Corinth, in high numbers. These are unknown at Arta. At Arta, it is again interesting that the impression gained from the stray data is corroborated by the two said hoards. These data, in combination, show that the geopolitical situation of Arta was such that these issues could flow freely towards it, but also that there must have been, locally, the political will to harness these issues and to integrate them into the locally used systems, and finally that Arta was an urban centre of enough stature to have witnessed the frequent exchanges of such specie in tale. It would be very interesting to know how much of this locally available currency was still in usage in the decades from the later thirteenth and into the fourteenth century. Only precise archaeological/stratigraphical information will be able to resolve this matter in the future. The period from the 1270s to the 1330s or 1340s identify «237. Arta» as a perfectly viable location with steady if humble levels of monetisation. It is also not markedly differently monetised than other parts of Greece, even if «110. Arta 1985A» is distinctive in being a

474

chapter 4

pure grosso hoard at the height of tournois usage in around 1311. The frequent conflicts in this precise period resulted in complaints by Venice on lost assets in the area,102 and Venetian commercial dominance may well be an explanation for this kind of distinctive numismatic evidence. An arrested development is nevertheless to be witnessed clearly at Arta from a certain point onwards: only two to three specimens date between the middle of the fourteenth century and the end of our period in 1430.103 The explanation for this is not immediately forthcoming, and it must be verified in the future whether this is a quirk of the precise excavation plots on which this impression is based. It would also be interesting to ascertain in the same vein where, within the town, «206. Arta 1985B», a very substantial tornesello hoard with issues dating 1353–ca. 1416 or 1420, may have been found. Other Towns and Landscapes 4.2 As in the case of Arta, there is generally little evidence for middle Byzantine monetisation in wider Epiros.104 Interestingly, in the twelfth century, the numismatic data converge in the most southerly part of this area, around the town of Naupaktos.105 By contrast, the coin finds for medieval Epiros, the western Mainland, and the islands, are numerous and very diverse.106 They divide into distinct geographical zones that also constitute logical units in other ways (topographical, political, economic, etc.). These are, from north to south, a triangle in the area between Apollonia, Berat, and Valona. Next there is the Corfiot hinterland, which radiates from Butrint northwards to Mesopotam, and southwards down the Thesprotan coastline. Further inland, the Ioannina and Metsovo area are one unit. The wider Artan area north of the Ambracian Gulf has already been partially treated. Lastly, in the Mainland, numerous coin finds were made between the important medieval town of Naupaktos, and Agrinio, the most important conurbation in modern Aitolia and Akarnania. Finally, the islands of Leukada, Kephallonia, and Zakynthos have one or two finds each. The most northerly cluster would be largely deprived of conquest-period coin finds, were it not for the aforementioned Vërzhezha hoard of electrum trachea (the nearby site of Berat, «254», does not appear to have had any Latin Imitative issues), and the one possible Faithful Copy at «299. Kaninë»: the latter was a 102  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 77. 103  This is noted on numerous occasions, for instance Chapter 2, p. 123. 104  Chapter 1, p. 18. 105  Veikou, Byzantine Epirus, p. 269. 106  Laiou, “Epiros”, p. 208, called the monetary developments in post-1204 Epiros and its area ‘moderate’, yet this is contradicted by the numismatic evidence.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EPIROS: ARTA

475

town in its own right as well as a fortification.107 These sites came into their own during the subsequent years of the despots in Epiros, and then the period of the conflict between the Angevins and Byzantines: at Kaninë, as well as at Berat, and at Apollonia («232»), at Ballsh and Byllis («253» and «258»), and Mashkieza («316») (respectively the medieval Glavinitza, Graditzion, and Mylos/Mylon108), we witness the typical combination of trachea of Thessalonike (and those of Manfred), and, after 1300, of deniers tournois and grossi. This intense phase of monetisation, underlined by respective denier tournois and grosso hoards dating to ca. 1311 and the 1330s («93. Apollonia» and «137. Kafaraj»), which had emerged from a very low middle Byzantine base indeed, subsequently collapsed again at the time of the Serbian conquest and the period of Albanian domination. Other than the five Serbian grossi reported for Byllis, which are in themselves an interesting and significant accumulation of numismatic evidence, there are no coins dating from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards from any of the locations discussed here. The current lack of any numismatic data for Corfu, given the pivotal geographical and political position of this island, is unfortunate. Some relevant coin finds, especially from Palaiopolis and the remainder of the Kanoni peninsula, including the Mon Repos estate, now in the local archaeological museum, are currently being prepared for publication. Other finds from the medieval and modern island capital should also be of the greatest interest. Butrint was administratively linked to Corfu for much of our period and promises to provide also some useful coin data in the future. As it stands, the information which we can glean from the finds are limited: the early Butrint hoard mentioned above is potentially a conquest-period hoard. Single trachea corroborate this interpretation (see the note for «257. Butrint»). In that sense the Butrint hoard, which ends in the issues of Alexios III, may not tell us much about the situation in the town during the difficult post-Norman twelfth century,109 but rather its subsequent fate. As far as can be ascertained from the available information, Butrint saw its most active frequentation and most sophisticated monetisation during parts of the Angevin and Venetian phases, from about 1300 to 1400 (see the hoards «115» and «183», in addition to «256» and «257»).110 The rather complex historical developments between the early 1200s and 1300 in contrast seem not 107  Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 39–40. 108  Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 21–25. 109  This is the assumption made in Hodges, Byzantine Butrint, p. 91. 110  On the history and monuments of these phases, see Soustal, “Butrint” and Crowson, Venetian Butrint.

476

chapter 4

to have resulted in much numismatic information, or at least none has to date been made available. In fact other archaeological data suggest a very active thirteenth century.111 The same concentration of numismatic data can still be witnessed in the adjacent areas of Threspotia and Chaonia: hoards «72» and «73», which cannot be further substantiated, add to the denier tournois evidence, as does the rather late «156. Shën Jan», probably concealed at the time of the Serbian invasion, which also contains soldini. It is of interest that there are also other archaeological data for the impact of the Serbs in precisely this area, for example at the monastery of St. Nicholas at Mesopotam, which has not yielded any coin finds.112 The Bulgarian grosso mentioned above is topographically quite important, since it draws a direct line for these conquests between the plain around the akropolis of Phoinike in the north, and the inland Thesprotan area on the Kalamos rilver, due east from Igoumenitsa, in the south. Graves at Doliani itself contained mostly deniers tournois. «190. Mesopotam» is an exceptionally late soldino hoard just to the east of Phoinike. Remarkable for the area to the north and south of Corfu is, lastly, the presence of single type Arta tournois hoards «128» and «147», which are also known from further to the south (see below). Interior Epiros also has one conquest-period piece of numismatic evidence, hoard «28» from the hilly area around Metsovo, which dates very early and manages thereby to link with the northern Thessalian data discussed already in this chapter. For this reason it may well be indicative of an early Latin military expedition from Constantinople via western Macedonia, rather than being linked to the campaigns of Henry of Flanders a few years later (see above). The numismatic evidence from Ioannina is otherwise quite diachronic, although neither particularly early nor late. Stray data are hardly forthcoming even if archaeological work inside the kastro has been undertaken over the years. Four pieces of evidence suggest perhaps in combination that the regular medieval circulation of trachea in and around the town commenced during the reigns of John III Vatatzes and his adversary Despot Michael II, and then intensified under the early Palaiologans (see «48», «68», «294», «295»): particularly striking is the absence in «68» of Latin Imitative issues. It would appear that this is a double hoard in which earlier imperial trachea were added to a contemporary assemblage spanning the period from the 1220s to 1264. The only part of the hoard which remains difficult to explain in this fashion are the two Faithful Copies. A noteworthy inclusion in «68», just like in Arta but 111  Gilkes, Crowson, Hodges, Lako, Vroom, “Medieval Butrint”. 112  Muçaj, Poçi, et al., “Shën Kollit, Mesopotam”.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: EPIROS: ARTA

477

nowhere else in Greece, are Bulgarian issues of Ivan II from a possible Ohrid mint.113 Contemporary with this hoard we find a grosso hoard in the shape of «64. Ioannina 1821». This mirrors the evidence from Trikala, on the other side of the Pindos range. These pieces of information heighten our appreciation of the connectivity across eastern Epiros, western Thessaly, and western Macedonia. In the first case Asen’s interventions in Epiros after 1230 may well account for the availability of his coins.114 One would be hard pressed to determine whether the grosso supply in Ioannina in this period might have derived from the area of the Ambracian Gulf or from Trikala and the northern end of the Pagasetic Gulf. The remainder of the numismatic data for Ioannina covers, next, two significantly conventional denier tournois hoard of the early to middle 1320s («119» and «132»), which mirror the accounting situation in the town after the Byzantine take-over which is discussed at some length in this book.115 The findspot of the second of these is of interest since it was on the island in the lake, a burgeoning monastic retreat or maybe just a safe place to conceal one’s possessions. Finally, another interesting hoard was found nearby on the banks of the same lake, which combines rather late grossi, as is sometimes the case in Epiros, with a small quantity of florins and ducats («143»: concealment in the early to mid-1330s). The Venetian gold coinage is rarely found in Greece, but there is a small western Epirote cluster. This may induce one to believe, in combination with the ample evidence for tournois, that in this particular period the monetisation of Ioannina was ensured from westerly and southwesterly direction. Outside Arta, the plain to the north of the Ambracian Gulf has yielded only little relevant data: longstanding excavations at the ancient and late antique «335. Nikopolis» have unearthed the usual Thessalonican trachea and Greek deniers tournois.116 The same derive from the village of «292. Glyki» to the north.117 On the eastern side of the Gulf, meanwhile, a Faithful Copy (and one trachy of Alexios III) were found as strays in the location of Plakoti («347»). This ties in with the picture from Arta itself. The «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963» and the «162. Nea Sampsous 1982» hoards continue the themes which have

113  Appendix II.1.B.9, pp. 1245–1246. 114  Nicol, Epiros I, p. 113. 115  See for instance Chapter 1, p. 56. 116  T IB 3, s.v. Nikopolis: the town had no apparent medieval existence. 117  Which, by contrast, is prominent in the medieval sources: TIB 3, s.v. Glyky.

478

chapter 4

just been developed for the Ioannina area: radiating from the Ionian coastline, the gradual domination of the denier tournois in Epiros, and the preferential arrival there of Venetian gold ducats. We notice, moving again southwards, that the next cluster of finds is located around Agrinio. This was the presumed provenance of one of the most significant hoards of medieval Greece, «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», a gold hyperpyron hoard of the first decades of our period. Unfortunately, also in this case no precise topographical precisions can be given. It shares this attribute with another very similar hoard which possibly derives from the westernmost part of our territories, «42. Albania». Quite unlike most of the billon trachea of the empires at Nicaea and Thessalonike found in the wider Epirote area (of which there is only one specimen from Aitolia and Akarnania, an issue of Theodore Komnenos Doukas from a grave at «220. Neochorio»), such hoards would have had, first and foremost, a commercial dimension and this lack of findspots is therefore particularly unhelpful. Conquest-period numismatic manifestations are non-existent in Aitolia and Akarnania, yet we must point out a hoard from neighbouring Kephallonia («21»: see below). Agrinio is also the provenance of the following hoard, a rather early assemblage of deniers tournois which might well need to be associated with the first Angevin attempts to establish themselves in the Mainland (ca. 1300: «84»). By the time of the next hoard from the larger Agrinio area around 1330, «140. Ermitsa 1985A», the new local mint of Arta managed to supply just short of 10% of the tournois. The following three hoards, dating between ca. 1340 and ca. 1365–1368, contain variously tournois and soldini («155», «165», «169»). There is no tornesello phase in and around Agrinio. Aitolia and Akarnania also partook in a phenomenon which has already been noted for northern Epiros, the single-type tournois hoard of Artan issues: these are «127» and «148», respectively from the Agrinio and Naupaktos areas. The south coast of Aitolia, in contrast to the interior of this region, appears to have gone through a soldino and tornesello phase: see the information from Kalydon, discussed above, and from «304. Kato Vasiliki». It is important that these are stray finds, since they can thereby best vouch for the veracity of this impression. There is perhaps one more tornesello hoard, dating around 1400, which complements this picture («199»). A century earlier, the tournois coinage prevailed, in the east of the area («118»), and in Naupaktos («94» and «102»). These hoards underline the importance of the local mint, and they are historically revealing about the campaigns of the Catalans around 1311. To conclude, as in the case of northern Epiros, the medieval evidence from Aitolia and Akarnania fails to make a significant connection with middle Byzantine times, which were on all accounts monetarily thriving. Instead, the

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: CYCLADES

479

vast amount of the evidence occupies a block in the fourteenth century. On the whole, however, the available data are not adequate. The latter point can be repeated for the Ionian Islands, although here the numismatic evidence dates, in contrast, either particularly early, or very late within our period: the conquest-period hoard «21. Kephallonia 1932» has a secure provenance in the south-central part of the island, even if its precise position within the excavation is not revealed in the report. It is an exceptionally early and also very distinctive hoard (all eight Faithful Copies are type B), and for this reason it is also historically very significant. It reveals a degree of attention given to the island in quick succession to 1204 which cannot be gleaned from other sources. Following this testimony, there is a two-hundred-year gap until the next Ionian coin hoard, «195. Zakynthos 1978», and then «197. Kephallonia». These two hoards, and the slightly later «204. Leukada 1933», are not completely homogenous in their compositions although torneselli prevail, as they do amongst the small number of late medieval stray finds from Kephallonia referred to above. 5

Cycladic Islands Relevant hoards: «5. Naxos 1967», «6. Paros 1999», «18. Antikereia ca. 1922», «20. Naxos 1947», «29. Naousa 1927», «30. Amorgos 1909», «31. Thira 1910», «58. Naxos ca. 1969», «193. Naxos 2005». Relevant grave finds: «219. Naxos 1978», «222. Thira 1999». Relevant excavation and single finds: «230. Andros», «231. Andros», «281. Delos», «302. Karthaia», «322. Naxos», «323. Naxos», «324. Naxos», «325. Naxos», «326. Naxos», «327. Naxos», «328. Naxos», «329. Naxos», «330. Naxos», «331. Naxos», «332. Naxos», «333. Naxos», «379. Tinos».

Not included in Appendix I is an unpublished hoard of imperial Byzantine billon trachea dating to just before or after 1204, from the bay of Panormos in northwestern Tinos.118 A no less significant grosso hoard was found in a church on Naxos, which closes perhaps in the early 1340s.119

118  This hoard was found in the 1970s and distributed amongst the inhabitant of Panormos/ Pyrgos at the time. The coins range from Manuel I (1143) to Alexios III (1195–1204). I thank George Vidos for this precious information. 119  Dellaporta, Panagia Orfani.

480

chapter 4

Compared to all previously discussed regions, the Cyclades comprise a very small landmass and, then as now, a very small population. There would have been great variations from island to island. Dominant were undoubtedly the islands and towns of Naxos and Andros (although even the latter had a surprisingly small population in the 1470s120), and to a lesser degree the neighbouring islands of Paros, Mykonos, and Tinos. Also our coin finds are largely from these north-central Cycladic islands, due no doubt to a combination of their contemporary importance and modern archaeological investigations. An interesting feature of our medieval numismatic data for these islands lies in the fact that a relatively high percentage is the result of official excavations and restorations, by the local Ephorates and Athens University. While a relatively rich picture emerges especially for Andros and Naxos, it is much more difficult to ascertain the significance or not of the almost total absence of finds for most of the western Cyclades. The conquest period in the Cyclades, already rich and distinctive and muchdiscussed in this book and elsewhere, has been added to by the recent emergence of an older trachy hoard from northwestern Tinos.121 Prior to 1204, the Cyclades would presumably have been an area of tetarteron circulation, although there is currently little hard data available in this respect.122 The new Tinos hoard increases the number of places within the islands which were arguably targeted in quick succession to the Latin conquest of Constantinople: in fact there appear to have been movements from the city to the islands on two occasions within the first decade of the thirteenth century.123 The islands affected were initially Tinos, Paros, and Naxos, and perhaps the small islands to the south of the latter («5», «6», «18», «20»). The Parian hoard was found in a very distinctive location, the baptistery of the Panagia Katopoliani church, while the second of the Naxian hoards derives from the area around the island capital. In the second instance the islands affected were again Paros («29»: specifically the area around Naousa in the northeast of the island), and then the more southerly Amorgos and Thira («29» and «30»). The latter hoards were from quite remote parts of the respective islands in relation to the main medieval habitations. Perhaps this is a typical pattern for such emergency hoards.

120  See Chapter 3, p. 399. 121  All but this recent hoard from Tinos have already been listed and discussed in Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. 122  Appendix II.1.A.1, pp. 1201–1203. 123  Compare Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1229.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: CYCLADES

481

Although Naxos has been relatively extensively excavated and published, there is no indication even from this island that this wave left a lasting imprint on local monetisation. The one stray find complex which may prove to be the exception to this picture are the three trachea found in the Panagia ton Arion church («330»). However, this group is so tight and hoard-like that in fact it may simply reinforce the established picture. This earliest medieval phase in the islands has resulted in one final, rather surprising, piece of evidence from the Grotta area of Naxos town, a copper coin of Seljuq Konya which was contemporary to the first generation of Latin Imitative coinages.124 During the subsequent phase of the monetary developments of Greece the political situation in the Cycladic Islands was particularly protracted. We have some very interesting and diverse testimonies, yet again from a very limited number of locations: the capital of the island of Andros, which changed hands on different occasions, as we have seen in the discussions in this book, was defended by kastra on the sea and in the hills above. Both of these were excavated by the University of Athens and have provided some small but interesting runs of stray coin finds («230» and «231»): the main currency from the last decades of the thirteenth century onwards was evidently the denier tournois coinage from the nearby mainland and the neighbouring island of Tinos. The single billon trachy of Michael VIII Palaiologos can no doubt be associated with this emperor’s aggressive policies in the Aegean.125 The same arguably also resulted in the concealment and non-retrieval of one of the most remarkable medieval Greek hoards, «58. Naxos ca. 1969». It contained about one-anda-half thousand sterling pennies, small quantities of grossi, and one French tournois. The sterling coinage describes an area of communication between the northeastern Peloponnese, the west coast of Asia Minor (compare also the Seljuq coin mentioned above), and Crete, but there is no reason to believe that the hoard was not formed substantially in the way that it was finally preserved in the islands. This is suggested, amongst other considerations, by the presence of the later long cross issues.126 The hoard’s findspot on the southeastern coast of the island, in a location called Panormos, is also interesting: perhaps this was an area of the island threatened specifically in 1261 by imperial forces; or perhaps an inhabitant of a more central part of the island chose it as a sufficiently remote place to conceal their wealth as the threat was looming (see the evidence cited above for the remote hoards from Amorgos and Thira). The medieval silver phase in the islands was therefore, as far as we can 124  Appendix II.6.G., p. 1351. 125  A  ppendix II.1.B.8, p. 1244. 126  A  ppendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282.

482

chapter 4

tell from the extant data, ushered in quite late and was initially comprised of sterlings, then of tournois, and occasionally of grossi. The tournois currency is otherwise confined to a few quantities from graves excavated in a church in Mesa Gonia, Thira («222»), a church in Apeiranthos, Naxos («328»), and the sanctuary of Poseidon and Amphitrite in Tinos («379»). The new Naxian single grosso hoard mentioned above is a significant find, because of its size and rather late date, because it too is from a church, and because it constitutes only the second hoard from the main silver phase in the whole for the islands. Considering the two extant hoards, we may well conclude that between the middle of the thirteenth century, and a century later, a shift occurred from the sterling and tournois to the Venetian grosso. This might have happened in line with the political and military history of these islands. It is interesting that no Venetian soldini have to date been reported from the islands. This must of course be associated with the overall dearth of finds, yet one must still remark that the main soldino phase from the 1330s to the 1350s was also the period in which the Cyclades faced another existential threat at the hands of the western Anatolian Turks. The last phase in the medieval monetisation of the Cycladic Islands begins correspondingly quite late and is totally dominated by one denomination, the Venetian tornesello and its local offshoot, the Naxian tornese.127 With the exception of a couple of rather early torneselli from the upper castle on Andros («231»), one specimen of Andrea Contarini from Delos («281»), and four with a rather late profile from an ancient city in southeastern Kea («302»), all of our evidence derives from Naxos: there is a small hoard from a monastery in the village of Danakos concealed perhaps in the first decade of the fifteenth century («193»), and a grave hoard placed in the mouth of the deceased sometime before 1400, from the Grotta area of town («219»). The remainder of the single finds are distributed evenly in town and around the island («322», «323», «324», «326», «327», «329», «331», «332», «333»). The tornesello phase is the period when the total number of individual finds – in contrast to hoards, which are now very limited in number – was the highest, and when these were spread out most evenly in the Naxian environment. These are strong indicators for the functioning of a monetary system. However, the continued overall absence of any useful numismatic data for large numbers of islands is still very frustrating and cannot be considered an accurate reflection of contemporary developments: to give only one example, even the excessively small island of Anaphe was both inhabited and monetised in the period of the greatest physical threat, as we learn when the 127  On the latter, see Appendix II.10, pp. 1492–1494.

REGIONS AND TOWNS OF GREECE: CYCLADES

483

son of the papas is taken prisoner by the Turks and then ransomed in 1320.128 A hundred years later, in the maps devised by the early humanist Cristoforo Buondelmonti of the islands of the Archipelago, settlements on the larger and even the smaller islands are meticulously recorded.129 In the absence of viable archaeological survey data and coin finds, these are currently the limits of our evidence for many of these islands during the dying period of the middle ages. In closing, it can be hoped that sometime in the distant future numismatics will be useful in adding nuancing to the medieval history of these islands in basic political, economic, and demographic terms. In this way money may be able to make a vital historiographical contribution to these little documented entities. This will almost certainly need to occur in conjunction with the evidence of other archaeological materials. The one example for which a direct confrontation of coins and pottery in the medieval Cyclades is currently possible, the lower castle of Andros, is highly revealing130: the meticulously studied ceramics span a chronological and geographical arc which is much wider than the numismatic data would allow us to expect. Reasons for this may be tied up with the peculiar occupation of this structure, or indeed with the distinctive monetisation of the island. It will unfortunately take a while before this, and all our other impressions of the islands that have been given here, can be substantiated. 128   Saint-Guillain: “Seigneuries insulaires”, p. 36. 129  For the background see Barsanti, “Cristoforo Buondelmonti”; specifically on the Cyclades, see Barsanti, “Les Cyclades dans le Liber Insularum Archipelagi”, who also lauds Cristoforo’s topographical sense, although he is like many other travel writers not inherently interested in all contemporary realities of these islands. Both of Barsanti’s publications have good reproductions of the island maps. 130  See «230. Andros» and Kontogiannis and Arvaniti, “Andros”.

conclusions

Medieval Greek Money in Context In this book we witness some extraordinary historical and monetary occurrences and developments. An area which had been unified under Roman rule for well over a millennium was after 1204 parcelled out into multiple polities, under the leadership of persons often hailing from faraway lands. In due course, very substantial silver-based coinages of Franco-Italian tradition were launched at multiple Greek mints, in territories which had seen no official minting at all for a very long time indeed, and where Roman coinage from distant imperial mints had held sway since time immemorial. The shape of this same Roman coinage, which was still being produced to the north of our territories in the medieval period itself, traditionally built around gold and copper denominations (nomismata/hyperpyra and folles/tetartera respectively), also mutated unrecognisably. Yet the new feudal mints of Greece introduced not merely new monetary forms, but entirely novel ways of organisation and dissemination, in line with contemporary western developments. Indigenous Greek coin production spanned an entire century or so, with some breaks, presumably from the late 1240s to the late 1340s. The republic of Venice, traditionally conservative in its approach to overseas territories and their money supplies, eventually embarked on a largescale campaign of empire-building on Greek soil. It put in place a system of armed convoys to protect these colonies and trade routes, managing to connect thereby many parts of Greece. These same territories were after the middle of the fourteenth century supplied with an ample, purposefully conceived, coinage from the Venice mint, going thereby against all previous Venetian monetary policy. This occurred in the face of yet again completely new political constellations, and new forces on Greek soil, who managed to leave lasting marks on the politics, society, and money of our area: Serbs and Ottomans. The relations of politics, economics, and money in post-1204 Greece acquired an immediacy which is very interesting and fruitful to the historian. The history of medieval Greece became intricately intertwined with its monetisation. The respective fields of study complement one another, and some pieces of information, or even some general developments, can only be gleaned from one set of sources – written, archaeological, or indeed numismatic. If the monetary history which has been exposed over the last chapters is generally in harmony with the overall historiography, it still manages to hold a narrative in its own right, which can also run counter to some of the held beliefs and

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_006

Medieval Greek Money in Context

485

preconceptions. For instance, it has been suggested here that monetisation was not adversely affected by the events of 1204 – on the contrary! A combination of rapid minting, especially in territories surrounding our own, extensive movements of people, and new political and economic conditions, augmented it. The form of the currency remained substantially the same between the latetwelfth and mid-thirteenth century. This was the continuation of the Byzantine world turned unto itself. Even the pattern of hoarding in these years took the traditional Aegeo-centric form. Major changes occurred only thereafter, approximately around the time of the demise of the Latin empire at Constantinople (1261): this view is also one which archaeologists of medieval Greece now subscribe to. With respect to the general, but at times superficial, historiography of Latin Greece, the most significant economic and therefore monetary impetus can be observed in a period which is often regarded as decadent, since it post-dates the rule of the Villehardouin (and also of the de la Roche) families, that of Angevin (and later Aragonese) domination. Even in the supposedly dire 1320s or 1330s great wealth was accumulated in Greece according to the numismatic sources. These same sources show us even more impressively just how streamlined and commercially successful the central and southern polities of our region were in the decade or two either side of 1300. For our last period, after ca. 1350, money allows us, perhaps more powerfully than any other single source, to put our finger on the essence of the Greek colonial condition: a territory at the forefront of western and Ottoman expansion, a source of wealth for yet new polities and individuals involved in them, who sought to extract produce and other riches from Greek soil, or to dominate it for larger strategic reasons. New kinds of monies were deployed purposefully and strategically, one may even say cynically, for these purposes. We argue in this book that the entire timespan 1200–1430 saw exceptionally high and often increasing monetisation in Greece. In this Greece partook in wider European patterns, as narrated in the first chapter of this book. On the whole this was a society which used currency as frequently, or perhaps even more so, than Byzantium of the sixth or the twelfth century, or England or France in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. It has been emphasised throughout this book that key economic and political processes would have been impossible without the availability of currency. The apparent collapse of monetisation, or better of a particular kind of monetisation, respectively in Epiros and Thessaly after ca. 1350, and then in all of our territories after ca. 1430, is all the more remarkable. We will say a few words specifically about this at the very end.

486

conclusions

It is argued furthermore that for large stretches of the medieval period, many parts of Greece enjoyed a positive balance of payments with other territories, for example Constantinople, or France, Venice, and the Kingdoms of Naples/ Sicily. This also runs counter to some of the perceived wisdom. Such monetary flows were not always commercial in character: during key periods between the thirteenth and the fifteenth century money and bullion reached Greece through political channels, yet ultimately also some of this currency could be economically beneficial to our territory. Only during the last of our phases, with the rise of the Italian gold currencies also in our territories, the different usages of money may have been kept apart more strictly. It has been suggested that this gold may have entered and exited the Greek space, and been used there, in political and military contexts. Unlike the earlier silver currencies, this gold coinage may not have penetrated other spheres of monetary usage in Greece to any great extent. This, again, is a phenomenon which we know from other late medieval European contexts. Throughout our period, warfare and population movements were particular driving forces for monetisation, both negatively and positively. Commerce in and out of Greece augmented exponentially during the medieval period. This was initially enabled by the new political and legislative conditions, and necessitated by population expansions in Europe, and especially in Italy. The establishment of feudalism, and the importation of western techniques and expertise, steadily increased the commercialisation of Greek produce in the thirteenth and fourteenth century. The right monetary conditions were absolutely central to this development. One may even go so far as to say that in Greece, as in parts of the Latin west, the good availability of appropriate monetary specie may in fact have fostered enterprise further. The same commercial trajectory can also be witnessed internally within Greece. Agricultural produce was destined to the rising urban centres and their more specialist populations. Monetary conditions suggest on the whole that this commerce and related activities in Greece were at their heights around 1300 and then, after a political hiatus, in the 1320s and 1330s. The latter apex is a decade or two later than in the west, but still earlier than in western Anatolia. The need for money was felt by many, indeed most, people of medieval Greece. The available specie was handled and manipulated accordingly. More so than any earlier periods in Greek monetary history, in medieval Greece there was a clear sense of the usefulness and desirability of certain issues, and an overall consensus on currency. Such beliefs usually transcended political or ethnic boundaries.

Medieval Greek Money in Context

487

In this book I am keen to treat coins as significant material objects which describe sites and landscapes, and which inter-act with other archaeological materials. It has been found that the numismatic data in their physicality are often as underdeveloped and unexplored as those pertaining to other materials. Serious and concerted actions would be required to remedy this regrettable state of affairs in a meaningful fashion, and to allow one finally to write a more authoritative bottom-up history for the many medieval Greek towns and landscapes. In Chapter 4 every attempt has been made to describe the numismatic state of affairs in this regard. Archaeologists and historians will in the future be able to ascertain rather more quickly than had previously been possible from this discussion the importance and scientific potential of a given new hoard, or new excavation coin finds, from any part of Greece. Despite this pessimism, the individual histories that I do propose, for instance for all the towns highlighted specifically in that chapter, are built around tenable and hard data and provide, as I hope to have shown, rounded histories. Looking merely at the eastern half of the Peloponnese, towns such as Corinth, Argos, or Sparta, all experienced very particular, perhaps unexpected, medieval developments in the light of their coin finds. These kinds of archaeo-numismatic enquiries hold great potential for the future. The verification of attributions and chronologies of coin issues and of find complexes has been an absolute prerequisite for all the arguments put forward in this book. Of course, in the expositions in Appendix II I have often taken the wellestablished lines which have pedigrees going back to Lambros and Schlumberger, or in the twentieth century Metcalf, Hendy and Tzamalis. Yet, in significant respects I have followed other conclusions, for example in my treatment of the ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives/Faithful Copies, regarded in this book as metropolitan and dating to the years before and after the Latin takeover in Constantinople. I have doubted the existence of a Thessalonike mint in the years immediately after (and probably also before) 1204. I have offered precise dates for the Corinthian and Theban petty denomination issues, and for the beginnings of the Clarentza, Thebes, and Naupaktos mints. I have rejected the recent tendency to consider Corinth a tournois mint; and I have also rejected many of the rather old attributions of different denominations to Robert of Taranto at Clarentza, which are still repeated in some recent literature. I also offer afresh more or less secure dates of closure for the Clarentza and Naupaktos mints. Regarding more marginal minting operations, I have identified dates and denominations for the issues of Manfred of Hohenstaufen for Romania, and of the dukes of the Archipelago at Naxos. There can be no doubt that the great political and military transformations affecting medieval Greece influenced its monetisation in the most profound

488

conclusions

manner. The outward shape of its currency, from billon trachea of the Latin empire, to deniers tournois of the local polities minting under the Angevin umbrella, to Venetian colonial torneselli, – to name but the most obvious manifestations – all owed their existences and appearances to precise processes. It would surely be futile to speculate how Greece might have developed after 1200 if for instance local Greek resistance in the Peloponnese and the southern Mainland had managed to fight off the knights of the Fourth Crusade; or if the treaties of Viterbo of 1267 had never been concluded and the Peloponnese and the Mainland incorporated again into the Byzantine Empire in the last decades of the thirteenth century; or if the Grand Catalan Company had been defeated or fizzled out somewhere in Thrace or Macedonia before 1310; and of course if the Ottomans had managed to conquer decisively all of Epiros, Thessaly, the Mainland, and the Peloponnese, and indeed all of Byzantium itself, by the early fifteenth century, as they had been destined to do were it not for the battle of Ankara. Whatever different turn Greek history might have taken, we are certain that Greek monetisation in its outward physical shape would have looked different as a direct result. Nevertheless, it cannot fail to impress us how, overall, Greek monetisation developed in ways which were close, in many respects, to general trends in Byzantium and the Balkans, in Italy and the Latin West, and in Anatolia/the Levant, indeed in some respects the remainder of the Eurasian continent. I am referring to the demise of traditional Byzantine and Islamic monetary forms, and the ascent of western-style silver and gold denominations; and also to the overall levels of monetisation which were similar in all of these areas. We must conclude that, setting aside monetary microtrends determined by precise political and military events, Greek monetisation was almost inevitably shaped by much wider and more general economic and demographic developments, and physical ones with respect to the availability of bullion. We will place Greece in its wider geographical contexts (north, west, and east), before closing with a few words on the post-1430 situation. 1.1 Byzantium and Balkans Greece is the southernmost outcrop of the Balkans. Of all the neighbouring territories referred to occasionally in this book, the monetary interaction which Greece had with the remainder of the Balkans was the closest, especially in the first part of the period treated in this book. Major currencies of the thirteenth century – tetartera, billon and electrum trachea, and hyperpyra – continued to come from Constantinople and Thessalonike in good quantities. In these years the new accounting systems which formed in Greece were mostly of Byzantine origin, even if new coinages

Medieval Greek Money in Context

489

from elsewhere were made to fit them. The traditionally high levels of monetisation of Byzantine towns was maintained in medieval Greece, even into the fourteenth century. The first indigenous Latin issues of Greece, the petty denomination issues, were modelled in some sense on Byzantine copper coinages and continued this kind of monetary usage. Much of the direct and indirect taxation system, which was also highly monetised, had its roots in Byzantium. The Latin conquests were part of a wider political reorganisation in the southern Balkans: huge waves of trachy hoarding affected not merely our territories, but even more so Macedonia and Bulgaria and neighbouring areas. Even after the initial Latin conquests there was a large degree of political toing and froing between Greece and the southern Balkans: the rulers (later despots) at Arta were major protagonists in the area between Epiros, Thessaly, and Macedonia; the Latin emperors bound Greece to Constantinople until 1261; and the Laskarids and the Palaiologans, coming from the east, took over successively Macedonia and then parts of our own territories. A place such as Arta was not significantly differently monetised as perhaps Thessalonike. It is telling that of all of our Greek regions, only Arta proceeded to mint the pan-Balkan trachy denomination in the middle of the century. This new unity was further enhanced by the wider Mongol presence, which also had some monetary repercussions. By the end of the century Greece had on the whole broken with the Balkan monetary traditions in gold and billon. Nevertheless, all of the Balkans, including Greece, remained united by their preferential usage of the Venetian silver grosso, in physical and accounting terms. In the Balkans this denomination was largely counterfeited and imitated, not so in Latin Greece, very probably for political reasons. In the fourteenth century then, the Orsini and the Serbs, and then the Ottomans, in addition to Byzantium, again sporadically united parts of Epiros, Thessaly, and Albania and Macedonia. Coinage produced for instance in Arta, or Vidin, or Constantinople and Thessalonike, and Edirne, could to some degree cross the various regions. In the light of some of the numismatic evidence it is doubtful whether the Via Egnatia, to the north of our primary area, was ever entirely severed, as historians have claimed. More astonishing yet than the testimonies of these coinages is the spread of the denier tournois coinage of the main Greek mints to Byzantium and the southern Balkans from the turn of the fourteenth century. This coinage occupied an important intermediary position between high-value gold and silver, and copper denominations, in places such as Thessalonike, Constantinople, Ainos, or Mesembria. The significant supply of currency from Greece to the heart of Byzantium reversed a well-established situation whereby over many centuries the vast majority of coinage in Greece

490

conclusions

derived from Constantinople. This is a strong indicator for changes in the relations of power. Byzantium, like Greece, had a positive trade balance with the west at the turn of the fourteenth century. The main difference was that in imperial territories such as Macedonia and Thrace this incoming bullion was not properly harnessed by the fisc. For a while yet, Greece successfully re-minted nearly all incoming silver, and even after the closure of the last mint managed to control the circulating specie. On account of the numismatic information, Palaiologan Constantinople also received trade from Greece itself, yet by contrast, the Byzantine currency was increasingly unable to make itself felt in areas outside of the empire. The exceptions to this are gold finds in areas well to the north of our own, for instance in the Danube Delta or Bulgaria. This currency was arguably used to purchase some Balkan produce, no doubt foodstuffs, perhaps slaves. Yet some of the hyperpyron finds from within and outside of the empire were of absolutely fantastical dimensions, which would also suggest that something was amiss with the monetary conditions. In Greece, on the whole, the value of hoards runs within much more modest, one might say healthy, parameters. Byzantium and Greece were both minting silver-based currencies for much of the first half of the fourteenth century. While the former’s basilikon could not garner much success even on the inter-regional level, the Greek denier tournois was rather interestingly a coinage of truly international reach, as we have just seen. This ability to circulate and to be appreciated would have been built on quality/reliability, and size of output, as much as on political connection within the Angevin sphere of influence. In mid-century then, essentially after the demise of the heavily debased gold hyperpyron, a new gold florin coinage was simultaneously launched at Constantinople and Clarentza (and at Ephesos/ Theologos), but whether or not this amounts to more than a numismatic curiosity remains to be established. With the decline of indigenous minting in Greece and the wholesale endorsement of the tornesello, Greece and the southern fringes of the Balkans came to resemble one another again. Leaving aside the unusual silver stavrata and aspra of Byzantine mintage, these respective areas were surely both dominated, on certain levels, by Italian gold coinages, and by inferior penny denominations usually referred to as tornesi. Venetian colonialism and the Ottoman take-over were, monetarily, great levellers throughout the Balkans. 1.2 Italy and the Latin West Internationally, in the thirteenth and fourteenth century monetary trends were on the whole dictated by the west. The bullion often derived from locations in

Medieval Greek Money in Context

491

central Europe, and the leading denominations were variously born in northern, central, and southern Italy, and in France and England. In accepting these currencies, and in minting issues of the same kinds itself, Greece very much adopted a western model of monetisation. Relations between Greece and the west were of course quite complex. For instance, there is the geographical dimension: Valona or Corfu are located in the closest vicinity to the southeastern Italian coastline. The actual persons who ruled over Greece or settled there and exploited its resources were often of French or Italian origin. These people determined monetary policy in different ways. Greek commerce was also largely dictated by people of western origin, with the exception of Dalmatian or indigenous Greek traders. In its last phase, large parts of continental Greece would have been connected commercially by Ottomans. Byzantium’s exposure to western specie originated in trading contacts with Italians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and in dealings with the crusaders. I have argued in this book that prior to 1204 there would not have been spheres of Byzantine-western relations in which western specie prevailed. Byzantium was a thoroughly monetised society in its own right, and this also accounts for the rather distinctive post-1204 developments described here above and elsewhere in this book. The origin of the local Greek monies of account lay with Byzantium and not for instance Veronese or Venetian currency, as has been claimed by some scholars. There had been a long history of Byzantine coin usage in mainland Italy, all the way from Friuli and the Venetian Lagoon, to Puglia and Calabria. In the thirteenth century, as Byzantium started to re-assert itself in parts of the western Balkans, and contacts between Italy and Byzantine and post-Byzantine territories augmented, Byzantine issues once again crossed the Ionian and Adriatic Seas. Even faraway issues from Rhodes under the Gabalas dynasty have been found in Italy. The hyperpyron retained a certain presence in some western contexts, even north of the Alps. However, Byzantine gold did not contribute to the formation of the Italian gold currencies in the second half of the thirteenth century. This opinion is often expressed in discussions of Byzantine-Italian relations during the period of the Palaiologan and Angevin dynasties. In the same period in which some limited quantities of Byzantine coinage travelled westwards there was a veritable flow of western silver issues into Greece. These were often of French and English origin, sometimes via Italy, on other occasions evidently arriving in Greece first before being re-exported into Italy. Venetian grossi were on the whole rarer, though they dominated certain Greek areas, and each grosso contained significantly more silver than a single tournois. This movement of specie, which had begun before 1200 as we

492

conclusions

have just discussed, augmented in the course of the thirteenth century. The pattern of imports becomes finally obscured by the minting of silver coinages in Greece from the 1260s onwards. The decision in Greece to commence a silver-based coin issue of royal and feudal French coin type, the tournois, in the 1260s, is quite remarkable. No less interesting, for different reasons, is the earlier minting venture at Achaïa and Athens: this resulted in the essentially copper petty denomination issues, mostly during the later 1240s and early 1250s. Even if the metrology of this coinage may have been Byzantine, the iconographical language deployed in the issuance of the individual types was borrowed from the west: some aspects thereof remain enigmatic, but the main interest of the issuers seems to have lain in the expression of a combination of civic, personal, and dynastic references, which were entirely new to the area. Most causes and effects regarding early tournois issuance still remain conjectural: we do not know yet whether the first issues of William II of Villehardouin pre- or post-date the treaties of Viterbo (1267). The precise importance of the domestic French monetary policies of King Louis IX is also unclear. What is certain by contrast is the fact that rapidly augmenting imports of silver into Greece from the west provided the impetus for minting. This is underlined most fundamentally by changes to the degrees of monetisation, even if Greece manages to extend levels of minting for one or two decades longer than many western areas, notably England from where much of our data derive. If the minting of William II of Villehardouin in Achaïa still requires some work, the issues of the Angevin prince-kings, the dukes of Athens, and then the different princes of Achaïa from Florent of Hainaut (1289) onwards are better understood. In this book a very precise sequence of types and coinages has been proposed based on different criteria (typology, hoards, archaeometry, historical likelihoods). This work was done in line with numismatic methodologies developed for other areas of medieval Europe. Any future enquiries, at this point, would be required to delve very deep in order to make further progress, for instance through the targeted application of die studies, or through more metallurgy which may reveal different patterns of bullion supplies (again presumably from the west) to the various Greek mints, as we have already established for some specific issues of Thebes and Clarentza. During the main tournois phase in Greece, from the 1270s onwards, Greece moved increasingly towards a monometallic monetary system. It discarded copper coinages, at least as part of the fiscally and commercially useful stock expressed in hyperpyra of account, yet it largely failed to embrace new Italian gold coinages. Monometallism was a traditional western attribute, and even in the fourteenth century was not inherently a sign of backwardness: for

Medieval Greek Money in Context

493

example the Hanse in its heyday, which had dealings with gold-using Flanders or England, used exclusively silver.1 Even though indigenous Greek minting makes it more difficult to discern imports, it remains clear that the early years of the fourteenth century saw particularly significant waves from westerly direction: the most important silver coinages in this respect are those of the carlino tradition, issued at Naples and Messina. French gros tournois, like their denier tournois counterparts a few decades earlier, and Serbian grossi, often came to Greece via Italy or by association with Italian currencies. The absence of certain coinages in these years reveals as much as the presence of others: the most interesting example are English sterling pennies of the Edwardian type. Their nonappearance in Greece underlines the increasingly exclusive relationship of Greece with Italy, to the detriment for example of territories in the north of France and the adjacent Low Countries. If a significant amount of the silver currency produced in Greece from the last third of the thirteenth century onwards owed its existence to western bullion, which had often reached it via Italy, it is even more remarkable how this same currency became the major denomination in usage in parts of the Kingdom of Naples between the 1270s and the first half of the fifteenth century, until these Greek issues were eventually displaced by those of mints in Campobasso and its area. This pattern of bullion movement, coin production, and denominational planning/adjustment, has very important political, administrative, and commercial and banking implications, as has been amply highlighted in this book. It is interesting in this respect that neither the Clarentzan tournois of Robert of Taranto, nor Venetian soldini or torneselli, travelled from Greece to Italy in any great numbers. We must also note that Greek tournois came to other areas of Europe, but never managed to occupy any positions of great importance, which again contrasts sharply with the Italian situation. In the greater scheme of the period from the millennium to the sixteenth century, the issuance of deniers tournois in Greece occupied only one phase. It was preceded by another during which, as we have seen, coinage was mostly imported from other parts of the southern Balkans, Anatolia, and certain parts of the west. It was followed by yet another very distinct phase in which the vast majority of the current specie derived from a single western mint, that of Venice. Venice had earlier contemplated operating a mint on Greek soil, but from 1353 onwards a very particular policy was adopted whereby large quantities of specifically made coins were shipped directly from Venice to Greece. This pattern is in itself as noteworthy as the indigenous Greek issues a generation earlier. 1  Volckart and Wolf, “Financial integration”, p. 2.

494

conclusions

From the middle of the fourteenth century onwards only few other western coinages made their presence in Greece felt (the common Hungarian denars circulated there by virtue of their association with Venetian soldini). The most noteworthy of these are Anconite issues. Finally, in the middle of the fifteenth century, beyond our period, we can witness two interesting phenomena: the re-importation into Greece of eastern-style fiduciary copper denominations, this time via Italy and Italian-dominated Dalmatia and Albania; and of its own tournois currency, from regional mints inside the Kingdom of Naples. On the whole, the pattern whereby Greece received fresh currency essentially from one mint – successively after 1311 and 1353 respectively Clarentza and then Venice – repeats a typical late medieval development in the west.2 1.3 Anatolia and the Levant The Byzantine relationship with Asia Minor altered significantly as a consequence of the battle of Mantzikert in 1071, after which the empire re-orientated towards the European provinces. The crusading movement, and especially the Fourth Crusade, rebalanced the picture. The imperial presence in Anatolia, specifically between Nicaea and the area of Smyrna and Magnesia, and its Aegean offshoots (Samos, Rhodes), and on the Black Sea around Trebizond, once again became prominent. The definitive retreat of the Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologan dynasty from Anatolia occurred during the long reign of Andronikos II, after an intense and costly struggle involving not least the Grand Catalan Army. Beyond the tribulations of Byzantium, three developments in the history of Anatolia and the Levant during our period were of paramount importance with respect to Greek monetary history. First, the continued crusading movement, be it in Palestine in the mid-thirteenth century, or the eastern Aegean a century later. Second, the crystallisation of certain polities of small to medium size, for example Genoese Chios, Hospitaller Rhodes, Lusignan Cyprus, the Armenian kingdom in Cilicia, or the western Anatolian beyliks. And third, Ilkhanid and Mamluk hegemony which re-united and pacified large swathes of territory and provided monetary unity. The evolving geo-political situation fostered very distinctive and specific monetary interactions between Greece and these various areas in medieval times. The contrast with the situation before 1200 is stark: the numismatic information which managed to chart the integration of Greece with more easterly areas had then been mostly limited to some data relating to the early crusading movement. There are additionally some apparently twelfth-century 2  For England, see Allen, Mints and money p. 41ff.

Medieval Greek Money in Context

495

tetarteron counterfeits which spanned territories between Rhodes and Albania, including Macedonia and southern Greece. In the twelfth century the imperial areas of Greece and Anatolia were differently monetised: tetartera prevailed in the former and were absent in the latter, while Asia Minor was one of the key regions in which the electrum trachy was deployed. An almost immediate monetary consequence of the Fourth Crusade was the large-scale importation of Nicaean, and to a much lesser degree Anatolian Seljuq, and later Rhodian, coins into Greece. Western and northwestern areas of Asia Minor now saw the same circulation of sub-Byzantine copper coinages as the southern Balkans or Greece itself. Anatolian finds have in fact made a substantial contribution to the identification and dating of Faithful Copy billon trachea. A very significant monetary impetus was next given from this region in the form of the new gold coinage of Emperor John III Vatatzes from the Magnesia (?) mint. The coinages produced at Nicaea and Magnesia from ca. 1204 to ca. 1261 are in themselves testimony to the economic and demographic health of northeastern Anatolia, and it stands to reason that Greece should have interacted with the area: in fact throughout the first half of the thirteenth century a commercial axis can be established on the basis of these numismatic data between Constantinople and the Nicaean state in the northeast, and Athens and Achaïa in the southwest. We require the testimony of other coinages – English sterlings and early French abbatial tournois for instance – to show that Greece was also connected to more southerly parts of western Anatolia, important Ionian locations such as Ephesos, Miletos, and Samos. The new gold currency for the Aegean in the name of Vatatzes has also been shown to have adjusted its standard according to more international criteria: the debasements of the ‘bezants’ of Byzantium and of Jerusalem went hand in hand.3 By contrast, soon Palestine would be one of the earliest areas outside of Italy to see the circulation of early Florentine gold issues. A similar development can be seen later in Anatolia, and Greece and Byzantium, and in the latter cases apparently less strongly. The Greek exception which may yet prove the rule is the recently published hoard from Argos. Palestine was also the recipient of western silver denominations in the early to mid-thirteenth century. In some cases it can be demonstrated quite easily that these coinages describe direct commercial links between Greece and the crusader states. Not so for the Achaïan petty denomination issues which reached the same as part of the campaigns of Louis IX and William II of Villehardouin. This eastern evidence serves the import functions of dating 3  Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, p. 227.

496

conclusions

the beginning of these issues to before 1250, and suggesting a primary military purpose for their minting. In the further course of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century other Anatolian and eastern currencies reached Greece: Trapezuntine, Armenian Cilician, Chiot and Cypriot. Some of these had Balkan and Italian dimensions, all were invariably commercial in character. However, the main pattern which was to establish itself gradually was the following: Greek deniers tournois moved to certain eastern regions, mostly the Anatolian coastline from the Dardanelles to Lycia, not however in any great quantities to Rhodes, or Cyprus, or the Black Sea coast, nor indeed Crete and the Levant. In contrast, a great many significant Anatolian currencies, especially gigliati of Chiot, Rhodian, or Ephesian mintage, never circulated in Greece. Anatolia and the Levant evidently enjoyed a massively positive balance of exchange with the west, fostered by the political conditions which I have mentioned, and finding expression in copious amounts of silver and then gold currencies. Greece was on the margins of these developments: according to the numismatic evidence it now occasionally received Anatolian produce, but other trade between for example Thrace and the Black Sea, western Anatolia and Rhodes, passed Greece by almost completely. So, too, did the Levant trade, described in the second chapter of this book: «470. Tell Akko» is a lone testimony to relations which a century earlier had been much more vibrant. We have seen how the height of monetisation of Greece post-dated that of the west by a decade or two. It cannot fail to strike us how the same was even later in Anatolia and territories to the east. This was no doubt related to geo-political developments, and patterns in trade with the west, but we cannot ignore the hypothesis that this area witnessed concurrently the westernmost flow of Chinese silver, which in itself had a later chronology than the availability of European silver.4 1.4 Monetisation in the Waning Years of the Middle Ages The middle ages have been defined, for the purposes of this book, as the period ca. 1200–ca. 1430. The given reasons are historical and monetary, especially the remarkable dearth of new specie entering Greece for the remainder of the fifteenth century. Two find complexes serve to make the point: the «211. Chalkida» hoard concealed in 1470, and the stray data from a site which continued through the fifteenth century into the sixteenth according to nonnumismatic evidence («385. Zaraka»), demonstrate just how little to no fresh cash was added to the Greek circulating stock after ca. 1430. For the entire 4  Kuroda, “Eurasian silver century”.

Medieval Greek Money in Context

497

period ca. 1430–ca. 1500 there are only four certifiable hoards from Greece («209»–«212»). This said, the same evidence from the cited finds underlines to how much of an extent any of the hoards which we classify as pre-1430 may in fact also have been concealed after that date. The Corinthian hoard «212» demonstrates how, finally, Greek money was replenished at the very end of the century with the second generation of Venetian torneselli and their counterfeits. For the immediate period after 1430 we are currently ignorant about potential tornesello counterfeiting in Greece. In our discussions we have stressed how the Venetian tornesello managed to revive Greek monetisation in terms of the main hyperpyra of account during the period from the 1360s to the 1410s. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that these same hyperpyra were significantly less valuable than they had been 100 or 150 years earlier. If we can or want to push some of this monetisation beyond 1430, it would be correspondingly thinner. An increasing reliance on a heavily debased penny currency was very much in sync with western developments in the last years of the middle ages. In all of this the role of gold from the second half of the fourteenth century to 1500 and later is shrouded in much uncertainty, as we have amply discussed in this book. A dichotomy of gold and ‘black’ coin usage is again a very common feature in the west. It is clear, in summary, that Greece suffered during the second late medieval bullion crisis to an even greater extent than many territories of the west, and even than the Balkan and Anatolian areas which were now integrated into the Ottoman state. It is also obvious that this can be explained through the great political and economic transformations/disruptions, combined with the lack of bullion itself, and the corresponding re-adjustments of Venetian monetary policy. It is also clear that the monetary crisis resulted in a reduced use of money, and an exclusion of money from certain fiscal and economic processes. Yet, numismatically, archaeologically, and historically a lot of work remains to be done in order to describe and quantify this condition: we need to understand how much money was effectively available in Greece, and even produced there, post-1430. We need to see how this money, or dearth of money, corresponds to other economic and demographic manifestations; and we need to find a way of effectively integrating the text-based evidence for gold currencies into our numismatic picture. These are significant desiderata in the writing of a monetary history for the transition period in Greece from medieval to Ottoman times.

Bibliography Abrahamse, “Rituals of death” Abrahamse, “Rituals of death in the middle Byzantine period”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 29.2 (1984), pp. 125–134. Abulafia, “Southern Italy and the Florentine Economy” D. Abulafia, “Southern Italy and the Florentine Economy, 1265–1370”, EHR, 34, 3 (1981), pp. 377–388 [= Abulafia, Italy, Sicily and the Mediterranean, no. VI]. Abulafia, “Commercio del grano siciliano” D. Abulafia, “Sul commercio del grano siciliano nel tardo duecento”, in La società mediterranea all’epoca del Vespro: XI congresso della corona d’Aragona, Palermo, Trapani, Erice, 25–30 aprile 1982, Palermo (1983), pp. 5–15 [= Abulafia, Italy, Sicily and the Mediterranean, no. VII]. Abulafia, “The Aragonese Kingdom of Albania” D. Abulafia, “The Aragonese Kingdom of Albania: An Angevin Project of 1311–1316”, MHR, 10.1–2 (1995) (= Studies in Honour of David Jacoby: Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean), pp. 1–13. Abulafia, “Commerce of the city of Ancona” D. Abulafia, “East and West: comments on the commerce of the city of Ancona in the middle ages”, in M.P. Ghezzo (ed.), Atti e memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria 26, città e sistema adriatico alla fine del medioevo. Bilancio degli studi e prospettive di ricerca, Venice (1997), pp. 49–66. [= Abulafia, Mediterranean Encounters, no. IV]. Abulafia, “The Italian South” D. Abulafia, “The Italian South”, in D. Abulafia (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, 6, Cambridge (2000), pp. 488–514. Acconcia Longo, “Storia di Corfù” A. Acconcia Longo, “Per la storia di Corfù nel XIII secolo”, RSBN, 22–23 (1985), pp. 209–243. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la mer: la marine de guerre, la politique et les institutions maritimes de Byzance aux VII–XV siècles, Paris (1966). Aidonis and Emmanouil, “Doliani” A. Aidonis and A. Emmanouil, “The people of Doliani: an approach to the paleodemography of the late Byzantine cemetery”, in B. Forsén (ed.), Thesprotia expedition I. Towards a regional history, Helsinki (2009), pp. 207–221.

500

Bibliography

Airaldi, “Roger of Lauria’s Expedition to the Peloponnese” G. Airaldi, “Roger of Lauria’s Expedition to the Peloponnese”, MHR, 10, 1 (1995) (= Studies in Honour of David Jacoby: Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean), pp. 14–23. Albani, “Byzantine earrings” J. Albani, “Elegance over the borders: The evidence of middle Byzantine earrings”, in C. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), Intelligible beauty. Recent research on Byzantine jewellery, London (2010), pp. 193–202. Albani, “Hoffnung auf ewiges Leben” J. Albani, “In der Hoffnung auf ewiges Leben. Grabbeigaben aus der byzantinistischen und nachbyzantinistischen Sammlung in Chania/Kreta”, in W. Hörandner, J. Koder, and M.A. Stassinopoulou (eds.), Wiener Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik, Beiträge zum Symposium viertzig Jahre Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der Universität Wien im gedenken an Herbert Hunger (Wien, 4.–7. Dezember 2002), Vienna (2004), pp. 53–60. Albani and Chalkia, Cities J. Albani and E. Chalkia, Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013). Aleksova, “Naodi” B. Aleksova, “Naodi na srednovekovni pari, 1921–1954”, Vesnik na MuzejskoKonzervatorskoto Društvo na N.R. Makedonija, 3 (1955), pp. 17–22. Alexopoulou and Sidiropoulos, “The coins” G. Alexopoulou and K. Sidiropoulos, “The coins”, S. in Dietz and M. StavropoulouGatsi (eds.), Kalydon in Aitolia I, 2, Aarhus (2011), pp. 549–578. Allen, Tealby D.F. Allen, A Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum. The Cross-andCrosslets (‘Tealby’) Type of Henry II, London (1955). Allen, “Volume and composition of the English silver currency” M. Allen, “The volume and composition of the English silver currency, 1279–1351”, BNJ, 70 (2000), pp. 38–44. Allen, “Hoards and circulation” M. Allen, “Hoards and the circulation of the short cross coinage”, in J.P. Mass (ed.), Sylloge of coins of the British Isles, 56. The J.P. Mass collection. English short cross coins, 1180–1247, Oxford (2001), pp. 112–30. Allen, “Volume of the English currency” M. Allen, “The volume of the English currency, 1158–1470”, Economic History Review, 54.4 (2001), pp. 595–611. Allen, “Die-output” M. Allen, “Medieval English die-output”, BNJ, 74 (2004), pp. 39–49.

Bibliography

501

Allen, “English currency” M. Allen, “The English currency and the commercialization of England before the Black Death”, in D. Wood (ed.), Medieval money matters, Oxford (2004), pp. 31–50. Allen, “Interpretation of single-finds” M. Allen, “The interpretation of single-finds of English coins, 1279–1544”, BNJ, 75 (2005), pp. 50–62. Allen, Mints and money M. Allen, Mints and money in medieval England, Cambridge (2012). Anderson, “Corinth: Temple E Northwest” J.K. Anderson, “Corinth: Temple E Northwest Preliminary Report 1965”, Hesperia, 36 (1967), pp. 1–12. Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella A.M. Stahl, The documents of Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella. Venetian notaries in fourteenth-century Crete, Washington D.C. (2000). Angold, Byzantine government in exile M. Angold, A Byzantine government in exile. Government and society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204–1261), Oxford (1975). Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204” M. Angold, “The Greeks and Latins after 1204: the perspective of exile”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 63–86 [= MHR, 4 (1989)]. Angold, Church and society M. Angold, Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261, Cambridge (1995). Angold, “Decline of Byzantium” M. Angold, “The decline of Byzantium seen through the eyes of western travellers”, in R. Macrides (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine world, Aldershot (2002), pp. 215–232. Angold, Fourth Crusade M. Angold, The Fourth Crusade, Harlow (2003). Angold, “Michael VIII Palaiologos and the Aegean” M. Angold, “Michael VIII Palaiologos and the Aegean”, in G. Saint-Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos (eds.), Liquid and multiple: Individuals and identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean, Paris (2012), pp. 27–44. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Douanes H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, Recherches sur les douanes à Byzance, Paris (1963). Antoniadis-Bibicou, “Villages désertés en Grèce” H. Antoniadis-Bibicou, “Villages désertés en Grèce. Un bilan provisoire”, in Villages désertés et histoire économique, XIe–XVIIIe siècles, Paris (1965), pp. 343–417.

502

Bibliography

Antonio Bresciano A. Laiou, “Un notaire vénitien à Constantinople: Antonio Bresciano et le commerce international en 1350”, in M. Balard, A.E. Laiou, C. Otten-Froux (eds.), Les Italiens à Byzance. Édition et présentation de documents, Paris (1987), pp. 79–151. Arbel, “Venice’s maritime empire” B. Arbel, “Venice’s maritime empire in the early modern period”, in A Companion to Venetian History, 1400–1797, Leiden (2013), pp. 125–253. Archibald and Cook, English Medieval Coin Hoards M.M. Archibald and B. Cook, English Medieval Coin Hoards I: Cross and Crosslets, Short Cross and Long Cross Hoards, London (2001). Armstrong, “Eastern Phocis” P. Armstrong, “Some Byzantine and Later Settlements in Eastern Phocis”, ABSA, 84 (1989), pp. 1–47. Armstrong, “Zeuxippus derivative bowls from Sparta” P. Armstrong, “Zeuxippus derivative bowls from Sparta”, in J.M. Sanders (ed.), Φιλολάκων. Lakonian studies in honour of Hector Catling, London (1992), pp. 1–9. Armstrong, “Byzantine Thebes” P. Armstrong, “Byzantine Thebes: excavations on the Kadmeia, 1980”, ABSA, 88 (1993), pp. 295–335. Armstrong, “The survey area in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods” P. Armstrong, “The survey area in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods”, in W. Cavanagh et al., The Laconia Survey, 1, London (2002), pp. 339–402. Arslan, Vibo Valentia (CZ) 1970/2 E.A. Arslan, Vibo Valentia (CZ) 1970/2, Milan (1981) (= Ripostigli monetali in Italia – Schede anagrafiche, Comune di Milano). Arslan, “Monete armene in Italia” E.A. Arslan, “Monete armene in Italia. Prime segnalazioni per una mappa dei ritrovamenti”, Rassegna di studi del Civico Museo Archeologico e del Civico Gabinetto Numismatico di Milano, 67–68 (2001), pp. 81–86. Artemis, “Νομίσματα μιας Ελληνίδος βαρώνης” D.N. Artemis, “Νομίσματα μιας Ελληνίδος βαρώνης”, NomChron, 1 (1972), pp. 50–52. Artemis, “Νομισματοκοπία της Ναυπάκτου” D. Artemis, “Η νομισματοκοπία της Ναυπάκτου στο μεσαιώνα”, Tetramena, 3–4 (1975), pp. 337–40. Artemis, “Τα νομίσματα του Δουκάτου των Αθηνών” D.N. Artemis, “Ο δυτικός μεσαίων εις την Ελλάδα. Τα νομίσματα του Δουκάτου των Αθηνών”, NomChron, 4 (1976), pp. 47–55. Arthur, “Quattro Macine” P. Arthur, “‘Masserie Quattro Macine’ – a deserted medieval village and its territory in southern Apulia: an interim report on field survey, excavation and document analysis”, PBSR, 64 (1996), pp. 181–237.

Bibliography

503

Asdracha, “Foires en Épire” C. Asdracha, “Les foires en Épire médiévale”, JÖB, 32, 3 (1982), pp. 437–446. Asdracha and Asdrachas, “Les paysans dans les fiefs de Corfou” Asdracha and S. Asdrachas, “Les paysans dans les fiefs de Corfou XIVe–XVe siècles”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 1, Paris (1998), pp. 17–34. Ashtor, Balance des payements E. Ashtor, Les métaux précieux et la balance des payements du Proche-Orient à la basse époque, Paris (1971). Ashtor, “Venetian supremacy” E. Ashtor, “The Venetian supremacy in Levantine trade: monopoly or precolonialism”, Journal of European Economic History, 3 (1974), pp. 5–53 [= E. Ashtor, Studies on the Levantine trade in the middle ages, London (1978), no. VI]. Ashtor, “Volume of Levantine trade” E. Ashtor, “The volume of Levantine trade in the later middle ages (1370–1498)”, Journal of European Economic History, 4 (1975), pp. 250–275 [= E. Ashtor, Studies on the Levantine trade in the middle ages, London (1978), no. X]. Ashtor, “Profits from trade with the Levant” E. Ashtor, “Profits from trade with the Levant in the fifteenth century”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 38 (1975), pp. 250–275 [= E. Ashtor, Studies on the Levantine trade in the middle ages, London (1978), no. IX]. Ashtor, “Commercio levantino di Ancona” E. Ashtor, “Il commercio levantino di Ancona nel basso medioevo”, RSI, 86, 2 (1976), pp. 213–253 [= E. Ashtor, Studies on the Levantine trade in the middle ages, London (1978), no. VIII]. Ashtor, “Venetian trade in the Levant” E. Ashtor, “Observations on Venetian trade in the Levant in the XIVth century”, Journal of European Economic History, 5 (1976), pp. 544–586 [= E. Ashtor, East-West Trade in the Medieval Mediterranean, London (1986), no. VI]. Ashtor, “Europäischer Handel im spätmittelalterlichen Palästina” E. Ashtor, “Europäischer Handel im spätmittelalterlichen Palästina”, in W. Fischer and J. Schneider (eds.), Das Heilige Land im Mittelalter. Begegnungsraum zwischen Orient und Okzident, Neustadt an der Aisch (1982), pp. 107–126 [= E. Ashtor, EastWest Trade in the Medieval Mediterranean, London (1986), no. X]. Ashtor, “Contanti e baratto” E. Ashtor, “Pagamento in contanti e baratto nel commercio italiano d’Oltremare (secoli XIV–XVI)”, in Storia d’Italia. Annali 6: Economia naturale, Economia monetaria, Turin (1983), pp. 363–396 [= E. Ashtor, East-West Trade in the Medieval Mediterranean, London (1986), no. III]. Aslanidis and Pinatsi, “Σαλαμίνα” K. Aslanidis and Ch. Pinatsi, “Ναοδομία της Μέσης Βυζαντινής περιόδου στη Σαλαμίνα”, AD, 49–50 (1994–1995), A’, pp. 165–194.

504

Bibliography

Asolati and Gorini, Legge di Gresham M. Asolati and G. Gorini (eds.), I ritrovamenti monetali e la legge di Gresham. Padua (2006). Asonitis, “Ο ‘δεσπότης Ρωμανίας’ Φίλιππος” S. Asonitis, “Ο ‘δεσπότης Ρωμανίας’ Φίλιππος και οι αξιώσεις των Ταραντινών κυρίων της Κέρκυρας επί των ηπειρωτικών κτήσεων των Orsini (1318–1331)”, Byzantiaka, 12 (1992), pp. 119–154. Asonitis, “Albanians of Epirus” S. Asonitis, “Relations between the Venetian Regimen Corphoy and the Albanians of Epirus (14th–15th centuries)”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), pp. 271–291. Asonitis, Κέρκυρα S. Asonitis, Ανδηγαυική Κέρκυρα (13ος–14ος αι.), Corfu (1999). Asonitis, “Κέρκυρα ως εμπορικό κέντρο” S. Asonitis, “Η Κέρκυρα ως εμπορικό κέντρο κατά τον όψιμο μεσαίωνα”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp 59–80. Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο S. Asonitis, Το Νότιο Ιόνιο κατά τον Όψιμο Μεσαίωνα. Κομητεία Κεφαλληνίας, Δουκάτο Λευκάδας, Αιτωτολοακαρνανία, Athens (2005). Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια S. Asonitis, Η Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια κατά τα τέλη του Μεσαίωνα (1386–1462), Τhessalonike (2009). Athanasoulis, “The triangle of power” D. Athanasoulis, “The triangle of power. Building projects in the metropolitan area of the crusader principality of the Morea”, in S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013), pp. 111–151. Athanasoulis, “Corinth” D. Athanasoulis, “Corinth”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 192–209. Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza” D. Athanasoulis and J. Baker, “Medieval Clarentza. The coins 1999–2004, with additional medieval coin finds from the nomos of Elis,” NC, 168 (2008), pp. 241–301. Athanassopoulos, “Nemea” E.F. Athanassopoulos, “Landscape archaeology and the medieval countryside: settlement and abandonment in the Nemea region”, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 14.2 (2010), pp. 255–270. Attman, Bullion flow A. Attman, The bullion flow between Europe and the East 1000–1750, Gotheburg (1981). Auriemma and Degasperi, “Roca (LE)” R. Auriemma and A. Degasperi, “Roca (LE), campagne di scavo 1987–1995: rinvenimenti monetali”, Studi di Antichità, 11 (1998), pp. 73–124.

Bibliography

505

Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek S. Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek, Sofia (2005). Avdev, “Perperi comunali i perperi latini” S. Avdev, “Venetsianskite i Genuezkite perperi comunali i perperi latini”, Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika, 5 (2009), pp. 153–170. Avdev, “Venetsianskite i Genuezkite srebărni slitătsi” S. Avdev, “Venetsianskite i Genuezkite srebărni slitătsi bălgarskoto monetosečene”, Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika, 6 (2010), pp. 133–146. Avdev, “Ioan Asen II” S. Avdev, “Nahodkite bilonovi moneti na tsar Ioan Asen II (1218–1241)”, Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika, 7 (2011), pp. 121–130. Avramea, “Land and sea communications” C. Bouras, “Land and sea communications, fourth–fifteenth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 58–90. Babinger, “Zur Frage der osmanischen Goldprägungen” F. Babinger, “Zur Frage der osmanischen Goldprägungen im 15. Jahrhundert unter Murâd II und Mehmed II”, Südostforschungen, 15 (1956), pp. 550–555. Bacharach, “The dinar versus the ducat” J.L. Bacharach, “The dinar versus the ducat”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 4.1 (1973), pp. 77–96. Baker, “Apulia” J. Baker, “Three fourteenth century coin hoards from Apulia containing gigliati and Greek deniers tournois”, RIN, 102 (2001), pp. 219–280. Baker, “Casálbore” J. Baker, “The Casálbore hoard of Neapolitan gigliati in the name of King Robert of Anjou (1309–1343)”, AIIN, 49 (2002), pp. 155–200. Baker, “Later medieval monetary life in Constantinople” J. Baker, “Later medieval monetary life in Constantinople”, Anatolian Archaeology, 9 (2003), pp. 35–36. Baker, “Thessaly” J. Baker, “Coin circulation in early 14th century Thessaly and south-eastern mainland Greece”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 293–336. Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” J. Baker, “A coinage for late Byzantine Morea under Manuel II Palaiologos (1391– 1425)”, RN 162 (2006), pp. 395–416. Baker, “Dodecanese” J. Baker, “Some Notes on the Monetary Life of the Dodecanese and its Microaseatic Peraia, ca. 1100–1400,” in Το νόμισμα στα Δωδεκάνησα και τη μικρασιατική τους περαία, Athens (2006), pp. 351–377.

506

Bibliography

Baker, “Argos” J. Baker, “Two thirteenth-century hoards and some site finds from Argos”, NC, 167 (2007), pp. 211–233. Baker, “Denari tornesi” J. Baker, “Denari tornesi”, in G. Libero Mangieri et al., Tornesi, gigliati e pierreali in un tesoretto rinvenuto a Muro Leccese, Spoleto (2010), pp. 13–17. Baker, “Cicladi medievali” J. Baker, “Monete, monetazione e zecche nelle Cicladi medievali, XIII–XV secolo/Νομίσματα, νομισματοκοπία και νομισματοκοπεία στις μεσαιωνικές Κυκλάδες, 13ος–15ος αι.”, in N. Moschonas and A. Panopoulou (eds.), Il Ducato dell’Egeo/Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου, Athens (2009), pp. 333–385. Baker, “Corinthe” J. Baker, “Un trésor médiéval de Corinthe à la Bibliothèque nationale”, TM, 16 (2010) (= Mélanges C. Morrisson), pp. 35–49. Baker, “Tel ‘Akko” J. Baker, “The Tel ‘Akko hoard of Venetian torneselli”, INR, 5 (2010), pp. 151–159. Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα” J. Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”, in Ch. Maltezou (ed.), Βενετοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα. Προσεγγίζοντας την ιστορία της, Athens – Venice (2010), pp. 277–293. Baker, “Arta”, “Caritena”, “Chiarenza”, “Chio”, “Corfù”, “Corinto”, “Damala”, “Lepanto”, “Leuca”, “Nasso”, “Negroponte”, “Neopatra”, “Salona”, “Tebe”, “Teno” J. Baker in L. Travaini (ed.), Guida per la storia delle zecche italiane medievali e moderne ( fino all’Unità), Rome (2011), s.v. Baker, “Tipologia ed epigrafia” J. Baker, “Tipologia ed epigrafia nella evoluzione dei carlini”, in G. Colucci (ed.), 3° Congresso Nazionale di Numismatica. La monetazione angioina nel Regno di Napoli, Bari 12–13 novembre 2010, Bari (2011), pp. 377–393. Baker, “Kasos” J. Baker, “Hasluck’s Kasos Hoard of Fourteenth Century Gigliati”, RBN, 158 (2012), pp. 225–234. Baker, “Ainos” J. Baker, “Coins of the late medieval period from excavations at Ainos (Enez) in Thrace”, NC, 173 (2013), pp. 215–227. Baker, “Edirne” J. Baker, “Coin circulation in late medieval Thrace according to the evidence from Edirne Archaeological Museum”, NC, 174 (2014), pp. 245–256. Baker, “Late Byzantine coins” J. Baker, “Late Byzantine Coins”, pp. 316–319, in O. Tekin – A. Erol-Özdizbay, “Coins from Allianoi Excavations: Campaign of 2000”, Colloquium Anatolicum, 13 (2014), pp. 293–336.

Bibliography

507

Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece” J. Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece”, in N.I. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, A companion to Latin Greece, Leiden (2015), pp. 217–254. Baker, “Zaraka: The coins” J. Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”, in S. Campbell (ed.), The Cistercian Monastery of Zaraka, Greece, Kalamazoo (2018), pp. 137–151. Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople” J. Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople according to the evidence of the hoards”, in O. Tekin (ed.), Second International Congress on the History of Money and Numismatics in the Mediterranean World, Proceedings, 5–8 January 2017, Antalya (2018), pp. 485–504. Baker, “Wood’s 1871 Artemision hoard” J. Baker, “A reassessment of Wood’s 1871 Artemision hoard of 14th-century coins”, in S. Ladstatter and P. Magdalino (eds.), Ephesos from Late Antiquity to the Later Middle Ages, Vienna (2019), pp. 73–101. Baker and Calabria, “Filignano” J. Baker and P. Calabria, “Filignano (IS): le monete tardo-medioevali”, RIN, 105 (2004), pp. 266–300. Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών” J. Baker and M. Galani-Krikou, “Το νομισματοκοπείο των Νεών Πατρών. Deniers tournois 14ου αιώνας μ.Χ.”, in Το νόμισμα στο Θεσσαλικό χώρο, Athens (2004), pp. 409–430. Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika” J. Baker and M. Galani-Krikou, “Further considerations on the numismatics of Catalan Greece in the light of the Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891 hoards”, in Κερμάτια φιλίας. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιωάννη Τουράτσογλου, 1, Athens (2009), pp. 457–473. Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων” J. Baker and M. Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων στην Πελοπόννησο”, in Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο, 2, Athens (2017), pp. 63–90. Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix” J. Baker and N. Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix to ‘Archaeology in Greece’”, AR, 44 (1997–1998), pp. 129–136. Baker and Kluge, “Milet” J. Baker and B. Kluge, “Der Gigliato-Schatzfund aus der Ausgrabung der Berliner Museen in Milet (1903), verborgen um 1370/74”, NZ, 122–123 (2017), pp. 367–394. Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani” J. Baker and G. Metallinou, “A rare Bulgarian grosso from Riziani (Doliani), Thesprotia, and Dušan’s conquest of Epiros”, NomChron, 29 (2011), pp. 75–86. Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois” J. Baker and M. Ponting, “The Early Period of Minting of Deniers Tournois in the Principality of Achaïa (to 1289), and their Relation to the Issues of the Duchy of Athens”, NC, 161 (2001), pp. 207–254.

508

Bibliography

Baker and Stahl, “Morea” J. Baker and A. Stahl, “Coinage and Money in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade”, in S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013), pp. 153–184. Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes” J. Baker and G. Tsekes, “Medieval coins from the area of Limnes in the Argolid”, in Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο, 2, Athens (2017), pp. 239–248. Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece” J. Baker, V. Kantarelou, A.G. Karydas, R.E. Jones, P. Siozos, D. Anglos, B. Derham, “The height of denier tournois minting in Greece (1289–1313) according to new archaeometric data”, ABSA, 112 (2017), pp. 267–307. Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)” J. Baker, F. Dompieri, T. Gökyıldırım, “The Reformed Byzantine Silver-Based Currencies (ca. 1372–1379) in the Light of the Hoards from the Belgrade Gate”, DOP, 71 (2017), pp. 273–335. Baker et al., “Catalan Thebes” J. Baker, K. Daly, F. Kondyli, S. Larson, F. Liard, “Early fourteenth-century Catalan Thebes: excavating a bothros between the Ismenion Hill and the Elektra Gate”, Hesperia, forthcoming. Bakirtzis, “Catalans en Thrace” Ch. Bakirtzis, “Les Catalans en Thrace”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 1, Paris (1998), pp. 63–73. Bakirtzis, “Late Byzantine Thessalonike” Ch. Bakirtzis, “The urban continuity and size of late Byzantine Thessalonike”, DOP, 57 (2003), pp. 35–64. Balard, “Génois en Romanie” M. Balard, “Les Génois en Romanie entre 1204 et 1261. Recherches dans les minutiers notariaux génois”, MEFR, 78 (1966), pp. 469–502. Balard, Romanie génoise M. Balard, La Romanie génoise (XII–début du XVe siécle), Rome (1978). Balard, “Monete bizantine e monete occidentale a Bisanzio” M. Balard, “Monete bizantine e monete occidentale a Bisanzio dal XIII al XV secolo (in French)”, in La Cultura bizantina oggetti e messaggio. Moneta ed economia, Rome (1986), pp. 239–289. Balard, “The Genoese in the Aegean” M. Balard, “The Genoese in the Aegean (1204–1453)”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 158–162 [= MHR, 4 (1989)]. Balard, “Bilan des publications sur Péra-Galata” M. Balard, “Bilan des publications sur Péra-Galata à l’époque Génoise”, in E. Eldem (ed.), Première rencontre internationale sur l’empire ottoman et la Turquie moderne,

Bibliography

509

Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, maison des sciences de l’homme, 18–22 janvier 1985. I. Recherches sur la ville ottomane : le cas du quartier de Galata. II. La vie politique de l’empire ottoman à l’époque jeune-turque, Istanbul – Paris (1991), pp. 5–15. Balard, “Les hommes d’affaires occidentaux ont-ils asphyxié l’économie Byzantine?” Balard, “Les hommes d’affaires occidentaux ont-ils asphyxié l’économie Byzantine?”, G. Arnaldi and G. Cavallo (eds.), Europa medievale e mondo bizantino, Contatti effettivi e possibilità di studi comparati, Rome (1997), pp. 255–260. Balard, “Etat de la recherche sur la latinocratie en Méditerranée orientale” M. Balard, “Etat de la recherche sur la latinocratie en Méditerranée orientale”, in Ch. Maltezou (ed.), Πλούσιοι και Φτωχοί στην κοινωνία της Ελληνολατινικής Ανατολής, Venice (1998), pp. 17–36. Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire” M. Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire en Méditerranée orientale (XIIIe– XVe s.)”, in Moneda y monedas en la Europa medieval (siglos XII–XV ), Pamplona (2000), pp. 257–275. Balard, “L’amministrazione genovese e veneziana nel Mediterraneo orientale” M. Balard, “L’amministrazione genovese e veneziana nel Mediterraneo orientale”, in G. Ortalli and D. Puncuh (eds.), Genova, Venezia, il levante nei secoli XII–IV, Venice (2001), pp. 201–228. Balard, “Andros aux XIV e–XVe siècles” M. Balard, “Problèmes de succession à Andros aux XIVe–XVe siècles”, Thesaurismata, 31 (2001), pp. 65–73. Balard, “Chio” M. Balard, “Chio, centre économique en mer Égée (XIV e–XVe siècles)”, TM, 14 (2002) [= Mélanges Gilbert Dagron], pp. 13–19. Balard, “Veneziani e Genovesi nel mondo Egeo nel trecento” M. Balard, “Veneziani e Genovesi nel mondo Egeo nel trecento”, in Ch.A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), Venice (2002), pp. 189–202. Balard, “Circulation monétaire à Péra” M. Balard, “La circulation monétaire à Péra dans la seconde moitié du XIV siècle”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 365–371. Balard, “Clarence, escale génoise” M. Balard, “Clarence, escale génoise aux XIIIe–XIVe siècles”, in B. Doumerc and C. Picard (eds.), Byzance et ses périphéries. Hommage à Alain Ducellier, Toulouse (2004), pp. 185–203. Balard, “Costantinopoli nella prima metà del Quattrocento” M. Balard, “Costantinopoli nella prima metà del Quattrocento”, Medioevo greco, 4 (2004), pp. 7–17.

510

Bibliography

Balard, Latins en Orient M. Balard, Les Latins en Orient XIe–XVe siècles, Paris (2006). Balard, “Latins in the Aegean” M. Balard, “Latins in the Aegean and the Balkans (1300–1400)”, in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492, Cambridge (2008), pp. 834–851. Balivet, Romanie M. Balivet, Romanie byzantine et pays de Rûm turc: histoire d’un espace d’imbrication gréco-turque, Istanbul (1994). Balletto, “Andros veneziana e Chio dei Genovesi” L. Balletto, “Tra Andros veneziana e Chio dei Genovesi nel Quattrocento”, Thesaurismata, 31 (2001), pp. 89–105. Balletto, “Negroponte nei traffici commerciali genovesi” L. Balletto, “Negroponte nei traffici commerciali genovesi nel Mediterraneo orientale sulla fine del medioevo”, in Ch. Maltezou and Ch. Papakosta, Βενετία-Εύβοια, από τον Εύριπό στο Νεγροπόντε, Athens – Venice (2006), pp. 173–202. Balling, “A Byzantine Double Hoard” J. Balling, “A Byzantine Double Hoard from Lindos”, Nordisk Numismatik Årsskrift (1963), pp. 13–41. Baloglou, Plethon C.P. Baloglou, Georgios Gemistos-Plethon: Ökonomisches Denken in der spätbyzantinischen Geisteswelt, Athens (1998). Barello, “Gerace 1990” F. Barello, “Gerace 1990. Rinvenimenti monetali”, AM, 18 (1991), pp. 626–631. Barello, “Prime osservazioni sui rinvenimenti di monete” F. Barello, “Prime osservazioni sui rinvenimenti di monete”, in C. Sabbione et al. (eds.), “Scavi medievali in Calabria: Tropea I, rapporto preliminare”, AM, 21 (1994), pp. 365–366. Barker, “Appanages in Byzantium” J. Barker, “The problem of appanages in Byzantium”, Byzantina 3 (1971), pp. 105–122. Barsanti, “Cristoforo Buondelmonti” C. Barsanti, “Costantinopoli e l’Egeo nei primi decenni del XV secolo: la testimonianza di Cristoforo Buondelmonti”, Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte3, 24 (2001), pp. 169–253. Barsanti, “Les Cyclades dans le Liber Insularum Archipelagi” C. Barsanti, “Les Cyclades dans le Liber Insularum Archipelagi de Cristoforo Buondelmonti”, in Πρακτικά Γ΄ διεθνούς σιφναϊκού συμποσίου, Athens (2009), pp. 235–246. Bartusis, “Brigandage” M. Bartusis, “Brigandage in the Late Byzantine Empire”, Byzantion, 51 (1981), pp. 386–409.

Bibliography

511

Bartusis, “Cost of late Byzantine warfare” M. Bartusis, “The cost of late Byzantine warfare and defence”, BF, 16 (1991) (= Manzikert to Lepanto. The Byzantine World and the Turks 1071–1571. Papers given at the Nineteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1985), pp. 75–103. Bartusis, Late Byzantine army M. Bartusis, The late Byzantine army. Arms and society, 1204–1453, Philadelphia (1992). Bartusis, Pronoia M. Bartusis, Land and privilege in Byzantium. The institution of pronoia, Cambridge (2012). Bates, Byzantine Coins G.E. Bates, Byzantine Coins, Cambridge, Mass. (1971) (= Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph, 1). Bateson, Coinage in Scotland J.D. Bateson, Coinage in Scotland, London (1997). Bautier, Economic development of medieval Europe R.H. Bautier, The economic development of medieval Europe, London (1971). Bautier, “Relations économiques” R.-H. Bautier, “Les relations économiques des Occidentaux avec les pays d’Orient, au Moyen Âge. Points de vue et documents”, in Sociétés et compagnies de commerce en Orient et dans l’Océan indien: Actes du 8e Colloque international d’histoire maritime, Paris (1971), pp. 263–331 [= R.-H. Bautier, Commerce méditerranéen et banquiers italiens au Moyen Age, Aldershot (1992), no. IV]. Bautier, “Les Lombards et les problèmes du crédit” R.-H. Bautier, “Les Lombards et les problèmes du crédit en France aux XIIIe et au XIVe siècles”, in Rapporti culturali ed economici fra Italia e Francia nei secoli dal XIV al XVI : Atti del colloquio italo-francese, Rome (1979), pp. 7–32 [= R.-H. Bautier, Commerce méditerranéen et banquiers italiens au Moyen Age, Aldershot (1992), no. X]. Beckenbauer, “Johanniterorden” E. Beckenbauer, “Johanniterorden auf Rhodes”, in Gitta Kastner. Katalog der 3. Ausgewählten Münzen. 22. und 23. Mai 1973, Munich (1973), pp. 68–88. Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia P.Z. Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia, New York (1962) (= ANSNMM, 147), revised edition published by the author, Danbury, Connecticut (1979). Belaubre, Histoire numismatique J. Belaubre, Histoire numismatique et monétaire de la France médiévale (de la période carolingienne à Charles VIII), Paris (1986). Bell, Sardis H.W. Bell, Sardis, Vol. XI: The Coins, Leiden (1916). Bellesia, Lucca L. Bellesia, Lucca – storia e monete, Serravalle (2007).

512

Bibliography

Bellinger, “The coins” A.R. Bellinger, “The Coins”, in C.W. Blegen et al., Acrocorinth, Excavations in 1926, Cambridge, Mass. (1926) (= Corinth Excavations, 3.1), pp. 61–68. Bellinger, Corinth A.R. Bellinger, Catalogue of Coins Found at Corinth, 1925, New Haven (1930). Bellinger, “Three hoards of Byzantine bronze coins” A.R. Bellinger, “Three hoards of Byzantine bronze coins”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 1 (1958), pp. 163–171. Bellinger, Troy. The Coins A.R. Bellinger, Troy. The Coins, Princeton (1961) (= Supplementary Monograph, 2). Bellinger and Metcalf, “Arcadia” A.R. Bellinger and D.M. Metcalf, “A Hoard of Byzantine Scyphate Bronze Coins from Arcadia”, NC, 6, 19 (1959), pp. 155–164. Bendall, “Unpublished silver trachy of Manuel Comnenus Dukas” S. Bendall, “An unpublished silver trachy of Manuel Comnenus Dukas of Thessalonika, AD 1230–1237”, NCirc, 77 (1969), p. 331. Bendall, “Thessalonican coinage of the mid-thirteenth century” S. Bendall, “Thessalonican coinage of the mid-thirteenth century in the light of a new hoard”, NC, 7, 18 (= 138) (1978), pp. 105–115. Bendall, “John III Vatatzes and Theodore II Ducas-Lascaris” S. Bendall, “John III Vatatzes and Theodore II Ducas-Lascaris”, NCirc, 86 (1978), pp. 306–307. Bendall, “Another overstrike of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas” S. Bendall, “Another overstrike of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas of Thessalonica, A.D. 1222–1230”, NCirc, 87, 2 (1979), p. 61. Bendall, “Early Palaeologan gold hoard” S. Bendall, “An early Palaeologan gold hoard”, NC, 142 (1982), pp. 66–82. Bendall, “Longuet’s Salonica Hoard” S. Bendall, “Longuet’s Salonica Hoard Reexamined”, ANSMN, 29 (1984), pp. 143–157. Bendall, “Latin Billon Trachea-Thessalonica or Constantinople?” S. Bendall, “Latin Billon Trachea-Thessalonica or Constantinople?”, NCirc, 92, 3 (1984), p. 78. Bendall, “Late 14th Century Hoard” S. Bendall, “A Late 14th Century Hoard of Balkan Silver Coins”, RN, 6, 21 (1989), pp. 183–193. Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas” S. Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas of Thessalonica (A.D. 1224–1230)”, NCirc, 98, 1 (1990), pp. 8–9. Bendall, “Michael II” S. Bendall, “The Coinage of Michael II Angelos of Epiros, 1231–1265”, NCirc, 104, 1 (1996), pp. 3–5.

Bibliography

513

Bendall, “A Latin Coinage of Thessalonica?” S. Bendall, “A Latin Coinage of Thessalonica?”, NCirc, 105, 3 (1997), pp. 74–75. Bendall, “Early Fourteenth-Century Hoard” S. Bendall, “An Early Fourteenth-Century Hoard of Thessalonican Trachea”, NC, 161 (2001), pp. 255–277. Bendall, “Early coinage of the ‘empire’ of Trebizond?” S. Bendall, “An early coinage of the ‘empire’ of Trebizond?”, NCirc, 110.3 (2002), pp. 113–115. Bendall, “John Comnenus-Ducas” S. Bendall, “Notes on the coinage in the name of John Comnenus-Ducas of Thessalonica (AD 1237–44)”, NC, 162 (2002), pp. 253–264. Bendall, “A Hyperpyron of Andronikos III and John V (A.D. 1341)?” S. Bendall, “A Hyperpyron of Andronikos III and John V (A.D. 1341)?”, NCirc, 112.3 (2004), pp. 161–166. Bendall, “A Note on the Hyperpyra of John V and VI (1347–1354)?” S. Bendall, “A Note on the Hyperpyra of John V and VI (1347–1354)?”, NCirc, 112.5 (2004), pp. 297–299. Bendall, “Note on the Palaeologan Hyperpyra, A.D. 1320–1325” S. Bendall, “A Note on the Palaeologan Hyperpyra, A.D. 1320–1325”, NCirc, 113.1 (2005), pp. 5–10. Bendall, “Further note on a possible early coinage of the empire of Trebizond” S. Bendall, “A further note on a possible early coinage of the empire of Trebizond”, NCirc, 114 (2006), pp. 208–210. Bendall, “Hoard of coins of Andronicus I Gidon of Trebizond(?)” S. Bendall, “A hoard of coins of Andronicus I Gidon of Trebizond(?)”, NCirc, 115.1 (2007), pp. 8–16. Bendall, “Andronicus I Gidon of Trebizond again” S. Bendall, “Andronicus I Gidon of Trebizond again”, NCirc, 115.2 (2007), pp. 75–80. Bendall, “An Update on Palaeologan Overstrikes” S. Bendall, “An Update on Palaeologan Overstrikes”, NCirc, 115.4 (2007), pp. 202–204. Bendall, “Palaeologan Notes” S. Bendall, “Palaeologan Notes”, NCirc, 115.6 (2007), pp. 303–306. Bendall, “Recent Forgery” S. Bendall, “A Recent Forgery of a Palaeologan Anonymous Billon Tornese”, NCirc, 116.1 (2008), p. 9. Bendall, “Palaeologan Billon Tornese” Bendall, “Palaeologan Billon Tornese”, NCirc, 116.5 (2008), pp. 252–256. Bendall, “Clipped silver trachea of John III” S. Bendall, “Clipped silver trachea of John III Vatatzes of Nicaea (1222–1254)”, NCirc, 117.3 (2009), pp. 102–103.

514

Bibliography

Bendall, “Coins of John I Axuchos (1235–1238) of Trebizond” S. Bendall, “Coins of John I Axuchos (1235–1238) of Trebizond”, NCirc, 118.5 (2010), p. 215. Bendall, “Hyperpyron of the sole reign of John VI” S. Bendall, “A hyperpyron of the sole reign of John VI Cantacuzenos (1353–1354)”, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, 62 (2012), pp. 197–203. Bendall, Coinage of the Empire of Trebizond S. Bendall, An introduction to the coinage of the Empire of Trebizond, London (2015). Bendall and Donald, Billon Trachea S. Bendall and P.J. Donald, The Billon Trachea of Michael VIII Palaiologos 1258–1282, London (1974). Bendall and Donald, Later Palaeologan S. Bendall and P.J. Donald, The Later Palaeologan Coinage, Bath (1979). Bendall and Donald, “The Silver Coinage of Michael VIII” S. Bendall and P.J. Donald, “The Silver Coinage of Michael VIII, A.D. 1258–1282”, NCirc, 90, 4 (1982), pp. 121–124. Bendall and Morrisson, “Ducats d’imitation” S. Bendall and C. Morrisson, “Un trésor de ducats d’imitation au nom d’Andrea Dandolo”, RN, 6, 21 (1979), pp. 176–193. Bendall and Protonotarios, “More rare and unpublished coins” S. Bendall and P. Protonotarios, “More rare and unpublished coins of the Empires of Nicea and Thessalonica”, NCirc, 64 (1976), pp. 46–48. Bendall and Sellwood, “Method of striking scyphate coins” S. Bendall and D. Sellwood, “The method of striking scyphate coins using two obverse dies in the light of an early thirteenth century hoard”, NC, 7, 18 (1978), pp. 93–104. Bendžarević, “Narodnog Muzeja u Beogradu” T. Bendžarević, “Četiri ostave bilon aspron traheja iz XII i početka XIII veka, iz Narodnog Muzeja u Beogradu”, Numizmatičar, 22–23 (1999–2000), pp. 141–182. Benvenuto de Brixano R. Morozzo della Rocca (ed.), Benvenuto de Brixano, notaio in Candia, 1301–1302, Venice (1950). Berg, “Moreote expedition of Ferrando of Majorca” B. Berg, “The Moreote expedition of Ferrando of Majorca in the Aragonese Chronicle of the Morea”, B, 55 (1985), pp. 69–90. Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East” B. Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East”, Byzantina, 14 (1988), pp. 263–289. Berg, “Dowry of Thamar of Epiros” B. Berg, “The dowry of Thamar of Epiros”, Études byzantines / Byzantine Studies, 1–2 (1996–1997), pp. 96–111.

Bibliography

515

Berghaus, “Perioden des Sterlings” P. Berghaus, “Die Perioden des Sterlings in Westfalen, dem Rheinland und in den Niederlanden”, HBN, 1–5 (1947–1951), pp. 34–53. Berman, “Thirteenth-century coin hoard” C.H. Berman, “A thirteenth-century coin hoard in the collection of the American Numismatic Society and a penny from the Cluniac Priory of Souvigny”, Trésors monétaires, 8 (1986), pp. 115–127. Berman, Papal Coins A. Berman, Papal Coins, South Salem (1991). Bernardini, “Melendugno – Scavi di Roca” M. Bernardini, “Melendugno – Scavi di Roca”, NSc (1934), pp. 182–199. Bernocchi, Monete M. Bernocchi, Le monete della repubblica fiorentina, Florence (1974–1985), 5 vols. Bertelè, Imperatore alato T. Bertelè, L’imperatore alato nella numismatica bizantina, Rome (1951). Bertelè, “Una moneta dei despoti di Epiro” T. Bertelè, “Una moneta dei despoti di Epiro”, BZ, 44 (1951), pp. 24–26. Bertelè, “Monete del Rechenbuch” T. Bertelè, “Appunto sulle monete del Rechenbuch edito da Hunger-Vogel”, BZ, 56 (1963), pp. 321–327. Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina” T. Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 1, Florence (1973), pp. 3–146. Bertelè and Morrisson, Numismatique byzantine T. Bertelè and C. Morrisson, Numismatique byzantine, Wetteren (1978). Bintliff, “The Frankish Countryside in central Greece” J. Bintliff, “The Frankish Countryside in central Greece: the evidence from archaeological field survey”, in G.D.R. Sanders and P. Lock (eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford (1996), pp. 1–18. Bintliff, “Contribution of regional surface survey to Byzantine landscape history in Greece” J. Bintliff, “The contribution of regional surface survey to Byzantine landscape history in Greece”, in J. Poblome (ed.), Exempli Gratia. Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens and Interdisciplinary Archaeology, Leuven (2013), pp. 127–139. Bintliff and Stöger, Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece J. Bintliff and H. Stöger (eds.), Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, Oxford (2009), pp. 107–114.

516

Bibliography

Biraben, Hommes et la peste J.-N. Biraben, Les hommes et la peste en France et dans les pays européens et méditerranéens, 2 vols, Paris – The Hague (1976). Bisson, “Languedoc” T.N. Bisson, “Coinages and royal monetary policy in Languedoc during the reign of Saint Louis”, Speculum, 32 (1957), pp. 443–69. Blanchet and Dieudonné, Manuel A. Blanchet and A. Dieudonné, Manuel de mumismatique française, Paris (1912– 1936), 4 vols. Blanchet and Saint-Guillain, “A propos d’un ouvrage recent sur la Chronique de Morée” M.-H. Blanchet and G. Saint-Guillain, “A propos d’un ouvrage recent sur la Chronique de Morée : contribution au débat”, B, 83 (2013), pp. 13–39. Bland, “Coins” R. Bland, “Coins”, in G.B. Waywell and J.J. Wilkes (eds.), “Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988–91 Part 3”, ABSA, 92 (1997), pp. 409–414. Bloch, Esquisse d’une histoire monétaire M. Bloch, Esquisse d’une histoire monétaire de l’Europe, Paris (1954). Blum and Plassart, “Orchomène d’Arcadie” G. Blum and A. Plassart, “Orchomène d’Arcadie”, BCH, 38 (1914), pp. 71–88. Boehm, “De Karlingis imperator” L. Boehm, “De Karlingis imperator. Karolus, Princeps et Monarcha totius Europae. Zur Orientpolitik Karls I von Anjou”, Historisches Jahrbuch, 88 (1968), pp. 1–35. Boerio, Dizionario del dialetto veneziano G. Boerio, Dizionario del dialetto veneziano, Venice (1856), re-printed Florence (1998). Bohlendorf-Arslan and Ricci, Small finds in Byzantine archaeological contexts B. Bohlendorf-Arslan and A. Ricci (eds.), Small finds in Byzantine archaeological contexts, Istanbul (2012). Bolton, Money in the medieval English economy J.L. Bolton, Money in the medieval English economy, 973–1489, Manchester (2012). Bommeljé, “Lidoriki” S. Bommeljé, “Three forts in a sea of mountains: the Lidoriki district and the medieval history of Aetoia”, in J. Bintliff and H. Stöger (eds.), Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, Oxford (2009), pp. 1–13. Bompaire, “Monnaie de Pont-de-Sorgues” M. Bompaire, “La monnaie de Pont-de-Sorgues dans la première moitié du XIVe siècle”, RN, 6, 25 (1983), pp. 139–176. Bompaire, “Monnaie et économie à la fin du moyen âge” M. Bompaire, “Monnaie et économie à la fin du moyen âge. A propos d’ouvrages récents”, RN, 6, 32 (1990), pp. 273–283.

Bibliography

517

Bompaire, “Monnaies dans les villages” M. Bompaire, “Monnaies dans les villages, quelques exemples de la France méridionale”, in J. Lefort et al., Les villages dans l’empire byzantin IVe–XVe siècle, Paris (2005), 123–134. Bompaire, “Besant” M. Bompaire, “Le mythe du besant?”, TM, 16 (2010) (= Mélanges C. Morrisson), pp. 93–116. Bompaire and Dumas, Numismatique médiévale M. Bompaire and F. Dumas, Numismatique médiévale, Turnhout (2000). Bon, “Forteresses médiévales” A. Bon, “Forteresses médiévales de la Grèce centrale”, BCH, 61 (1937), pp. 136–208. Bon, Peloponnèse byzantin A. Bon, Le Peloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 1204, Paris (1951). Bon, Morée franque A. Bon, La Morée franque: recherches historiques, topographiques, et archéologiques sur la Principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430), Paris (1969). Bon, “Monuments vénitiens en Grèce centrale et dans le Peloponnèse” A. Bon, “Monuments vénitiens en Grèce centrale et dans le Peloponnèse jusqu’au XVe siècle”, A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, volume II, Arte – Letteratura – Linguistica, Florence (1974), pp. 41–67. Bookidis and Stroud, The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore Bookidis and Stroud, The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: topography and architecture, Princeton (1997) (= Corinth Excavations, 18.3). Borghese, Carlo I d’Angiò G.L. Borghese, Carlo I d’Angiò e il Mediterraneo, Rome (2008). Borrell, “Unedited coins of the Lower Empire” H.P. Borrell, “Unedited coins of the Lower Empire”, NC, 4 (1841–42), pp. 15–22. Borsari, “Rapporti tra Pisa e gli stati di Romania nel duecento” S. Borsari, “I rapporti tra Pisa e gli stati di Romania nel duecento”, RSI, 67 (1955), pp. 477–492. Borsari, “Politica bizantina di Carlo d’Angiò” S. Borsari, “La politica bizantina di Carlo d’Angiò, 1266–1271”, ASPN, n.s. 35 (1956), pp. 319–349. Borsari, Dominio veneziano a Creta S. Borsari, Il dominio veneziano a Creta nel XIII secolo, Naples (1963). Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane S. Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane in Romania nel XIII secolo, Naples (1966). Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio nel XII secolo S. Borsari, Venezia e Bisanzio nel XII secolo. I rapporti economici, Venice (1988).

518

Bibliography

Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A 13th-century jewellery hoard from Thessalonica” A. Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “A 13th-century jewellery hoard from Thessalonica: a genuine hoard or an art dealer’s compilation?”, in C. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), Intelligible beauty. Recent research on Byzantine jewellery, London (2010), pp. 219–232. Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck A. Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Byzantinischer Schmuck des 9. bis frühen 13. Jahrhunderts: Untersuchungen zum metallenen dekorativen Körperschmuck der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit anhand datierter Funde, Wiesbaden (2011). Bouras, “City and village” C. Bouras, “City and village: urban design and architecture”, JÖB, 31.2 (1981), pp. 611– 653, with corresponding discussion in JÖB, 32.1 (1982), pp. 319–323. Bouras, “Frankish architecture” C. Bouras, “The impact of Frankish architecture on thirteenth-century Byzantine architecture”, in A.E. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The crusades from the perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim world, Washington D.C. (2001), pp. 247–262. Bouras, “Aspects of the Byzantine city” C. Bouras, “Aspects of the Byzantine city, eighth–fifteenth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 497–537. Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα Ch. Bouras, Βυζαντινή Αθήνα 10ος–12ος αι., Athens (2010). Bouras, “Byzantine cities in Greece” Ch. Bouras, “Byzantine cities in Greece”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 33–75. Bouras, “Byzantine Athens, 330–1453” Ch. Bouras, “Byzantine Athens, 330–1453”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 168–179. Brand, “Did Byzantium have a free market?” C.M. Brand, “Did Byzantium have a free market?”, BF, 26 (2000), pp. 63–72. Bratianu, “L’hyperpère” G.I. Bratianu, “L’hyperpère byzantin et la monnaie d’or des républiques italiennes au XIIIe siècle”, in Études byzantines d’histoire économique et sociale. Paris (1938), pp. 221–239. This has already appeared in the Mélanges Charles Diehl, 1, Paris (1930), pp. 37–48. Bredenkamp, Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike F. Bredenkamp, The Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike, 1224–1242, Thessalonike (1996). Brezeanu, “L’apparition de la monnaie d’or” S. Brezeanu, “L’apparition de la monnaie d’or des républiques italiennes et la situation de l’hyperpère nicéen”, in Actes du XIVe Congrès Internationale des Études Byzantines, Bucarest 6–12 Sept 1971, 3, Bucharest (1976), pp. 179–185. Broome, Coinage of the Seljuqs M. Broome, Coinage of the Seljuqs of Rūm, London (2011).

Bibliography

519

Brunetti, “Soldini di Fr. Dandolo” L. Brunetti, “Del quantitativo coniato di soldini di Fr. Dandolo”, RIN, 60 (1958), pp. 63–68. Buchon, Grèce J.A. Buchon, La Grèce continentale et la Morée. Voyage, séjour et études historiques en 1840 et 1841, Paris (1843). Buenger Robbert, “Venetian Money Market” L. Buenger Robbert, “The Venetian Money Market, 1150 to 1229”, SV, 13 (1971), pp. 3–94. Buenger Robbert, “Venice and the crusades” L. Buenger Robbert, “Venice and the crusades”, in H.W. Hazard and N.P. Zacour (eds.), The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, Madison (1989) [= Setton, A History of the Crusades, 6]. pp. 379–451. Butrint Foundation. Report 2003 Butrint Foundation. Report 2003, London (2003). Butrint Foundation Annual Report 2007 Butrint Foundation Annual Report 2007, London (2007). Buttrey, “Byzantine, Medieval, and Modern Coins and Tokens” T.V. Buttrey, “Byzantine, Medieval, and Modern Coins and Tokens”, in T.V. Buttrey, A. Johnston, K.M. MacKenzie, M.L. Bates (eds.), Greek, Roman and Islamic Coins from Sardis, Cambridge, Mass. – London (1981) (= Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Monograph, 7), pp. 204–226. Buttrey, “The Coins” T.V. Buttrey, “The Coins”, in J.G. Pedley and M. Torelli (eds.), The Sanctuary of Santa Venera at Paestum, Rome (1993), pp. 251–259. Buttrey, “Calculating ancient coin production” T.V. Buttrey, “The president’s address: calculating ancient coin production. Facts and fantasies”, NC, 153 (1993), pp. 335–351; “The President’s Address: Calculating ancient coin production: Why it cannot be done”, NC, 154 (1994), pp. 341–352. Çağaptay, “Gazi Evrenos’ imaret in Komotini” S. Çağaptay, “The road from Bithynia to Thrace: Gazi Evrenos’ imaret in Komotini and its architectural framework”, BF, 30 (2011), pp. 429–442. Çağaptay, “Prousa/Bursa” S. Çağaptay, “Prousa/Bursa, a city within the city: chorography, conversion and choreography”, BMGS, 35.1 (2011), pp. 45–69. Caggese, Roberto d’Angiò R. Caggese, Roberto d’Angiò e i suoi tempi, Florence (1922 and 1930), 2 vols. Cahen, “Commerce anatolien au début du XIII siècle” C. Cahen, “Le commerce anatolien au début du XIII siècle”, in Mélanges Louis Halphen, Paris (1953), pp. 91–101 [reprinted in C. Cahen, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus, London (1974), no. XII].

520

Bibliography

Callegher, “Folles anonimi” B. Callegher, “Presenza di ‘folles anonimi’ in Italia settentrionale: Un’ipotesi interpretativa”, QT, 23 (1994), pp. 293–312. Callegher, “Monete medioevali dei secoli XI–XIII in Friuli” B. Callegher, “Monete medioevali dei secoli XI–XIII in Friuli”, in Die Friesacher Münze im Alpen-Adria-Raum/La moneta frisacense nell’Alpe Adria, Graz (1996), pp. 339–362. Callegher, “Blagoevgrad” B. Callegher, “Un ripostiglio di ‘billon trachea’ dell’inizio del XIII secolo dal territorio di Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria)”, in A. Saccocci (ed.), Inspecto nummi. Scritti di numismatica, medaglistica e sfragistica offerti dagli allievi di Giovanni Gorini, Padua (2001), pp. 127–145. Callegher, “La circulation monétaire à Patras” B. Callegher, “La circulation monétaire à Patras et dans les sites ruraux environnants (VIe–VIIe siècle)”, in J. Lefort, C. Morrisson, J.-P. Sodini (eds.), Les Villages dans l’Empire byzantin (IVe–XVe siècle), Paris (2005), pp. 225–235. Cardamone and Palmieri, “Chiesa di S. Paolo Apostolo a Bitonto” E. Cardamone and F.P. Palmieri, “Notizie preliminari sui saggi eseguiti nella chiesa di S. Paolo Apostolo a Bitonto”, Studi Bitontini, 20 (1976), pp. 1–16 of the offprint. Carile, Impero latino A. Carile, Per una storia dell’impero latino di Constantinopoli (1204–1261), Bologna (1972). Carile, Rendita feudale A. Carile, La rendita feudale nella Morea latina del XIV secolo, Bologna (1974). Carile, “Formazione della rendita feudale nel Peloponneso” A. Carile, “La formazione della rendita feudale nel Peloponneso veneto-angioino nel XIV–XV secolo”, T. Klaniczay (ed.), Rapporti Veneto-Ungheresi all’ epoca del Rinascimento, Budapest (1975), pp. 121–142. Carile, “Sulla pronoia nel Peloponneso bizantino” A. Carile, “Sulla pronoia nel Peloponneso bizantino anteriormente alla conquista latina”, ZRVI, 16 (1975), pp. 55–61. Carile, “Rapporti fra signoria rurale e despoteia” A. Carile, “Rapporti fra signoria rurale e despoteia alla luce della formazione della rendita feudale nella Morea latina del XIV secolo”, RSI, 88.3 (1976), pp. 548–570. Carile and Cavallo, “Crisobollo di Andronico III Palaeologo per il monastero di Licusada” A. Carile and G. Cavallo, “L’inedito crisobollo di Andronico III Palaeologo per il monastero di Licusada”, Atti della Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, Classe di ScienzeMorali, Anno 69o, Rendiconti 63 (1974–75).

Bibliography

521

Carolus-Barré, “Trapani” L. Carolus-Barré, “Objets précieux et monnaies retrouvées dans le port de Trapani, en 1270, dont 21 écus d’or de Saint Louis”, RN, 6, 18 (1975), pp. 115–118. Caron, “Delphes” A. Caron, “Trouvailles de monnaies du moyen âge à Delphes”, BCH, 21 (1897), pp. 26–39. Carrieri, “Rinvenimento di un sepolcreto tardomedievale a Monopoli” M. Carrieri, “Rinvenimento di un sepolcreto tardomedievale a Monopoli”, Taras, 4, 1–2 (1984), pp. 215–220. Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio” B. Carroccio and D. Castrizio, “Ripostiglio di denari tornesi dell’Acaia angioina da Paracopio di Bova (RC)”, AM, 22 (1995), pp. 589–611. Castellani, Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini G. Castellani, Catalogo della Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini, 2 vols, Venice (1925). Castrizio, “Calamizzi” D. Castrizio, “Due ripostigli del XV sec. da Calamizzi (RC)”, RIN, 99 (1998), pp. 257–283. Castrizio, “Ancora sul tesoretto di Paracopio” D. Castrizio, “Note sulla circolazione dei tornesi dell’Acaia angioina nella Calabria meridionale. Ancora sul tesoretto di Paracopio di Bova (RC)”, RIN, 103 (2002), pp. 231–239. Cayon and Castan, Monedas españolas J. Cayon and C. Castan, Las monedas españolas desde los reyes Visigodos año 406 a Juan Carlos I, Madrid (no date). Cecchinato, “Il denaro tornese della Grecia franca” R. Cecchinato, “Il denaro tornese della Grecia franca”, 2011, electronic publication available at  http://numismatica-italiana.lamoneta.it/docs/201112/Il_denaro_ tornese_della_Grecia_franca.pdf. Cesano, “Monetazione e circolazione sul suolo dell’antica Albania” S.L. Cesano, “Monetazione e circolazione sul suolo dell’antica Albania”, Atti e Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica, 7 (1932), pp. 47–98. Cessi, Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio R. Cessi, Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio di Venezia (= Atti delle assemblee costituzionali italiane dal medio evo al 1831), Bologna (1931–1950), 3 vols. Cessi, Problemi monetari veneziani R. Cessi, Problemi monetari veneziani ( fino a tutto il sec. XIV ), Padua (1937).

522

Bibliography

Charanis, “Internal strife in Byzantium” P. Charanis, “Internal strife in Byzantium during the fourteenth century”, B, 15 (1941), pp. 208–230 [= P. Charanis, Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, London (1973), no. VI]. Charanis, “Piracy in the Aegean” P. Charanis, “Piracy in the Aegean during the Reign of Michael VIII Paleologus”, Annuaire de l’institut de Philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves, 10 (1950), pp. 127–136 [= P. Charanis, Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, London (1973), no. XII]. Charanis, “Social structure and economic organisation” P. Charanis, “On the social structure and economic organisation of the Byzantine empire in the thirteenth century and later”, BSl, 12 (1951), pp. 94–153 [= P. Charanis, Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, London (1973), no. IV]. Charanis, “Population and cities of the Byzantine empire” P. Charanis, “A note on the population and cities of the Byzantine empire in the thirteenth century”, in The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, New York (1953) (= Jewish Social Studies, 5), pp. 135–148. Charanis, “Town and country in the Byzantine possessions” P. Charanis, “Town and country in the Byzantine possessions of the Balkan peninsula during the later period of the empire”, in H. Birnbaum and S. Vryonis (eds.), Aspects of the Balkans. Continuity and change, The Hague (1961), pp. 117–137 [= P. Charanis, Social, Economic and Political Life in the Byzantine Empire, London (1973), no. V]. Chautard, Esterlin J. Chautard, Imitations des monnaies du type esterlin frappées en Europe pendant le XIIIe et XIVe siècle, Nancy (1872). Cherubini, “Ripostiglio di monete dei bassi tempi” G. Cherubini, “Ripostiglio di monete dei bassi tempi”, Periodico di Numismatico e Sfragistica, 1 (1868), pp. 88–95. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations J.-C. Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963–1210), Paris (1990). Cheynet, Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204) J.-C. Cheynet (ed.), Le monde byzantine II. L’empire byzantin (641–1204), Paris (2006). Cheynet and Morrisson, “Prices and wages” J.-C. Cheynet and C. Morrisson, “Prices and wages in the Byzantine world”, in EHB, pp. 815–878. Cheynet et al., “Prix et salaires” J.-C. Cheynet, E. Malamut, C. Morrisson, “Prix et salaires à Byzance (Xe–XVe siècle)”, in Hommes et richesses de l’empire byzantin, 2, Paris (1991), pp. 339–374. Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων” A.K. Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων” (in French), JIAN, 8 (1905), pp. 115–120.

Bibliography

523

Chronicle of Ioannina L.I. Vranousis, “Το Χρονικόν των Ιωαννίνων κατ’ ανέκδοτον δημώδη επιτομήν”, Epeteris tou Mesaionikou Archeiou, 12 (1962), pp. 57–115. Chronicle of Morea (G) J. Schmitt (ed.), The Chronicle of Morea, Το Χρονικόν του Μορέως, London (1904), reprinted Groningen (1967). Chronicle of Morea (F) J. Longnon (ed.), Livre de la conqueste de la Princée de l’Amorée, Paris (1911). Chronicle of Morea (A) A. Morel-Fatio (ed.), Libro de los fechos et conquistas del principado de la Morea, Geneva (1885). Chronicle of Tocco G. Schirò (ed.), Cronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia di anonimo, Rome (1975). Chrysostomides, “Venetian commercial privileges” J. Chrysostomides, “Venetian commercial privileges under the Palaeologi”, SV, 12 (1970), pp. 267–356. [= J. Chrysostomides, Byzantium and Venice, 1204–1453, Farnham (2011), no. III]. Chrysostomides, “Was Neri Acciaiuoli ever lord of Vostitsa and Nivelet?” J. Chrysostomides, “Was Neri Acciaiuoli ever lord of Vostitsa and Nivelet?”, in J. Chrysostomides (ed.), Καθηγήτρια, Essays presented to Joan Hussey, Camberley (1988), pp. 501–514 [= J. Chrysostomides, Byzantium and Venice, 1204–1453, Farnham (2011), no. VII]. Chrysostomides, “Merchant versus nobles” J. Chrysostomides, “Merchant versus nobles: a sensational court case in the Peloponnese (1391–1404)”, in Πρακτικά του Δ΄ διεθνούς συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Κορινθός, 9–16 Σεπτεμβρίου 1990, 2, Athens (1992–1993), pp. 116–134. [= J. Chrysostomides, Byzantium and Venice, 1204–1453, Farnham (2011), no. VIII]. Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca J. Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca. Documents for the history of the Peloponnese in the 14th and 15th centuries, Camberley (1995). Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese” J. Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade”, in A. Avramea, A. Laiou, E. Chrysos (eds.), Byzantium, State and Society, in Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, Athens (2003), pp. 155–167. [= J. Chrysostomides, Byzantium and Venice, 1204–1453, Farnham (2011), no. X]. Chrysostomides, “Έμπορος εναντίον ευγενών” J. Chrysostomides, “Έμπορος ενάντιον ευγένων: μια εντυπωσιακή δικαστική υπόθεση από την Πελοπόννησο των ετών 1391–1409”, Peloponnisiaka, 28 (2005–2006), pp. 65–80. Chrysostomides, “Wealth and poverty in Greece” J. Chrysostomides, “Glimpses of wealth and poverty in Greece during the 14th and 15th centuries as seen in the Venetian documents” in J. Chrysostomides, Byzantium

524

Bibliography

and Venice, 1204–1453, Farnham (2011), no. IX, pp. 1–7 [= English translation of the author’s contribution to Ch. Maltezou (ed.), Πλούσιοι και Φτωχοί στην κοινωνία της Ελληνολατινικής Ανατολής, Venice (1998), pp. 395–402]. Cipolla, Moneta e civiltà mediterranea C.M. Cipolla, Moneta e civiltà mediterranea, Venice (1957). Cipolla, Avventure della lira C.M. Cipolla, Le avventure della lira, Milan (1958). Cipolla, “Currency depreciation” C.M. Cipolla, “Currency depreciation in medieval Europe”, Economic History Review, 15.3 (1963), pp. 413–422. Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution C.M. Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution: European society and economy, 1000– 1700, London (1976), and subsequent editions. Cipolla, Monetary policy of fourteenth-century Florence C.M. Cipolla, The monetary policy of fourteenth-century Florence, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London (1982). Cirac Estopaña, España y Bizancio S. Cirac Estopaña, España y Bizancio. El legado de la basilissa María y de los déspotas Thomas y Esaú de Joannina, Barcelona (1943). Clarence Γλαρέντζα: Clarence, Athens (2005). Cocchiaro and Marinazzo, “Scavi di Brindisi (1984–1988)” A. Cocchiaro and A. Marinazzo, “Monete dagli scavi di Brindisi (1984–1988)”, AIIN, 37 (1990), pp. 81–133. Codice Morosini A. Nanetti (ed.), Il Codice Morosini. Il mondo visto da Venezia (1094–1433), 4 volumes, Spoleto (2010). Coins of Scotland Coins of Scotland, Ireland and the Islands ( Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man & Lundy), Spink, 2nd edition, London (2002). Coleman, Pylos J.E. Coleman, Excavations at Pylos in Elis, Princeton (1986) (= Hesperia Supplement, 21). Colonna, “Saepinum” G. Colonna, “Saepinum. Ricerche di topografia sannitica e medioevale”, Archeologia Classica, 14 (1962), pp. 80–107. Congourdeau, “Peste noire à Byzance” M.-H. Congourdeau, “Pour une étude de la peste noire à Byzance”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 1, Paris (1998), pp. 149–163. Congourdeau, “Peste noire à Constantinople” M.-H. Congourdeau, “La peste noire à Constantinople de 1348 à 1466”, Medicina nei secoli, 11.2 (1999), pp. 377–389.

Bibliography

525

Conte Verde F. Bollatti di Saint-Pierre (ed.), Illustrazioni della spedizione in oriente di Amedeo VI (il Conte Verde), Turin (1900). Cook, “Bezant” B. Cook, “The Bezant in Angevin England”, NC, 159 (1999), pp. 255–275. Coulson, “Early Christian Basilica at the Cenchrean Gate” M.L. Coulson, “The Medieval Re-Use of the Early Christian Basilica at the Cenchrean Gate, Corinth”, in Acts of the XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Moscow (1991), Shepherdstown (1996), pp. 205–216. Coureas, “Lusignan Cyprus and Venetian Crete” N. Coureas, “Commercial relations between Lusignan Cyprus and Venetian Crete in the period 1300–1362”, Epetirida tou Kentrou Epistimonikon Ereunon 26 (2000), pp. 141–155. Coureas, “The establishment of the Latin secular church at Patras” N. Coureas, “The establishment of the Latin secular church at Patras under Pope Innocent III: comparisons and contrasts with Cyprus”, Mésogeios, 13–14 (2001), pp. 145–163. Coureas, “Cyprus and Euboea” N. Coureas, “Cyprus and Euboea in the mid-fourteenth century”, Symmeikta, 16 (2003–2004), pp. 87–100. Cox, Caparelli D.H. Cox, The Caparelli Hoard, New York (1930) (= ANSNNM, 143). Cox, Green Count E.L. Cox, The Green Count of Savoy. Amadeus VI and Transalpine Society in the Fourteenth Century, Princeton (1967). Crnobrnja, “Podgorca” N.A. Crnobrnja, “Ostava vizantijskog nobca iz Podgorca, SR Srbija”, Numizmatičar, 9 (1986), pp. 60–64. Crnobrnja, “Zagradje” N.A. Crnobrnja, “The Hoard of Byzantine Bronze Scyphates from Zagradje near Zaječar”, Starinar, 42 (1991), pp. 161–163. Crowson, Venetian Butrint A. Crowson, Venetian Butrint, London, Tirana (2007). Cumano, “Numismatica” C. Cumano, “Numismatica”, L’Istria, 5.11 (16 March 1850), pp. 79–80. Cuozzo and Martin, Santa Cristina di Sepino E. Cuozzo and J.-M. Martin, Le Pergamene Di Santa Cristina Di Sepino, 1143–1463, Rome (1998). Curta, Southeastern Europe F. Curta, Southeastern Europe in the middle ages 500–1250, Cambridge (2006).

526

Bibliography

Dalton, “Mediaeval personal ornaments” O.M. Dalton, “Mediaeval personal ornaments from Chalcis in the British and Ashmolean Museums”, Archaeologia, 62 (1911), pp. 391–404. Drandakis, “Έρευναι” N.B. Drandakis, “Έρευναι εις την Μάνην”, PAE (1977), pp. 200–228. Drandakes et al., “Τηγάνι” N.B. Drandakis, N. Gkiole, Ch. Konstantinidis, “Ανασκαφή στο Τηγάνι της Μάνης”, PAE (1978), pp. 183–193. D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise A. D’Andrea and C. Andreani, Le monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, Mosciano Sant’Angelo (TE) (2007). D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete medioevali della Puglia A. D’Andrea and C. Andreani, Le monete medioevali della Puglia, Mosciano Sant’Angelo (TE) (2008). D’Andrea et al., Monete del Molise A. D’Andrea, C. Andreani, F. Bozza, Le monete del Molise, Mosciano Sant’Angelo (TE) (2008). Dannenberg, “Münzmeister auf Mittelaltermünzen” H. Dannenberg, “Münzmeister auf Mittelaltermünzen”, ZfN, 22 (1900), pp. 277–294. Danstrup, “Indirect taxation at Byzantium” J. Danstrup, “Indirect Taxation at Byzantium”, Classica et Mediaevalia, 8 (1946), pp. 139–167. Davidson, Minor objects G.R. Davidson, The minor objects, Princeton (1952) (= Corinth Excavations, 12). Day, “Prix agricoles” J. Day, “Prix agricoles en Méditerranée à la fin du XIVe siècle”, Annales ESC, 16 (1961), pp. 629–656 [= J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 1–27]. Day, “Toscane” J. Day, “La circulation monétaire en Toscane en 1296”, Annales ESC, 23 (1968), pp. 1054–1066 656 [= J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 29– 39; in English: J. Day, The medieval market economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 129–140]. Day, “Great bullion famine” J. Day, “The great bullion famine of the fifteenth century”, Past and Present, 79 (1978), pp. 3–54 [= J. Day, The medieval market economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 1–54; in French: J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 41–82]. Day, “Conjoncture des prix” J. Day, “‘Crise du féodalisme’ et conjoncture des prix à la fin du Moyen Age”, Annales ESC, 34 (1979), pp. 305–318 [= J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 82–99; in English: J. Day, The medieval market economy, Oxford (1987), 90–107].

Bibliography

527

Day, “Fisher equation” J. Day, “The Fisher equation and medieval monetary history”, in M.G. Marques (ed.), Problems of Medieval Coinage in the Iberian Area, Santarém (1984), pp. 139–146 [= J. Day, The Medieval Market Economy, Oxford (1987), 108–115]. Day, “Monetary contraction” J. Day, “The question of monetary contraction in late medieval Europe”, in J. Day, The Medieval Market Economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 55–71 [= in French: J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 101–116]. Day, “Merchants and financiers” J. Day, “Medieval merchants and financiers”, in J. Day, The Medieval Market Economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 162–184 [= in French: J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 191–211]. Day, “Crises and trends” J. Day, “Crises and trends in the late middle ages”, in J. Day, The Medieval Market Economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 185–224 [= in French: J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 213–249]. Day, “Monnaie et crédit” J. Day, “Monnaie et crédit dans l’Italie de la Renaissance”, in J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 117–135 [= in English: J. Day, The medieval market economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 141–161]. Day, “Colonialisme monétaire” J. Day, “Colonialisme monétaire en Méditerranée au Moyen Age”, in J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 137–147 [= in English: J. Day, The medieval market economy, Oxford (1987), pp. 116–128]. Day, “Monnaies de compte” J. Day, “Les monnaies de compte médiévales et le problème de l’étalon”, in J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 251–270. Day, “Monnaie dans les écrits de Marc Bloch” J. Day, “La monnaie dans les écrits de Marc Bloch”, in J. Day, Monnaies et marchés au moyen âge, Paris (1994), pp. 271–281. Day, “Levant trade” J. Day, “The Levant trade in the middle ages”, in EHB, pp. 807–814. Day, “A note on the monetary mechanisms, east and west” J. Day, “A note on the monetary mechanisms, east and west”, in EHB, pp. 967–972. Day, “Chivasso” W. Day, “Early Imitations of the Gold Florin of Florence and the Imitation Florin of Chivasso in the name of Theodore I Paleologus, Marquis of Montferrat (1306–1338)”, NC, 164 (2004), pp. 183–199.

528

Bibliography

Day, “Carretto” W. Day, “The imitation gold florin of the ‘Ex’ Marquises of Carretto, Piedmont, c. 1350”, RIN, 107 (2006), pp. 447–469. Day, “Ancona” W. Day, “Prima del grosso agontano. Considerazioni sul primo secolo della monetazione medievale di Ancona, 1170–1280 circa”, in M. Asolati and G. Gorini (eds.), I ritrovamenti monetali e i processi inflativi nel mondo antico e medievale, Padua (2008), pp. 113–140. De Boe, “Les monnaies découvertes en 1962 et 1963” G. De Boe, “Les monnaies découvertes en 1962 et 1963”, in Ordona, 1, Brussels – Rome (1965), pp. 67–87. De Petra, “Tesoretto di tornesi” G. De Petra, “Catalogo del tesoretto di Tornesi trovato a Napoli”, ASPN, 11 (1886), pp. 482–505. De Ridder, “Fouilles” A. De Ridder, “Fouilles de Thespies et de l’Hiéron des Muses de l’Hélicon”, BCH, 46 (1922), pp. 217–306. De Roover, Lettre de change R. De Roover, L’évolution de la lettre de change (XIV–XVIIIe siècles), Paris (1953). De Roover, “Organisation of trade” R. De Roover, “The organisation of trade”, in Cambridge economic history of Europe. Vol. 3. Economic organization and policies in the middle ages, Cambridge (1963), pp. 42–118. De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades F. De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades, Paris (1847). Dellaporta, Panagia Orfani A. Dellaporta, Church of Panagia Orfani at Sagri, Naxos, pamphlet published by the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sport, Athens (2015). Delogu, “Le monete” P. Delogu, “Le monete”, in P. Delogu et al., Caputaquis Medievale, I, Ricerche 1973, Salerno (1976). Dengate, “Corinth” J. Dengate, “Coin Hoards from the Gymnasium Area at Corinth”, Hesperia, 50 (1981), pp. 147–188. Degasperi, “Le monete” A. Degasperi, “Le monete”, in P. Arthur (ed.), Da Apigliano a Martano. Tre anni di archeologia medioevale (1997–1999), Galatina (1999), pp. 37–39. Degasperri, “Salento” A. Degasperri, “La circolazione monetaria nel Salento all’epoca di Carlo I e Carlo II d’Angiò”, in G. Colucci (ed.), 3o Congresso Nazionale di Numismatica. La monetazione angioina nel Regno di Napoli, Bari 12–13 novembre 2010, Bari (2011), pp. 395–417.

Bibliography

529

Degasperri, “Tesoretto trecentesco dei Celestini di Taranto” A. Degasperri, “Insegne di San Michele? Riflessioni attorno alle monete antiche nel tesoretto trecentesco dei Celestini di Taranto”, RIN, 116 (2015), pp. 261–290. Delogu and Sorda, Moneta in ambiente rurale P. Delogu and S. Sorda (eds.), La moneta in ambiente rurale nell’Italia tardomedioevale, Rome (2002). Dennis, “Capture of Thebes” G.T. Dennis, “The capture of Thebes by the Navarrese (6 March 1378) and other chronological notes in two Paris manuscripts”, OCP, 26 (1960), pp. 42–50. [= G.T. Dennis, Byzantium and the Franks 1350–1420, London (1982), no. XV]. Dennis, “I rapporti tra Venezia, i suoi domini diretti e le signorie feudali nelle isole greche” G.T. Dennis, “Problemi storici concernenti i rapporti tra Venezia, i suoi domini diretti e le signorie feudali nelle isole greche”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 1, Florence (1973), pp. 219–235. [= G.T. Dennis, Byzantium and the Franks 1350–1420, London (1982), no. XVIII]. Dennis, “Archbishop Sirello’s money” G.T. Dennis, “What happened to Archbishop Sirello’s money?”, Études byzantines / Byzantine Studies, 7 (1980), pp. 199–208. [= G.T. Dennis, Byzantium and the Franks 1350–1420, London (1982), no. XIX]. Depeyrot, Histoire de la monnaie G. Depeyrot, Histoire de la monnaie des origines au 18e siècle. I. Introduction de l’antiquité au treizième siècle. II. Du quatorzième au seizième siècle, Wetteren (1996). Di Muro et al., “Lagopesole in Basilicata” A. Di Muro et al., “Primi risultati degli scavi in corso nel cortile minore del Castello di Lagopesole in Basilicata (1996–97)”, in C.S. Fonseca (ed.), “Castra ipsa possunt et debent reparari”. Indagini conoscitive e metodologie di ristauro delle strutture castellane normanno-sveve, Rome (1999), pp. 101–131. Di Palma, “Una moneta inedita di Campobasso” F. Di Palma, “Una moneta inedita di Campobasso”, RIN, 8 (1895), pp. 209–215. Diehl, “Pierre de Cana” C. Diehl, “La pierre de Cana”, BCH, 9 (1885), pp. 28–42. Dimitrov and Penčev, Sevtopolis K. Dimitrov and V. Penčev, Sevtopolis, 2, Sofia (1984). Dimnik and Dobrinić, Medieval Slavic Coinage in the Balkans M. Dimnik and J. Dobrinić, Medieval Slavic Coinage in the Balkans, London (2008). Dimopoulos, “Sparta” J. Dimopoulos, “Byzantine graffito wares excavated in Sparta (12th–13th centuries)”, in B. Böhlendorf-Arslan et al. (eds.), Çanak: late antique and medieval pottery and tiles in Mediterranean archaeological contexts; proceedings of the First International

530

Bibliography

Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Context (Çanakkale, 1–3 June 2005), Istanbul (2007), pp. 335–347. Dimova, “Monetite ot citadela” V. Dimova, “Monetite ot citadela”, in Srednovekovinjat Červen. Tom 1, Citadelata na grada, Sofia (1985), pp. 273–287. Dobrinić, Novci J. Dobrinić, Novci dalmatinskih i svevernoalbanskih gradova u srednjem vijeku, Rijeka (2002). Dočev, “Za proizhoda na ijakoi tipove latinski imitativni moneti” K. Dočev, “Za proizhoda na ijakoi tipove latinski imitativni moneti”, Numizmatika, 4 (1985), pp. 6–19. Dočev, Tărnovo K. Dočev, Moneti i parično obrăštenie v Tărnovo, XII–XIV v., Veliko Tărnovo (1992). Dočev, “Perperikon” K. Dočev, “Monetni nahodki i parično obraštenie (XII–XIV v.) v srednovekovnja ‘Perperikon’ (Kărdžaliiska oblast)”, Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika, 5 (2009), 171–188. Docheiarou N. Oikonomides, Actes de Docheiariou, Paris (1984), (= Archives de l’Athos, 13). Dols, Black Death in the Middle East M.W. Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East, Princeton (1977). Domenico prete di S. Maurizio M.F. Tiepolo, Domenico prete di S. Maurizio, notaio in Venezia (1309–1316), Venice (1970). Dorin, “Adriatic trade networks in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries” R.W. Dorin, “Adriatic trade networks in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries”, in C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and markets in Byzantium, Washington D.C. (2012), pp. 235–279. Dotson, Zibaldone da Canal J.E. Dotson, Merchant culture in fourteenth century Venice. The Zibaldone da Canal, Binghampton, New York (1994). Dotson, “Foundations of Venetian naval strategy” J.E. Dotson, “Foundations of Venetian naval strategy from Pietro II Orseolo to the Battle of Zonchio 1000–1500”, Viator, 32 (2001), pp. 113–125. Dotson, “Fourteenth century merchant manuals” J.E. Dotson, “Fourteenth century merchant manuals and merchant culture”, in M.A. Denzel, J.C. Hocquet, H. Witthöft (eds.), Kaufmannsbücher und Handelspraktiken vom Spätmittelalter bis zum beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart (2002), pp. 75–87. Doumerc, “Les flottes d’état, moyen de domination coloniale pour Venise” B. Doumerc, “Les flottes d’état, moyen de domination coloniale pour Venise (XVe siècle)”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Coloniser au moyen âge, Paris (1995), pp. 115–126 and 150–152.

Bibliography

531

Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, Η Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία στη Ρωμανία επί Καρόλου Α΄ (1266–1285), Athens (1987). Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Πρώτα χρόνια του Καρόλου Β΄” D. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Η Ανδεγαυική παρουσία στο πρινκηπάτο της Αχαϊας και στην Κέρκυρα τα πρώτα χρόνια του Καρόλου Β΄ 1289–1300”, Eoa kai Esperia, 1 (1993), pp. 45–59. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Δυτικοί στην βενετοκρατούμενη Ρωμανία (Κρήτη, Μεθώνη, Κορώνη) από το 1261 ως το 1386. Γενική επισκόπηση”, Thesaurismata, 27 (1997), pp. 37–64. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “El ducat d’Atenes i el principat d’Acaia” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “El ducat d’Atenes i el principat d’Acaia (1311–1388)”, L’Avenç, 213 (1997), pp. 53–55. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Les ‘Albanais’” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Les ‘Albanais’ dans la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle d’après les documents angevins”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), pp. 235–240. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Les ‘étrangers’” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Les ‘étrangers’ en Romanie angevine sous Charles Ier (1266– 1285)”, BSl, 59 (1998), pp. 65–70. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Oriental policy of Charles I” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Oriental policy of Charles I and Angevin settlement in Romania. A model of medieval colonialism”, Byzantina, 21 (2000), pp. 279–286. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Η πειρατεία στις ανδεγαυικές κτήσεις” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Η πειρατεία στις ανδεγαυικές κτήσεις της Ρωμανίας το δεύτερο μισό του 13ου αι.”, in Ch. Kalliga and A. Malliares (eds.), Πειράτες και Κουρσάροι. Μονεμβασιώτικος Όμιλος. Ι΄ Συμπόσιο Ιστορίας και Τέχνης. 20–22 Ιουλίου, Athens (2003), pp. 56–65. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οικονομική πολιτική του Καρόλου Α΄ του Ανδεγαυού” Μ. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Προσέγγιση στην οικονομική πολιτική του Καρόλου Α΄ του Ανδεγαυού (1266–1285) στην Ρωμανία”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 49–58. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Colonisation latine en Romanie” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Colonisation latine en Romanie. Le cas de la principauté franque de Morée (XIII–XVe siècle). Influences et survivances”, BF, 28 (2004), pp. 119–130. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οι Ιωαννίτες ιππότες” M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Οι Ιωαννίτες ιππότες και το πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας”, in V. Konti (ed.), Ο μοναχισμός στην Πελοπόννησο 4ος–15ος αι., Athens (2004), pp. 309–318.

532

Bibliography

Dourou-Iliopoulou, Φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας M. Dourou-Iliopoulou, Το φραγκικό πριγκιπάτο της Αχαϊας (1204–1453). Ιστορία, οργάνωση, κοινωνία, Thessalonike (2005). Drakopoulou, Πόλη της Καστοριάς Ε. Drakopoulou, Η πόλη της Καστοριάς τη βυζαντινή και μεταβυζαντινή εποχή (12ος–16ος αι.), Athens (1997). Dubuis et al., Trouvailles monétaires de tombes O.F. Dubuis, S. Frey-Kupper, G. Perret (eds.), Trouvailles monétaires de tombes. Actes du deuxième colloque international du Groupe suisse pour l’étude des trouvailles monétaires (Neuchâtel, 3–4 mars 1995), Lausanne (1999). Ducellier, “Albanais du XIe au XIIIe siècle: nomades ou sedentaires” A. Ducellier, “Les Albanais du XIe au XIIIe siècle: nomades ou sedentaires”, BF, 7 (1979), pp. 23–36. Ducellier, La façade maritime A. Ducellier, La façade maritime de l’Albanie au moyen âge: Durazzo et Valona du XIe au XVe siècle, Thessalonike (1981). Ducellier, “Arta et Saint-Maure à la fin du moyen âge” A. Ducellier, “Aux frontières de la Romanie: Arta et Saint-Maure à la fin du moyen âge”, TM, 8 (1981), pp. 113–124. Ducellier, “Toscans” A. Ducellier, “La place des Toscans et des Italiens du nord dans le commerce balkanique au XVème siècle: l’apport des sources ragusains”, BF, 12 (1987), pp. 299–314. Ducellier, “Albanais dans l’empire byzantin” A. Ducellier, “Les Albanais dans l’empire byzantin”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), pp. 17–45. Ducellier, “Rôle de la fortune foncière a l’époque de la conquête turque” A. Ducellier, “Le rôle de la fortune foncière a l’époque de la conquête turque”, in Ch. Maltezou (ed.), Πλούσιοι και Φτωχοί στην κοινωνία της Ελληνολατινικής Ανατολής, Venice (1998), pp. 53–72. Ducellier, “Présence latine sur les côtes albanaises” A. Ducellier, “La présence latine sur les côtes albanaises du XIe au XIIIe siècle: modalités et conséquences”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 1, Paris (1998), pp. 209–223. Ducellier, “Les échelles de l’Adriatique meridionale” A. Ducellier, “Les échelles de l’Adriatique meridionale aux XIVe et XV siècles, produits et victimes des douanes”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 25–48. Dugas, “Le sanctuaire d’Aléa Athéna à Tégée” C. Dugas, “Le sanctuaire d’Aléa Athéna à Tégée”, BCH, 45 (1921), pp. 335–435.

Bibliography

533

Dumas and Barrandon, Monnaies sous le règne de Philippe Auguste F. Dumas and J.-N. Barrandon, Le titre et le poids de fin des monnaies sous le règne de Philippe Auguste, Valbonne (1982). Dunn, “Middle Byzantine Boiotia” A. Dunn, “Historical and Archaeological Indicators of Economic Change in Middle Byzantine Boeotia and their Problems”, in Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Συμποσίου Βοιωτικών Μελετών. Λιβαδειά 6–10 Σεπτ. 1992, Athens (1995), pp. 755–774. Dunn, “Thisvi-Kastorion” A. Dunn, “The rise and fall of towns, loci of maritime traffic, and silk production: the problem of Thisvi-Kastorion”, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Byzantine style, religion, and civilisation in honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Cambridge (2006), pp. 38–71. Duplessy, “Saint Louis” J. Duplessy, “La datation des deniers tournois de Saint Louis”, Actes du 9e Congrès International de Numismatique, Berne Septembre 1979, 2, Luxembourg – Louvain-LaNeuve (1982), pp. 885–890. Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale” J. Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, in Actes du XIe Congrès International de Numismatique, Bruxelles 1991, LouvainLa-Neuve (1993), pp. 147–150. Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux J. Duplessy, Les trésors monétaires médiévaux et modernes découverts en France, II 1223–1385, Paris (1996). Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales J. Duplessy, Les monnaies françaises royales de Hugues Capet à Louis XVI – Tome 1, Paris and Maastricht (1988), second augmented edition Paris (1999). Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales J. Duplessy, Les monnaies françaises féodales, Paris (2004). Duplessy and Metcalf, “Trésor de Samos” J. Duplessy and D.M. Metcalf, “Le trésor de Samos et la circulation monétaire en Orient latin aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles”, RBN, 108 (1962), pp. 173–207. Duran i Duelt, “Comerç d’esclaus” D. Duran i Duelt, “La Companiya catalana i el comerç d’esclaus abans de l’assentament als ducats d’Atenes i Neopàtria”, in M.T. Ferrer i Mallol and J. Mutgé (eds.), De l’esclavitud a la libertat a l’Edat Mitjana, Barcelona (2000), pp. 557–571. Duran i Duelt, Berenguer Benet D. Duran i Duelt, Manuel del viatge fet per Berenguer Benet a Romania 1341–1342. Estudi i edició, Barcelona (2002).

534

Bibliography

Duran i Duelt, “Comercio entre España y Bizancio” D. Duran i Duelt, “El comercio entre España y Bizancio en los siglos XIII al XV”, in I. Pérez Martín and P. Bádenas de la Peña (eds.), Bizancio y la península ibérica. De la antigüedad tardía a la edad moderna, Madrid (2004), pp. 323–347. Duran i Duelt, “Participació siciliana en el comerç oriental” D. Duran i Duelt, “De l’autonomia a la integració: la participació siciliana en el comerç oriental als segles XIV i XV”, in M.T. Ferrer i Mallol and J. Mutgé i Vives (eds.), La corona catalanoaragonesa i el seu entorn mediterrani a la Baixa Edat Mitjana, Barcelona (2005), pp. 65–99. Duran i Duelt, “Els mallorquins a la Romania” D. Duran i Duelt, “Els mallorquins a la Romania (segles XIII–XVI)”, in El Regne de Mallorca: cruïlla de gents i de cultures (segles XIII–XV ), Palma (2008), pp. 241–255. Duran i Duelt, “Icons and minor arts” Duran i Duelt, “Icons and minor arts: a neglected aspect of trade between Romania and the crown of Aragon”, BZ, 105 (2012), pp. 29–52. Dyer, “Peasants and coins” C. Dyer, “Peasants and coins: the uses of money in the middle ages”, BNJ, 67 (1998), pp. 30–47. Edwards, Coins 1896–1929 K.M. Edwards, The coins 1896–1929, Cambridge, Mass., (1936) (= Corinth Excavations, 6). Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935” K.M. Edwards, “Report on the Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”, Hesperia, 6 (1937), pp. 241–256. Elsie, “Two Irish Travellers” R. Elsie, “Two Irish Travellers in Albania in 1322”, in K.-D. Grothusen (ed.), Albanien in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Munich (1991), pp. 24–27. Ender, Beylikleri paraları C. Ender, Karesi, Saruhan, Aydın ve Menteşe beylikleri paraları, Istanbul (2000). Engel and Serrure, Traité A. Engel and R. Serrure, Traité de numismatique du moyen âge, 2 vols, Paris (1897–1899). Entwistle and Adams, Byzantine jewellery C. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), Intelligible beauty. Recent research on Byzantine jewellery, London (2010). Epstein, Economic and social history of later medieval Europe S. Epstein, An economic and social history of later medieval Europe, 1000–1500, Cambridge (2009). Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans R. Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux Ottomans. Exercise du pouvoir et contrôle du territoire sous les derniers Paléologues (milieu XIV e–milieu XVe siècle), Paris (2014).

Bibliography

535

Esty, “Dies” W.W. Esty, “How to estimate the original number of dies and the coverage of a sample”, NC, 166 (2006), pp. 359–364. Etienne, Ténos R. Etienne, Ténos I. Le Sanctuaire de Poseidon et d’Amphitrite, Athens (1986). Evangelatou-Notara, Σεισμοί στο Βυζάντιο F. Evangelatou-Notara, Σεισμοί στο Βυζάντιο από τον 13ο μέχρι τον 15ο αιώνα, Athens (1993). Evgenidou, “Νομίσματα από την Σάμο” D. Evgenidou, “Νομίσματα από την Σάμο στο Νομισματικό Μουσείο Αθηνών”, in Το νόμισμα στa Nησιά του Αιγαίου, 2, Athens (2010), pp. 119–134. Fabrizi, “Il denaro tornese nell’Italia meriodionale” D. Fabrizi, “Il denaro tornese nell’Italia meriodionale”, 2011, electronic publication available at http://numismatica-italiana.lamoneta.it/docs/201112/Il_denaro_tornese _nell_Italia_Meridionale.pdf. Fazzini and Asolati, Monete in Laguna G. Fazzini and M. Asolati, Monete in Laguna (= Archeo Venezia. Trimestrale di informazione culturale Archeoclub d’Italia sede in Venezia, 10, 4), Venice (2000). Felloni, “Ricchezza privata, credito e banche” G. Felloni, “Ricchezza privata, credito e banche: Genova e Venezia nei sec. XII–XIV”, in G. Ortalli and D. Puncuh (eds.), Genova, Venezia, il levante nei secoli XII–IV, Venice (2001), pp. 295–318. Feniello, Campagnes napolitaines A. Feniello, Les campagnes napolitaines à la fin du moyen âge: Mutations d’un paysage rural, Rome (2005). Fenster, “Nochmals zu den venezianischen Listen der Kastelle auf der Peloponnes” E. Fenster, “Nochmals zu den venezianischen Listen der Kastelle auf der Peloponnes”, BZ, 72 (1979), pp. 321–333. Ferjančić, “Počeci Solunske kralevine” B. Ferjančić, “Počeci Solunske kralevine (1204–1209)”, ZRVI, 8, 2 (1964), pp. 101–116. Ferjančić, “Mihailo II Anđeo” B. Ferjančić, “Kada je umro despot Mihailo II Anđeo?”, ZRVI, 9 (1966), pp. 29–32. Ferjančić, “Sevastokratori” B. Ferjančić, “Sevastokratori u Bizantiji”, ZRVI, 11 (1968), pp. 141–92. Ferjancic, “Posedi porodice Maliasina u Tesaliji” B. Ferjancic, “Posedi porodice Maliasina u Tesaliji”, ZRVI, 9 (1966), pp. 32–48. Ferjančić, Tesalija B. Ferjančić, Tesalija u XIII i XIV veku, Belgrade (1974). Ferjančić, Ser B. Ferjančić, Vizantijski i srpcki Ser u XIV stoleću, Belgrade (1994).

536

Bibliography

Ffoulkes, “Italian Armour from Chalcis” C. Ffoulkes, “On Italian Armour from Chalcis in the Ethnological Museum at Athens”, Archaeologia, 62 (1911) pp. 381–390. Fiorillo, “La discarica angioina del castello di Lagopesole” R. Fiorillo, “La discarica angioina del castello di Lagopesole (Potenza)”, in S. Patitucci Uggeri (ed.), Scavi Medievali in Italia 1996–1999, Rome (2000), pp. 353–364. Fiorillo and Peduto, “Mileto Vecchia” R. Fiorillo and P. Peduto, “Saggi di scavo nella Mileto Vecchia in Calabria (1995 e 1999)”, in G.P. Brogiolo (ed.), Il Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Medievale, Florence (2000), pp. 223–233. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1976” J. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1976, Forum Southwest”, Hesperia, 49 (1980), pp. 1–29. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1977” J. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1977, Forum Southwest”, Hesperia, 53 (1984), pp. 217–250. Fleet, Early Ottoman State K. Fleet, European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman Empire, Cambridge (1999). Fleet, “Turkish economy” K. Fleet, “The Turkish economy, 1071–1453”, in K. Fleet (ed.), Cambridge History of Turkey, 1, Cambridge (2009), pp. 227–265. Forsén and Forsén, Asea valley survey J. Forsén and B. Forsén, The Asea valley survey. An Arcadian mountain valley from the Palaeolithic period until modern times, Stockholm (2003). Foss, Ephesus C. Foss, Ephesus after Antiquity: A late antique, Byzantine and Turkish City, Cambridge (1979). Fotheringham, Marco Sanudo J.K. Fotheringham, Marco Sanudo, conqueror of the Archipelago, Oxford (1915). Fournial, Histoire monétaire E. Fournial, Histoire monétaire de l’occident médiéval, Paris (1970). Fowler, Medieval mercenaries K. Fowler, Medieval mercenaries, Oxford (2001). Franciscus de Cruce Ch. Gasparis, Franciscus de Cruce. Νοτάριος στον Χάνδακα 1338–1339, Venice (1999). François, Céramique byzantine à Thasos V. François, La céramique byzantine à Thasos, Paris (1995) (= Etudes Thasiennes, 16). François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance” V. François, “Céramiques importées à Byzance: une quasi-absence”, BSl, 57, (1997), pp. 387–404.

Bibliography

537

François, Bibliographie V. François, Bibliographie analytique sur la céramique byzantine de glaçure, Paris (1997). François, “Réalités des échanges” V. François, “Réalités des échanges en Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XVIIIe siècles: L’apport de la céramique”, DOP, 58 (2004), pp. 241–249. Frantz, “Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens” A. Frantz, “Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens”, Hesperia, 7 (1938), pp. 429–467. Frantz, “Turkish pottery from the Agora” A. Frantz, “Turkish pottery from the Agora”, Hesperia, 11 (1942), pp. 1–28. Frolow, “Noms des monnaies” A. Frolow, “Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator”, BSl, 10 (1949), pp. 241–253. Frolow, “L’argent de parure” A. Frolow, “L’argent de parure dans les fresques serbes au Moyen Age”, REB, 24 (1966), pp. 292–307. Füeg, Basil II to Eudocia F. Füeg, Corpus of the nomismata from Basil II to Eudocia 976–1067, Lancaster (2014). Fulvio, “Castelforte” L. Fulvio, “Castelforte”, NSc (1887), pp. 406–411. Gaj-Popović, “Trésors de monnaies concaves byzantines” D. Gaj-Popović, “Les trésors de monnaies concaves byzantines en cuivre de la collection du Musée National de Beograd”, in T. Hackens and R. Weiller (eds.), Actes du 9ème Congrès International de Numismatique, Berne, Septembre 1979, 2, Louvainla-Neuve and Luxembourg (1982), pp. 859–872. Galani-Krikou, “Φραγκικό Εύρημα” M. Galani-Krikou, “Φραγκικό Εύρημα Αττικής (;) 1967”, AD, 31 (1976), A’, pp. 325–351. Galani-Krikou, “Σαλαμίνα” M. Galani-Krikou, “Έρευνες στη Σαλαμίνα”, PAE (1987), pp. 41–43. Galani-Krikou, “Grossi” M. Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία βενετικών grossi ΙΓ΄–ΙΔ΄  αι. στον ελλαδικό χώρο, με αφορμή ένα θησαυρό”, AAA, 21 (1988), pp. 163–184. Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή” M. Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας μεσαιωνικών νομισμάτων στο δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (1204–1449)”, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαίου 1990), Arta (1992), pp. 125–161. Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Αγία Τριάδα” M. Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα 10ου–14ου αιώνας. Η νομισματική μαρτυρία από την Αγία Τριάδα”, Symmeikta, 11 (1997), pp. 113–150.

538

Bibliography

Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Πολιτιστικό Κέντρο” M. Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα 10ου–14ου αιώνας. Η νομισματική μαρτυρία από το Πολιτιστικό Κέντρο”, Symmeikta, 12 (1998), pp. 141–170. Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματικοί θησαυροί” M. Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματικοί θησαυροί των μέσων χρονών από τη Θήβα”, DChAE, 4, 20 (1998), pp. 275–284. Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία” M. Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία: Η νομισματική μαρτυρία βυζαντινής και ‘δυτικής’ παρουσίας”, in Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο, 2, Athens (2017), pp. 203–223. Galani-Krikou and Tsourti, “Μακεδονική Ρεντίνα” M. Galani-Krikou and I. Tsourti, “Μακεδονική Ρεντίνα. Η νομισματική μαρτυρία (ανασκαφές: 1976–1996)”, in Το νόμισμα στο Μακεδονικό χώρο, Thessalonike (2000), pp. 347–354. Galani-Krikou et al., Συλλογή Ηλία Κάντα M. Galani-Krikou, I. Touratsoglou, I. Tsourti, Συλλογή Ηλία Κάντα. Βυζαντινά Νομίσματα, Athens (2000). Gallina, “Finanza, credito e commercio a Candia” M. Gallina, “Finanza, credito e commercio a Candia fra la fine del XIII secolo e l’inizio del XIV”, in Memorie della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino II. Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, 5, 7–8 (1986), pp. 3–67. Gallina, Una società coloniale M. Gallina, Una società coloniale del trecento. Creta fra Venezia e Bisanzio, Venice (1989). Gallina, “La navigazione di cabotaggio a Creta” M. Gallina, “La navigazione di cabotaggio a Creta nella seconda metà del trecento (dai registri notarili candioti)”, Thesaurismata, 38 (2008), pp. 23–103. Ganchou, “Giorgès Izaoul de Ioannina” T. Ganchou, “Giorgès Izaoul de Ioannina, fils du despote Esau Buondelmonti, ou les tribulations balkaniques d’un prince d’Épire dépossédé”, Medioevo greco, 8 (2008), pp. 159–199. Gasparis, Η γη και οι αγρότες στη μεσαιωνική Κρήτη Ch. Gasparis, Η γη και οι αγρότες στη μεσαιωνική Κρήτη 13ος–14ος αι., Athens (1997). Gasparis, “Carlo I Tocco” Ch. Gasparis, “Il patto di Carlo I Tocco con il comune di Genova (1389–1390). Una conseguenza delle incursioni albanesi?”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), pp. 240–259. Gasparis, “Terra o mare” Ch. Gasparis, “Terra o mare? Greci e veneziani nel nuovo contesto economico delle colonie (XIII–XIV sec.)”, in Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi (eds.), I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), Venice (1999), pp. 39–51.

Bibliography

539

Gasparis, “Ducato dell’Egeo e Creta 13°–14° secolo” Ch. Gasparis, “Il ducato dell’Egeo e Creta 13°–14° secolo/Το δουκάτο του Αιγαίου και η Κρήτη 13ος–14ος αιώνας”, in N. Moschonas and A. Panopoulou (eds.), Il Ducato dell’Egeo/Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου, Athens (2009), pp. 205–220. Gasparis, “Trade of agricultural products in the eastern Mediterranean” Ch. Gasparis, “Trade of agricultural products in the eastern Mediterranean and the regional sea routes from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century”, in E. Kislinger (et al.), Handelsgüter und Verkehrswege: Aspekte der Warenversorgung im östlichen Mittelmeeraum (4. Bis 5. Jahrhundert). Akten Des Internationalen Symposions Wien 2005, Vienna (2010), pp. 93–104. Gasparis, “Land and landowners in the Greek territories under Latin dominion” Ch. Gasparis, “Land and landowners in the Greek territories under Latin dominion, 13th–14th centuries”, in N.I. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, A companion to Latin Greece, Leiden (2015), pp. 73–113. Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologos D.J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologos and the West, 1258–1282: A Study in Late Byzantine-Latin Relations, Cambridge, Mass. (1959). Geiger and Füeg, “Neues zur Münzprägung der Palaiologenzeit” H.-U. Geiger and F. Füeg, “Neues zur Münzprägung der Palaiologenzeit: Michael VIII., Andronikos II., Matthaios, Johannes V. und Anna, F. Gattilusio”, SM, 217 (2005), pp. 3–13. Gelichi, La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia S. Gelichi (ed.), La ceramica nel mondo bizantino tra XI e XV secolo e i suoi rapporti con l’Italia, Siena (1993). Georganteli, “Trapezuntine money” E. Georganteli, “Trapezuntine money in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Black Sea, 13th–15th centuries”, in T. Kyriakides (ed.). Trebizond and the Black Sea, Thessalonike (2010), pp. 93–112. Georgiades, “Ανάλυση” N.Th. Georgiades, “Ανάλυση της χημικής σύστασης Βυζαντινών νομισμάτων (1204– 1453) με τη μέθοδο XRF”, Byzantiaka, 25 (2005–2006), pp. 191–206. Georgiades, “Νομισματική προπαγάνδα” N.Th. Georgiades, “Η νομισματική προπαγάνδα κατά τον βυζαντινό εμφύλιο πόλεμο 1341–1347”, NomChron, 24 (2005), pp. 67–83. Georgiades, “Κυκλοφορία του σταυράτου” N.Th. Georgiades, “Η κυκλοφορία του σταυράτου και των υποδιαιρέσεών του με βάση τους νομισματικούς ‘θησαυρούς’ (1367–1453)”, NomChron, 26 (2007), pp. 97–130. Georgiades, Nομίσματα των Παλαιολόγων N.Th. Georgiades, Τα νομίσματα των Παλαιολόγων, 1259–1453: εικονογραφική προσέγγιση, Thessalonike (2007).

540

Bibliography

Gerasimov, “Hyperpères d’Andronic II et d’Andronic III” T. Gerasimov, “Les hyperpères d’Andronic II et d’Andronic III et leur circulation en Bulgarie”, Byzantinobulgarica, 1 (1962), pp. 213–36. Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires découverts en Bulgarie en 1962 et 1963” T. Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires découverts en Bulgarie en 1962 et 1963”, BIA, 27 (1964), pp. 244–248. Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini” T. Gerasimov, “Moneti na franskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini namereni v Tărnovo”, Izvestija na Okrăžnija muzej V. Tărnovo, 2 (1964), pp. 29–34. Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970” T. Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970”, in Culture et art en Bulgarie médiévale (VIIIe–XIVe s.), Sofia (1979), pp. 134–141. Gerland, “Bericht über Carl Hopfs literarischen Nachlass” E. Gerland, “Bericht über Carl Hopfs literarischen Nachlass und die darin vorhandene fränkisch-griechische Regestensammlung”, BZ, 8 (1899), pp. 347–386. Gerland, Neue Quellen E. Gerland, Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Erzbistums Patras, Leipzig (1903). Gerolymatou, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο M. Gerolymatou, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12ος αι.), Athens (2008). Gerousi, “Die letzten Jahrhunderte der Stadt” E. Gerousi, “Die letzten Jahrhunderte der Stadt”, in Ausgegrabe. Schweizer Archäologen erforschen die griechische Stadt Eretria, Basel (2010), pp. 84–85. Gerstel, “Art and identity in the medieval Morea” S. Gerstel, “Art and identity in the medieval Morea”, in A.E. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, Washington D.C. (2001), pp. 263–280. Gerstel, “Medieval Messenia” S. Gerstel, “Medieval Messenia”, in J.L. Davis (ed.), Sandy Pylos, Princeton (2008), pp. 211–242. Gerstel, Viewing the Morea S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013). Gerstel et al., “Panakton” S.E.J. Gerstel et al., “A late medieval settlement at Panakton”, Hesperia, 72 (2003), pp. 147–234. Gertwagen, “The Port of Modon in the Venetian Commercial System of Foodstuffs” R. Gertwagen, “The Port of Modon in the Venetian Commercial System of Foodstuffs”, in K. Friedland (ed.), Maritime Food Transport, Cologne (1994), pp. 187–198.

Bibliography

541

Gertwagen, “Venetian Modon” R. Gertwagen, “Venetian Modon and its port 1358–1500”, in A. Cowan (ed.), Mediterranean urban culture 1400–1700, Exeter (2000), pp. 125–148. Gertwagen, “Venetian colonies in the Ionian and Aegean seas in Venetian defense policy” R. Gertwagen, “Venetian colonies in the Ionian and Aegean seas in Venetian defense policy in the fifteenth century”, Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 12 (2002), pp. 351–384. Gertwagen, “The contribution of Venice’s colonies to its naval warfare” R. Gertwagen, “The contribution of Venice’s colonies to its naval warfare in the eastern Mediterranean”, in R. Cancila (ed.), Mediterraneo in armi (sec. XV–XVIII), Palermo (2007), pp. 113–173. Gertwagen, “Tenedos” R. Gertwagen, “Venice, Genoa and the fights over the island of Tenedos (late fourteenth and early fifteenth century)”, SV, 57 (2013), pp. 36–87. Geyer, “Physical factors” B. Geyer, “Physical factors in the evolution of the landscape and land use”, in EHB, pp. 31–45. Giacosa, “Gigliato inedito di Francesco I Gattilusio” G. Giacosa, “Un gigliato inedito di Francesco I Gattilusio, signore di Lesbo”, QT, 19 (1990), pp. 337–343. Giannakopoulos, Δουκάτο των Αθηνών. Η κυριαρχία των Acciaiuoli D.K. Giannakopoulos, Δουκάτο των Αθηνών. Η κυριαρχία των Acciaiuoli, Thessalonike (2006). Gilkes, Crowson, Hodges, Lako, Vroom, “Medieval Butrint” O. Gilkes, A. Crowson, R. Hodges, K. Lako, J. Vroom, “Medieval Butrint: Excavations at the Triconch Palace 2000 and 2001”, AM, 29 (2002), pp. 343–353. Gjuzelev, “‘Varnenskijat perper’” V. Gjuzelev, “‘Varnenskijat perper’ i negovata stojnost sprjamo aspri i grošove”, Numizmatika, 3 (1979), pp. 4–7. Gjuzelev, “Mesembria” V. Gjuzelev, “Mesembria durant le XIVe siècle: histoire, population et monuments”, in Ο Μανουήλ Πανσέληνος και η εποχή του, Athens (1999), pp. 147–157. Gnecchi, “Scio” F. and E. Gnecchi, “Di alcune monete inedite e sconsciute della zecca de Scio”, RIN, 1 (1888), pp. 1–14 and 399–409. Gofas, “Byzantine law of interest” D. Gofas, “The Byzantine law of interest”, in EHB, pp. 1095–1104. Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1986” T. Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1986”, Bülten (Türk Nümismatik Derneği Yayınları), 29–30 (1991), pp. 39–47.

542

Bibliography

Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1987” T. Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1987”, Bülten (Türk Nümismatik Derneği Yayınları), 31 (1992), pp. 8–20. Gökyıldırım, “Cerrahpaşa” T. Gökyıldırım, “Le trésor d’hyperpères des Paléogues d’Istanbul-Cerrahpaşa (1953). Les sigles et leurs interprétations”, RN, 155 (2000), pp. 222–236. Goldman, Eutresis H. Goldman, Excavations in Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, Mass. (1931). Goodwin, “A hoard of Byzantine tetartera and folles” T. Goodwin, “A hoard of Byzantine tetartera and folles”, NC, 166 (2006), pp. 393–400. Gorini, “Le imitazioni orientali dello zecchino veneziano” G. Gorini, “Le imitazioni orientali dello zecchino veneziano: considerazioni stilistiche”, SV, 10 (1968), pp. 587–597. Gounaridis, “Η τύχη της Ρόδου” P. Gounaridis, “Η τύχη της Ρόδου τον ΙΓ΄ αιώνα”, Symmeikta, 15 (2002), pp. 177–182. Graff, “Pylia” G. Graff, “Les deniers tournois de la Grèce franque. Analyse d’un ensemble de 900 deniers provenant vraisemblablement du trésor de Pylia (1968/1969)”, Liste Jean Elsen, 197 and 198 (1998), pp. 1–8 and 1–10. Graindor, “Karthaia” P. Graindor, “Fouilles de Karthaia (Ile de Kéos)”, BCH, 29 (1905), pp. 328–361. Grandstrem et al., “Praktikon de la région d’Athènes” E. Grandstrem, E. Medvedev, D. Papachryssanthou, “Fragment d’un praktikon de la région d’Athènes (avant 1204)”, REB, 34 (1976), pp. 5–44. Grantley, “Crusaders” Lord Grantley, “Some later coins of the Crusaders”, NC, 5, 3 (1923), pp. 47–55. Gray, “The Coins” B. Gray, “The Coins”, in Second Report upon the Excavations Carried Out in and Near the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1928, London (1929), p. 50. Grégoire, “Imperatoris Michaelis” H. Grégoire, “Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua”, B, 29–30 (1959–1960), pp. 447–476. Gregoras L. Schopen (ed.), Nicephorus Gregoras Byzantina Historia, Bonn (1829). Gregory, “Late Byzantine Pottery from Isthmia” T.E. Gregory, “Late Byzantine Pottery from Isthmia: New Evidence from the Korinthia”, in V. Déroche and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Recherches sur la céramique byzantine, Athens (1989), pp. 201–208. Gregory, The Hexamilion T.E. Gregory, The Hexamilion and the Fortress, Princeton (1993) (= Isthmia, 5).

Bibliography

543

Gregory, “People and settlement of the northeastern Peloponnese” T.E. Gregory, “People and settlement of the northeastern Peloponnese in the late middle ages. An archaeological exploration”, in S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013), pp. 277–306. Grierson, “Moneta veneziana nell’economia mediterranea” P. Grierson, “La moneta veneziana nell’economia mediterranea del Trecento e Quattrocento”, in La civiltà veneziana del Quattrocento (Fondazione Giorgio Cini), Florence (1957), pp. 77–97 [= P. Grierson, Later medieval numismatics (11th–16th centuries), London (1979), no. XII]. Grierson, “Pegolotti” P. Grierson, “The coin list of Pegolotti”, in Studi in onore di Armando Sapori, 1, Milan (1957), pp. 485–492 [= P. Grierson, Later medieval numismatics (11th–16th centuries), London (1979), no. XI]. Grierson, “Gillat ou carlin de Naples-Provence” P. Grierson, “Le gillat ou carlin de Naples-Provence: le rayonnement de son type monétaire”, in Centenaire de la Societé Française de Numismatique 1865–1965, Paris (1965), pp. 43–56 [= P. Grierson, Later medieval numismatics (11th–16th centuries), London (1979), no. XIII]. Grierson, “Nummi scyphati” P. Grierson, “Nummi scyphati. The story of a misunderstanding”, NC, 7, 11 (1971), pp. 253–260. Grierson, “Grosso” P. Grierson, “The origins of the grosso and of gold coinage in Italy”, Numismaticky Sbornik, 12 (1971–1972), pp. 33–44 [= P. Grierson, Later medieval numismatics (11th– 16th centuries), London (1979), no. X]. Grierson, Numismatics P. Grierson, Numismatics, London (1975). Grierson, “Signification de De Clarentia” P. Grierson, “La signification de De Clarentia, et de formules semblables sur les monnaies médiévales”, BSFN, 31 (1976), pp. 2–4. Grierson, Byzantine Coins P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins, London – Berkeley (1982). Grierson, “Fineness of the Venetian ducat and its imitations” P. Grierson, “The fineness of the Venetian ducat and its imitations”, in W.A. Oddy (ed.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, 2, London (1988), pp. 95–104. Grierson, “Premiers stavrata” P. Grierson, “Les premiers stavrata: pièces byzantines ou pièces provençales”, BSFN (1995), pp. 1060–1063.

544

Bibliography

Grierson, “Le dernier siècle du monnayage byzantin” P. Grierson, “Le dernier siècle du monnayage byzantin : problèmes et nouveautés”, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres. Académie Royale de Belgique, 1–6 (1998), pp. 99–123. Grierson, “Fiorino d’oro” P. Grierson, “Il fiorino d’oro: la grande unità dell’Occidente medievale”, RIN, 107 (2006), pp. 416–419. Grimaldi, “S. Casa di Loreto” F. Grimaldi, “Monete medievali rinvenute nel sottosuolo della S. Casa di Loreto”, RIN, 73 (1971), pp. 187–193. Grivaud, “Peut-on parler d’une politique économique des Lusignan?” G. Grivaud, “Peut-on parler d’une politique économique des Lusignan?”, Α. Papageorgiou (ed.), Πρακτικά του Τρίτου Διεθνούς Κυπρολογικού Συνεδρίου (Λευκωσία, 16–20 Απριλίου 1996). Τόμος Β΄: Μεσαιωνικό Τμήμα, Nicosia (2001), pp. 361–368. Grueber, “Coins found at Ephesos” H.A. Grueber, “An account of a hoard of coins found at Ephesos”, NC, 2, 12 (1872), pp. 120–156. Guest et al., “The Small Finds and Coins” P. Guest et al., “The Small Finds and Coins”, in R. Hodges, W. Bowden, K. Lako (eds.), Byzantine Butrint: Excavations and Surveys 1994–99, Oxford (2004), pp. 293–304. Guruleva, “Trebizond coins in Crimea” V. Guruleva, “Trebizond coins in Crimea”, TM, 16 (2010) (= Mélanges C. Morrisson), pp. 401–412. Gyóni, “La transhumance das Vlaques” M. Gyóni, “La transhumance das Vlaques balkaniques au moyen âge”, BSl, 12 (1951), pp. 29–42. Haberstumpf, “Marchesato di Bondonitsa” W. Haberstumpf, “Su alcuni problemi istituzionali, politici e prosopografici riguardanti il marchesato di Bondonitsa (secoli XIII–XV)”, SV, 22 (1991), pp. 15–47. Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Serifo” W. Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Serifo e i suoi dinasti (1204–1537): brevi note storiche e prosopografiche”, Thesaurismata, 24 (1994), pp. 7–36. Haberstumpf, “Regesto dei Savoia per l’Oriente” W. Haberstumpf, “Regesto dei Savoia per l’Oriente prima parte: i Savoia principi d’Acaia (1295–sec. XV)”, Bollettino storico-bibliografico subalpino, 95.1 (1997), pp. 199–244. Haberstumpf, “Dissoluzione delle signorie latine in Morea” W. Haberstumpf, “La dissoluzione delle signorie latine in Morea di fronte alla turcocrazia”, SV, 28 (1997), pp. 61–81. Haberstumpf, “La Morea tra gli Angioini e i Savoia (1295–1334)” W. Haberstumpf, “Due dinastie occidentali nell’Orient franco-greco: la Morea tra gli Angioini e i Savoia (1295–1334)”, Medioevo greco, 0 (2000), pp. 95–129.

Bibliography

545

Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Thermia” W. Haberstumpf, “L’isola di Thermia tra Bizantini e dinasti italiani (secoli XIV–XVII). I Gozzadini da Bologna: realtà latine e reminiscenze greche alla periferia dell’impero”, Medioevo greco, 3 (2003), pp. 95–119. Haberstumpf, “Tocco” W. Haberstumpf, “I Tocco, duchi di Leucade, e il Principato d’Acaia”, in Ch. Maltezou and G. Ortalli (eds.), Venezia e le isole Ionie, Venice (2005), pp. 57–70. Haberstumpf, “Acciaiuoli Duchi di Atene” W. Haberstumpf, “Dinasti italiani in Levante: gli Acciaiuoli Duchi di Atene: Regesti (secoli XIV–XV)”, Thesaurismata, 35 (2005), pp. 19–93. Haberstumpf, “Commercio veneziano ad Argo” W. Haberstumpf, “Il commercio veneziano ad Argo (secoli XIII–XIV)”, in Ch. Maltezou and A. Panopoulou, Βενετία-Άργος. Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος και στην περιοχή του, Athens – Venice (2010), pp. 135–144. Hadziotis, The Achaian Coinage of Jean de Gravina C.Ch. Hadziotis, The Achaian Coinage of Jean de Gravina, London (1976). Haeck, Middeleeuwse Muntschatten Gevonden in België (750–1433) A. Haeck, Middeleeuwse Muntschatten Gevonden in België (750–1433), Brussels (1996) (= Cercle d’Études Numismatiques Travaux, 13). Hahn, “The early Byzantine to modern periods” M. Hahn, “The early Byzantine to modern periods”, in B. Wells (ed.), The BerbatiLimnes Archaeological Survey 1988–1990, Stockholm (1996), pp. 345–451. Haldon, “Feudalism debate once more” J. Haldon, “The feudalism debate once more: the case of Byzantium”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 17.1 (1989), pp. 5–40 [= J. Haldon, State, Army and Society in Byzantium, Aldershot (1995), no. IV]. Hänsel, “Policoro” B. Hänsel, “Policoro (Matera). Scavi eseguiti nell’area dell acropoli di Eraclea negli anni 1965–1967”, NSc, 8, 27 (1973), pp. 400–492. Harris, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939” J.M. Harris, “Coins found at Corinth. I report on the coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939”, Hesperia, 10 (1941), pp. 143–162. Harris, “Constantinople as a city-state, c. 1360–1453” J. Harris, “Constantinople as a city-state, c. 1360–1453”, in J. Harris et al. (eds.), Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the eastern Mediterranean world after 1150, Oxford (2012), pp. 119–140. Harvey, Economic Expansion A. Harvey, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, Cambridge (1989). Harvey, “Peasant categories” A. Harvey, “Peasant categories in the tenth and eleventh centuries”, BMGS, 14 (1990), pp. 250–256.

546

Bibliography

Harvey, “Economic conditions in Thessaloniki between the two Ottoman occupations”  A. Harvey, “Economic conditions in Thessaloniki between the two Ottoman occupations”, in A. Cowan (ed.), Mediterranean urban culture 1400–1700, Exeter (2000), pp. 115–124. Hasluck, “Imitations of the Venetian sequin” F.W. Hasluck, “On imitations of the Venetian sequin struck for the Levant”, ABSA, 18 (1911–12), pp. 261–264. Hasluck, “Hoard of medieval coins from the Sporades” F.W. Hasluck, “Contribution to the history of Levant currencies. I – A hoard of medieval coins from the Sporades”, ABSA 19 (1912–1913), pp. 174–179. Hatzidimitriou, Decline of imperial authority G.G. Hatzidimitriou, The decline of imperial authority in southwest central Greece and the role of the archontes and bishops in the failure of Byzantine resistance and reconquest 1180–1297 A.D., Ann Arbor (1990). Hendrickx, “Régestes” B. Hendrickx, “Régestes des empereurs latins de Constantinople (1204–1261/1272)”, Byzantina, 14 (1988), pp. 7–220. Hendrickx, “Contrat féodal” B. Hendrickx, “Le contrat féodal et le fief dans l’empire latin de Constantinople”, Byzantiaka, 20 (2000), pp. 221–242 [= B. Hendrickx, Οι θεσμοί της Φραγκοκρατίας, Thessaloniki (2007), no. 7]. Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204” M.F. Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204: an economic reappraisal”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 20 (1970), pp. 31–52 [= M.F. Hendy, The Economy, fiscal administration and coinage of Byzantium, Northampton (1989), no. II]. Hendy, “Coins (Kalenderhane Camii)” M.F. Hendy, “Coins”, in C.L. Striker and Y. Dogan Kuban, “Work at Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: Fifth Preliminary Report (1970–1974)”, DOP, 29 (1975), pp. 317–318. Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards” M.F. Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards”, CH, 6 (1981), pp. 61–72. Hendy, “Gornoslav” M.F. Hendy, “The Gornoslav hoard, the emperor Frederick I, and the Monastery of Bachkovo”, in C.N.L. Brooke et al. (eds.), Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson, Cambridge (1983), pp. 179–191 [= M.F. Hendy, The Economy, fiscal administration and coinage of Byzantium, Northampton (1989), no. XI]. Hendy, Studies M.F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450, Cambridge (1985). Hendy, “Coins (Saraçhane)” M.F. Hendy, “The Coins”, in R.M. Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1, Princeton (1986), pp. 278–373.

Bibliography

547

Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204: the economy revisited” M.F. Hendy, “Byzantium 1081–1204: the economy revisited, twenty years on”, in M.F. Hendy, The Economy, fiscal administration and coinage of Byzantium, Northampton (1989), no. III, pp. 1–48. Hendy, “Roman, Byzantine and Latin Coins” M.F. Hendy, “Roman, Byzantine and Latin Coins”, C.L. Striker and Y. Doğan Kuban (eds.), Kalenderhane in Istanbul, Mainz (2007), pp. 175–276. Hendy and Charles, “Twelfth-century Byzantine trachy” M.F. Hendy and J.A. Charles, “The production techniques, silver content and circulation history of the twelfth-century Byzantine trachy”, Archaeometry, 12 (1970), pp. 13–21. Herrin, “Byzantine provincial government” J. Herrin, “Realities of Byzantine provincial government: Hellas and Peloponnesos, 1180–1205”, DOP, 29 (1975), pp. 253–284. Heyd, Histoire du commerce W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen âge, 2 vols, Leipzig (1885), many reprints. Hiestand, “Nova Francia – nova Graecia” R. Hiestand, “Nova Francia – nova Graecia. Morea zwischen Franken, Venezianern und Griechen”, in R. Lauer and P. Schreiner (eds.), Die Kultur Griechenlands in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Göttingen (1996), pp. 55–72. Hirschbichler, Wall painting in the Latin Lordship of Athens M. Hirschbichler, Monuments of a syncretic society. Wall painting in the Latin Lordship of Athens, Greece (1204–1311), unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland (2005). Hocquet, Le sel J.-C. Hocquet, Le sel et la fortune de Venise. 1: Production et monopole. 2: Voiliers et commerce en Méditerranée 1200–1650, Lille (1979). Hocquet, “L’économie coloniale et les sels grecs” J.-C. Hocquet, “L’économie coloniale et les sels grecs à la fin du moyen âge”, in Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi (eds.), I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), Venice (1999), pp. 65–81. Hocquet, “Weights and measures of trading in Byzantium in the later middle ages” J.-C. Hocquet, “Weights and measures of trading in Byzantium in the later middle ages. Comments on Giacomo Badoer’s account book”, in M.A. Denzel, J.C. Hocquet, H. Witthöft (eds.), Kaufmannsbücher und Handelspraktiken vom Spätmittelalter bis zum beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart (2002), pp. 89–116. Hodges, Dark age economics R. Hodges, Dark age economics: the origins of towns and trade A.D. 600–1000, London (1982).

548

Bibliography

Hodges, Byzantine Butrint R. Hodges, The rise and fall of Byzantine Butrint, Tirana (2008). Hodgetts, Modon and Coron C. Hodgetts, The Colonies of Modon and Coron under Venetian Administration, 1204– 1400, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University College London (1974). Hodgetts, “Land problems in Coron” C. Hodgetts, “Land problems in Coron, 1293–1347”, Byzantina, 12 (1983), pp. 137–157. Hodgetts, “Venetian officials and Greek peasantry” C. Hodgetts, “Venetian officials and Greek peasantry in the Fourteenth Century”, in J. Chrysostomides (ed.), Καθηγήτρια, Essays presented to Joan Hussey, Camberley (1988), pp. 481–499. Hodgetts and Lock, “Some village fortifications in the Venetian Peloponnese” C. Hodgetts and P. Lock, “Some village fortifications in the Venetian Peloponnese”, in G.D.R. Sanders and P. Lock (eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford (1996), pp. 77–90. Hofmann, “Patriarch Johann Bekkos” G. Hofmann, “Patriarch Johann Bekkos und die lateinische Kultur”, OCP, 11 (1945). Hohlfelder, Kenchreai R.L. Hohlfelder, The Coins, Leiden (1978) (= Kenchreai, Eastern Port of Corinth, 3). Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands” C. Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit”, in J. Ersch and J. Gruber (eds.), Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, 85–86, Leipzig (1867–68), pp. 67–465 and 1–190, reprinted as a monograph in two volumes New York (1960). Housley, “Robert the Wise and the Naval League of 1332–1334” N. Housley, “Angevin Naples and the Defence of the Latin East: Robert the Wise and the Naval League of 1332–1334”, B, 51 (1981), pp. 548–556. Houben, “Wie und wann kam der Deutsche Orden nach Griechenland?” H. Houben, “Wie und wann kam der Deutsche Orden nach Griechenland?”, Nea Rhome, 1 (2004), pp. 243–253. Howego, “Why did ancient states strike coins?” C. Howego, “Why did ancient states strike coins?”, NC, 150 (1990), pp. 1–25. Howgego, Ancient history from coins C. Howgego, Ancient history from coins, London – New York (1995). Howgego, Coinage and Identity C. Howgego et al. (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford (2005). Hrochová, “Commerce vénitien” V. Hrochová, “Le commerce vénitien et les changements dans l’importance des centres de commerce en Grèce du 13e au 15e s.”, SV, 9 (1967), pp. 3–34 [= V. Hrochová, Aspects des Balkans médiévaux, Prague (1989), 4].

Bibliography

549

Huizinga, Waning of the Middle Ages J. Huizinga, Waning of the Middle Ages, London (1924), many subsequent editions. Hunger and Vogel, Rechenbuch H. Hunger and K. Vogel, Ein byzantinisches Rechenbuch des 15. Jahrhunderts, Vienna (1963). Huszár, Ungarn L. Huszár, Münzkatalog Ungarn, Budapest (1979). Iliescu, “Cabinetul Numismatic” O. Iliescu, “Cabinetul Numismatic”, Caiet selective de informare asupra creşterii colecţiilor bibliotecii Academiei R.P.R., 6 (1962), pp. 251–370. Iliescu, “L’hyperpère byzantin au Bas-Danube” O. Iliescu, “L’hyperpère byzantin au Bas-Danube du XI au XVe siècle”, RESEE, 7, 1 (1969), pp. 109–119. Iliescu, “Păcuiul lui Soare” O. Iliescu, “Monede medievale şi moderne descoperite la Păcuiul lui Soare în anii 1956–1974”, in P. Diaconu and S. Bataschi (eds.), Păcuiul lui Soare, II, Aşezarea medievală (secolele XIII–XV ), Bucharest (1977), pp. 148–163. Iliescu, “Montant du tribut” O. Iliescu, “Le montant du tribut payé par Byzance à l’empire ottoman en 1379 et 1424”, RESEE, 9 (1971), pp. 427–432. Iliescu, “Perperi auri ad sagium venetorum” O. Iliescu, “Perperi auri ad sagium venetorum”, Studii şi materiale de istorie medie, 8 (1975), pp. 211–217. Iliescu, “Mesembrie” O. Iliescu, “Etalons ponderaux et monnaies de Mesembrie au XIVe s.”, Byzantinobulgarica, 7 (1981), pp. 469–472. Iliescu and Simion, “Le grand trésor de monnaies et lingots” O. Iliescu and G. Simion, “Le grand trésor de monnaies et lingots des XIIIe et XIVe siècles trouvé en Dobroudja septentrionale, note préliminaire”, RESEE, 2 (1964), pp. 217–228. Ilieva, Frankish Morea A. Ilieva, Frankish Morea (1205–1262). Socio-cultural interaction between the Franks and the local population, Athens (1991). Imber, Ottoman empire C. Imber, The Ottoman empire 1300–1481, Istanbul (1990). Ioannidou, “Δοκιμαστική ανασκαφή” A. Ioannidou, “Δοκιμαστική ανασκαφή εις Μελιταίαν Φθιώτιδος”, AAA, 5 (1972), pp. 47–57. Ippen, “Münzfund in Albanien” T. Ippen, “Münzfund in Albanien”, Monatsblatt der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 5 (1900–1902), p. 242.

550

Bibliography

Irmscher, “Orientpolitik König Manfreds” J. Irmscher, “Über den Charakter der Orientpolitik König Manfreds von Sizilien”, in Βυζάντιον. Αφιέρωμα στον Ανδρέα Ν. Στράτο. Τόμος Ι. Ιστορία – Τέχνη και Αρχαιολογία, Athens (1986), pp. 93–99. Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Medical Exhibition from Past to Present Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Medical Exhibition from Past to Present, Istanbul (2002). Ivanišević, “Début du monnayage des gros serbes” V. Ivanišević, “Le début du monnayage des gros serbes”, in Actes du XIe Congrès International de Numismatique, Bruxelles 1991, 3, Brussels (1993). Ivanišević, “Novac kralja Radoslava” V. Ivanišević, “Novac kralja Radoslava”, ZRVI, 37 (1998), pp. 87–95. Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje V. Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, Belgrade (2001). Ives and Grierson, Venetian Gold Ducat H.E. Ives and P. Grierson, The Venetian Gold Ducat and its imitations, New York (1954). Jackson, “Coins” A. Jackson, “The coins”, in N. Coldstream (ed.), Knossos. The Sanctuary of Demeter, Oxford (1973), pp. 99–113. Jacoby, “Phénomènes de démographie rurale” D. Jacoby, “Phénomènes de démographie rurale à Byzance aux XIIIe, XIVe et XVe siècles”, Etudes Rurales, 5–6 (1962), pp. 161–186 [= D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine, London (1975), no. III]. Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie gréco-franque en Morée” D. Jacoby, “Un régime de coseigneurie gréco-franque en Morée: ‘les casaux de parçon’”, MEFR, 75 (1963), pp. 111–125 [= D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine, London (1975), no. VIII]. Jacoby, “‘zovaticum’” D. Jacoby, “Un aspect de la fiscalité vénitienne dans le Péloponnèse aux XIV et XVe siècles: le ‘zovaticum’”, TM, 1 (1965), pp. 405–420 [= D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine, London (1975), no. IV]. Jacoby, “Compagnie catalane” D. Jacoby, “La ‘Compagnie catalane’ et l’état catalan de Grèce – quelques aspects de leur histoire”, JS (1966), pp. 78–103 [= D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine, London (1975), no. V]. Jacoby, “Les archontes grecs et la féodalité en Morée franque” D. Jacoby, “Les archontes grecs et la féodalité en Morée franque”, TM, 2 (1967), pp. 421–481 [= D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine, London (1975), no. VI].

Bibliography

551

Jacoby, “Jean Lascaris Calophéros” D. Jacoby, “Jean Lascaris Calophéros, Chypre et la Morée”, REB, 26 (1968), pp. 189– 228 [= D. Jacoby, Société et démographie à Byzance et en Romanie latine, London (1975), no. IX]. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce D. Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale. Les “Assises de Romanie”, sources, application et diffusion, Paris (1970). Jacoby, “Les ‘Assizes de Romanie’ et le droit vénitien” D. Jacoby, “Les ‘Assizes de Romanie’ et le droit vénitien dans les colonies vénitiennes”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 1, Florence (1973), pp. 347–360. [= D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XIIIe siècle, London (1979), no. IV]. Jacoby, “Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie” D. Jacoby, “Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie (1305–1332): un nouveau témoignage de Marino Sanudo Torsello”, Studi Medievali, 15 (1974), pp. 217–261. [= D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XIIIe siècle, London (1979), no. V]. Jacoby, “Encounter” D. Jacoby, “The encounter of two societies: western conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnesus after the Fourth Crusade”, AHR, 78 (1973), pp. 873–906 [= D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XIIIe siècle, London (1979), no. II]. Jacoby, “Inconnus du fisc, éleuthères ou étrangers” D. Jacoby, “Une classe fiscale à Byzance et en Romanie latin: les inconnus du fisc, éleuthères ou étrangers”, in Actes du XIVe Congrès international des études byzantines, 2, Bucharest (1975), pp. 139–152. [= D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XIIIe siècle, London (1979), no. III]. Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie: phénomènes sociaux et économiques” D. Jacoby, “Les états latins en Romanie: phénomènes sociaux et économiques (1204–1350 environ)”, in XVe Congrès international d’études byzantines, Athènes 1976, 1, 3, Athens (1976), pp. 1–51. [= D. Jacoby, Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XIIIe siècle, London (1979), no. I]. Jacoby, review of Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres D. Jacoby, review of Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, BZ, 69 (1976), pp. 87–92. Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale D. Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale, BZ, 73 (1980), pp. 356–361. Jacoby, “Les gens de mer dans la marine de guerre vénitienne” D. Jacoby, “Les gens de mer dans la marine de guerre vénitienne de la mer Egée aux XIV et XV siècles”, in R. Ragosta (ed.), Le genti del Mare Mediterraneo, Naples (1981),

552

Bibliography

pp. 169–201. [= D. Jacoby, Studies on the crusader states and on Venetian expansion, Northampton (1989), no. XI]. Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania” D. Jacoby, “From Byzantium to Romania: continuity and change”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamil­ton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 1–44 [= MHR, 4 (1989)] [= Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2001), no. VIII]. Jacoby, “Social Evolution” D. Jacoby, “Social Evolution in Latin Greece”, in H.W. Hazard and N.P. Zacour (eds.), The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, Madison (1989) [= Setton, A History of the Crusades, 6], pp. 175–221. Jacoby, “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople” D. Jacoby, “The Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204– 1261). The challenge of feudalism and the Byzantine inheritance”, JÖB, 43 (1993), pp. 141–201. [= Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2001), no. V]. Jacoby, “Italian privileges” D. Jacoby, “Italian privileges and trade in Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade: a reconsideration”, Anuario de estudios medievales, 24 (1994), pp. 349–369 [= D. Jacoby, Trade, commodities and shipping in the medieval Mediterranean, Aldershot (1997), no. II]. Jacoby, “Silk production in the Frankish Peloponnese” D. Jacoby, “Silk production in the Frankish Peloponnese: the evidence of fourteenth century surveys and reports”, in H.A. Kalligas (ed.), Travellers and officials in the Peloponnese. Descriptions – Reports – Statistics, in Honour of Sir Steven Runciman, Monemvasia (1994), pp. 41–61 [= D. Jacoby, Trade, commodities and shipping in the medieval Mediterranean, Aldershot (1997), no. VIII]. Jacoby, “Italian migration and settlement in Greece” D. Jacoby, “Italian migration and settlement in Greece: the impact on the economy”, in H.E. Mayer (ed.), Die Kreuzfahrerstaaten als multikulturelle Gesellschaft. Einwanderer und Minderheiten im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert, Munich (1997), pp. 97–127. [= Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2001), no. 9]. Jacoby, “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople” D. Jacoby, “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople (1204–1261). Rich or poor?”, in Ch. Maltezou (ed.), Πλούσιοι και Φτωχοί στην κοινωνία της Ελληνολατινικής Ανατολής, Venice (1998), pp. 181–204. [= Jacoby, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2001), no. VII]. Jacoby, “Colonisation militaire vénitienne de la Crète” D. Jacoby, “La colonisation militaire vénitienne de la Crète au XIIIe siècle”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Le partage du monde. Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médiévale, Paris (1998), pp. 297–313.

Bibliography

553

Jacoby, “Creta e Venezia nel contesto economico” D. Jacoby, “Creta e Venezia nel contesto economico del Mediterraneo orientale sino alla metà del Quattrocento”, in G. Ortalli (ed.), Venezia e Creta, Venice (1998), pp. 73–106 [= D. Jacoby, Commercial exchange across the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2005), VII]. Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece” D. Jacoby, “The Latin empire of Constantinople and the Frankish states in Greece”, in D. Abulafia (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, 5, Cambridge (1999), pp. 523–542 with minor differences J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492, Cambridge (2008), pp. 759–778. Jacoby, “Byzantine trade with Egypt” D. Jacoby, “Byzantine trade with Egypt from the mid-tenth century to the Fourth Crusade”, Thesaurismata, 30 (2000), pp. 25–77 [= D. Jacoby, Commercial exchange across the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2005), no. I]. Jacoby, “Production of silk textiles” D. Jacoby, “The production of silk textiles in Latin Greece”, in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα, Athens (2000), pp. 22–35 [= D. Jacoby, Commercial exchange across the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2005), no. XII]. Jacoby, “Venetian quarter of Constantinople” D. Jacoby, “The Venetian quarter of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261”, in C. Sode and S. Takács (eds.) Novum millennium: studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck 19 December 1999, Aldershot (2001), pp. 153–170. Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns” D. Jacoby, “Changing Economic Patterns in Latin Romania: The Impact of the West”, in A.E. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, Washington D.C. (2001), pp. 197–233 [= D. Jacoby, Commercial exchange across the Mediterranean, Aldershot (2005), no. IX]. Jacoby, “Génois dans le duché d’Athènes” D. Jacoby, “Les Génois dans le duché d’Athènes au XIIIe siècle”, in Tous Azimuts…. Mélanges de recherches en l’honneur du Professeur Georges Jehel, Amiens (2002), pp. 267–273. Jacoby, “Consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont” D. Jacoby, “La consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont (1205–1390). Un aspect de sa politique coloniale”, in Ch.A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), Venice (2002), pp. 151–187. Jacoby, “Thessalonique de la domination de Byzance à celle de Venise” D. Jacoby, “Thessalonique de la domination de Byzance à celle de Venise. Continuité, adaptation ou rupture?”, TM, 14 (2002) [= Mélanges Gilbert Dagron], pp. 303–318.

554

Bibliography

Jacoby, “Migrations familiales et stratégies commerciales” D. Jacoby, “Migrations familiales et stratégies commerciales vénetiennes aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes (Xe–XVIe siècles), Paris (2002), pp. 355–373. Jacoby, “Greek peasantry” D. Jacoby, “New evidence on the Greek peasantry in Latin Romania”, in C. Dendrinos et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot (2003), pp. 239–251. Jacoby, “L’état catalan en Grèce” D. Jacoby, “L’état catalan en Grèce: société et institutions politiques”, in M. Teresa Ferrer i Mallol (ed.), Els Catalans a la Mediterrània oriental a l’edat mitjana, Barcelona (2003), pp. 79–101. Jacoby, “Demographic evolution of Euboea” D. Jacoby, “The demographic evolution of Euboea under Latin rule, 1205–1470”, in J. Chrysostomides, Ch. Dendrinos, J. Harris (eds.), The Greek Islands and the Sea, Camberley (2004), pp. 131–179. Jacoby, “Economy of the Latin Empire of Constantinople” D. Jacoby, “The economy of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261”, in A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences/La IV e Croisade et ses consequences, Paris (2005), pp. 195–214. Jacoby, “Venetian government and administration in Latin Constantinople” D. Jacoby, “The Venetian government and administration in Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261: A state within a state”, in G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, P. Schreiner (eds.), Quarta Crociata, Venice (2005), pp. 19–79. Jacoby, “Latins dans les villes de Romanie jusqu’en 1261” D. Jacoby, “Les Latins dans les villes de Romanie jusqu’en 1261: le versant méditerranéen des Balkans”, in M. Balard (ed.), Byzance et le monde extérieur. Contacts, relations, échanges, Paris (2005), pp. 13–26. Jacoby, “Sanudo” D. Jacoby, “Marino Sanudo Torsello on trade routes, commodities, and taxation”, in C. Maltezou, P. Schreiner, M. Losacco (eds.), Φιλαναγνώστης. Studi in onore di Marino Zorzi, Venice (2008), pp. 185–197. Jacoby, “Peasant mobility” D. Jacoby, “Peasant mobility across the Venetian, Frankish and Byzantine borders in Latin Romania, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, in Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi (eds.), I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), Venice (2009), pp. 525–539. Jacoby, “Thirteenth-century commercial exchange in the Aegean” D. Jacoby, “Thirteenth-century commercial exchange in the Aegean. Continuity and change”, in 1. Uluslararası Bizans Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Istanbul (2010), pp. 187–194.

Bibliography

555

Jacoby, “Medieval portolan” D. Jacoby, “An unpublished medieval portolan of the Mediterranean in Minneapolis”, in R. Gertwagen and E. Jeffreys (eds.), Shipping, Trade and Crusade in the Medieval Mediterranean. Studies in honour of John Pryor, Farnham (2012), pp. 65–83. Jacoby, “Naturalizations” D. Jacoby, “Between the imperial court and the western maritime powers: the impact of naturalizations on the economy of late Byzantine Constantinople”, in Papers from the Second International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul (2013), pp. 95–103. Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy” D. Jacoby, “Rural exploitation and market economy in the late medieval Peloponnese”, in S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013), pp. 213–275. Jacoby, “Minor western nations” D. Jacoby, “The minor western nations in Constantinople”, in Γαληνοτάτη. Τιμή στη Χρύσα Μαλτέζου, Athens (2013), pp. 319–332. Jacoby, “The economy of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia” D. Jacoby, “The economy of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia: some neglected and overlooked aspects”, in G. Dédéyan et C. Mutafian (eds.), La Méditerranée des Arméniens (XIe–XV e siècle), Paris (2014), pp. 261–291. Jacoby, “An island world?” D. Jacoby, “The eastern Mediterranean in the later middle ages: an island world?”, in J. Harris, C. Holmes, E. Russell (eds.), Byzantines, Latins, and Turks, in the eastern Mediterranean world after 1150, Oxford (2014), pp. 93–117. Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece” D. Jacoby, “The economy of Latin Greece”, in N.I. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, A companion to Latin Greece, Leiden (2015), pp. 185–216. Karlin-Hayter, “Les Catalans et les villages de la Chalcidique” P. Karlin-Hayter, “Les Catalans et les villages de la Chalcidique”, B, 52 (1982), pp. 244–263. Janko, “Roman, medieval and modern coins” R. Janko, “Roman, medieval and modern coins”, in W.D. Taylour and R. Janko (eds.), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Laconia, Athens (2008), pp. 481–484. John J. Slocum Collection The John J. Slocum Collection of Coins of the Crusade. Sotheby’s auction catalogue, London (6 and 7 March 1997). Jones, “The Coins” A.H.M. Jones, “The Coins”, in Preliminary Report upon the Excavations carried out in the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927, London (1928), pp. 46–50.

556

Bibliography

Jordanov, “Bălgarsko imitativno monetosečene” I. Jordanov, “Bălgarsko imitativno monetosečene ot načaloto na XIII v.”, Numizmatika, 3 (1978), pp. 3–17. Jordanov, “Dolna Kabda” I. Jordanov, “Une trouvaille collective de monnaies de moyen âge (XIIIe s.) près du village de Dolna Kabda, district de Targoviste”, Byzantinobulgarica, 6 (1980), pp. 173–211. Jordanov, Moneti i monetno I. Jordanov, Moneti i monetno obrăštenie v srednovekovna Bălgarija 1081–1261, Sofia (1984). Jordanov, “The perpyra of Tsar Kaloyan (1198–1207)?” I. Jordanov, “The perpyra of Tsar Kaloyan (1198–1207)?”, Archaeologia Bulgarica, 10.3 (2006), pp. 53–99. Joyner, “Cooking pots as indicators of cultural change” L. Joyner, “Cooking pots as indicators of cultural change: a petrographic study of Byzantine and Frankish cooking wares from Corinth”, Hesperia, 76 (2007), pp. 183–227. Judeich, Topographie von Athen W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen, Munich, second edition (1931). Jurukova, “Po-važni otkritija” J. Jurukova, “Po-važni otkritija i razvitieto na numizmatikata v Bălgarija prez poslednite dvadeset godini”, Arheologija, 6, 3 (1964), pp. 77–81. Jurukova, “Moneti na latinski feodalni vladeteli v Gărcija” J. Jurukova, “Moneti na latinski feodalni vladeteli v Gărcija, namereni v Rodopite”, Rodopski sbornik, 1 (1965), pp. 219–227. Kalliga, Monemvasia I Ch. Kalliga, Byzantine Monemvasia: the Sources, Monemvasia (1990). Kalliga, Monemvasia II Ch. Kalliga, Monemvasia: a Byzantine city state, London (2010). Kalopissi-Verti, “Athens and Thebes after 1204” S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Relations between East and West in the lordship of Athens and Thebes after 1204: archaeological and artistic evidence”, in P. Edbury and S. KalopissiVerti (eds.), Archaeology and the crusades, Athens (2007), pp. 1–33. Kalopissi-Verti, “Mistra” S. Kalopissi-Verti, “Mistra. A fortified late Byzantine settlement”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 224–239. Kanellopoulos and Lekea, “Tagliacozzo” N.S. Kanellopoulos and I.K. Lekea, “Η Βυζαντινή πολεμική τακτική εναντίον των Φράγκων κατά τον 13ο αιώνα και η μάχη του Tagliacozzo”, Byzantina Symmeikta, 19 (2009), pp. 63–81.

Bibliography

557

Kaplanis, “Debasement” C. Kaplanis, “The Debasement of the ‘Dollar of the Middle Ages’”, The Journal of Economic History, 63 (2003), pp. 768–801. Karaiskaj, “Gradishta” G. Karaiskaj, “Gradishta e Symizës në periudhën e vonë antike dhe mesjetë”, Iliria, 9–10 (1979–1980), pp. 171–187. Karpov, “Black Sea” S. Karpov, “The Black Sea region before and after the Fourth Crusade”, in A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences/La IVe Croisade et ses consequences, Paris (2005), pp. 283–292. Karpov, “Ports of the Peloponnese” S. Karpov, “Ports of the Peloponnese in the system of Venetian trade navigation to the Black Sea, XIVth–XVth centuries”, in Ch. Kalliga and A. Malliaris (eds.), Πελοπόννησος. Πόλεις και επικοινωνίες στη Μεσόγειο και τη Μαύρη Θάλασσα, Athens (2006), pp. 181–195. Karwiese, “Fundmünzen 1983–1985” S. Karwiese, “Vorausliste der ephesischen Fundmünzen 1983–1985”, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 123 (1986), pp. 110–161. Kasdagli, “Peasant and lord in fifteenth century Naxos” A.E. Kasdagli, “Peasant and lord in fifteenth century Naxos”, BF, 11 (1987), pp. 347–355. Kasdagli, “Medieval Rhodes” A.-M. Kasdagli, “Medieval Rhodes, Hoards and Rarities”, in A.P. Tzamalis (ed.), MNHMH Martin J. Price, Athens (1996), pp. 319–334. Kasdagli, “Χριστιανικά νομίσματα από τη Ρόδο” A.-M. Kasdagli, “Χριστιανικά νομίσματα από τη Ρόδο. Μία πρώτη προσέγγιση”, DChAE, 21 (2000), pp. 267–274. Kasdagli, Clerkenwell A.-M. Kasdagli, The Rhodian Coins at the Museum of the Order of Saint John, Clerkenwell, Athens (2002). Kasdagli, “Νομίσματα στα Δωδεκάνησα” A.-M. Kasdagli, “Νομίσματα στα Δωδεκάνησα από τη Μεταρρύθμιση του Αναστασίου (498 μ.Χ.) έως τον 19ο αιώνα”, in Το νόμισμα στα Δωδεκάνησα και τη μικρασιατική τους περαία, Αthens (2006), pp. 253–266. Kasdagli, “Rhodian Copper Issues” A.-M. Kasdagli, “Rhodian Copper Issues of the 13th century. An attempt at classification”, NomChron, 25 (2006), pp. 31–93. Kasdagli, “Νομισματική κυκλοφορία στη μεσαιωνική πόλη της Ρόδου” A.-M. Kasdagli, “Η νομισματική κυκλοφορία στη μεσαιωνική πόλη της Ρόδου (8ος–16ος αιώνας)”, in 15 χρόνια έργων αποκατάστασης στη Μεσαιωνική Πόλη της Ρόδου, Athens (2007), pp. 422–432.

558

Bibliography

Kasdagli, “Provenance of coins found in Rhodes” A.-M. Kasdagli, “The provenance of coins found in Rhodes, AD498–1522: an overview”, in Ch. Papageorgiadou-Banis and A. Giannikouri (eds.), Sailing in the Aegean. Readings on the economy and trade routes, Athens (2008), pp. 235–256. Katele, “Piracy and the Venetian state” I. Katele, “Piracy and the Venetian state: the dilemma of maritime defence in the fourteenth century”, Speculum, 63 (1988), pp. 865–889. Kavvadias, “Περί των εν Επιδαύρω ανασκαφών” P. Kavvadias, “Περί των εν Επιδαύρω ανασκαφών και εργασίων”, PAE (1905), pp. 43–89. Kayapinar, “Ottoman conquest” L. Kayapinar, “The Ottoman conquest of the Morea (1387–1460)”, Mésogeios 17–18 (2002), pp. 5–24. Kaye, Economy and nature in the fourteenth century J. Kaye, Economy and nature in the fourteenth century: money, market exchange, and the emergence of scientific thought, Cambridge (1998). Kazanaki-Lappa, “Athens” M. Kazanaki-Lappa, “Medieval Athens”, in EHB, pp. 639–646. Kazhdan, “State, feudal and private economy in Byzantium” A. Kazhdan, “State, feudal and private economy in Byzantium”, DOP, 47 (1993), pp. 83–100. Kazhdan, “The Italian and the Late Byzantine City” A. Kazhdan, “The Italian and the Late Byzantine City”, DOP, 49 (1995), pp. 1–22. Kazhdan, “Pronoia” A. Kazhdan, “Pronoia: the history of a scholarly discussion”, MHR, 10,1–2 (1995) (= Studies in Honour of David Jacoby: Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean), pp. 133–163. Keightley, “Muntaner and the Catalan Grand Company” R.G. Keightley, “Muntaner and the Catalan Grand Company”, Revista canadiense de estudios hispánicos, 1 (1979), pp. 37–58. Kelly, Robert of Naples S. Kelly, The New Solomon. Robert of Naples (1309–1343) and Fourteenth-Century Kingship, Leiden (2003). Kent, “The Coins” J.P.C. Kent, “The Coins”, in D. Whitehouse, “Excavations at Satriano: a deserted medieval settlement in Basilicata”, PBSR, 38 (1970), p. 212. Kent, “Interpreting Coin Finds” J.P.C. Kent, “Interpreting Coin Finds”, in J. Casey and R. Reece (eds.), Coins and the Archaeologist, 2nd edition, London (1988), pp. 201–217.

Bibliography

559

Kiel, “Das türkische Thessalien” M. Kiel, “Das türkische Thessalien: etabliertes Geschichtsbild versus osmanische Quellen”, in R. Lauer and P. Schreiner (eds.), Die Kultur Griechenlands in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Göttingen (1996), pp. 109–196. Kiesewetter, “Trattato” A. Kiesewetter, “Il trattato del 18 ottobre 1305 fra Filippo I di Taranto e Giovanni I Orsini di Cefalonia per la conquista dell’Epiro”, Archivio storico pugliese, 47 (1994), pp. 177–213. Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste” A. Kiesewetter, “Das Ende des ‘Livre de la conqueste de l’amorée’ (1301–1304). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Fränkischen Griechenlands zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts”, Byzantiaka, 16 (1996), pp. 143–190. Kiesewetter, “Ferdinando (Ferrán) di Mallorca” Kiesewetter, “Ferdinando (Ferrán) di Mallorca”, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 46 (1996), pp. 253–258. Kiesewetter, “Filippo I d’Angiò” Kiesewetter, “Filippo I d’Angiò”, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 47 (1997), pp. 717–723. Kiesewetter, “Die Regentschaft” A. Kiesewetter, “Die Regentschaft des Kardinallegaten Gerhardt von Parma und Roberts II. von Artois im Königreich Neapel 1285–1289”, in K. Borchardt and E. Bünz, Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte. P. Herde zum 65. Gerburtstag von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen dargebracht, Stuttgart (1998), pp. 477–522. Kiesewetter, Regierung König Karls II. von Anjou A. Kiesewetter, Die Anfänge der Regierung König Karls II. von Anjou (1278–1295). Das Königreich Neapel, die Grafschaft Provence und der Mittelmeerraum zu Ausgang des 13. Jahrhunderts, Husum (1999). Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia” A. Kiesewetter, “I principi di Taranto e la Grecia (1294–1373/83)”, Archivio Storico Pugliese, 54 (2001), pp. 53–100. Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene” A. Kiesewetter, “Ricerche costituzionali e documenti per la signoria ed il ducato di Atene sotto i della Roche e Gualtieri V di Brienne (1204–1311)”, in Ch.A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco, Venice (2002), pp. 235–347. Kiesewetter, “Theodoros Palaiologos” A. Kiesewetter, “Markgraf Theodoros Palaiologos von Monferrat (1306–1338), seine Enseignems und Byzanz”, Medioevo greco, 3 (2003), pp. 121–180.

560

Bibliography

Kiesewetter, “La ristampa del Diplomatari de l’Orient Català” A. Kiesewetter, “La ristampa del Diplomatari de l’Orient Català di Antoni Rubió i Lluch. Alcune osservazioni”, Arxiu de Textos Catalans Antics, 22 (2003), pp. 553–560. Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine teutonico” A. Kiesewetter, “L’Ordine teutonico nel Mediterraneo”, in H. Houben (ed.), Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio. Torre Alemanna (Cerignola) – Mesagne – Lecce 16–18 ottobre 2003, Galatina (2004), pp. 73–107. Kiesewetter, “Il governo e l’amministrazione centrale del Regno” A. Kiesewetter, “Il governo e l’amministrazione centrale del Regno”, in G. Musca (ed.), Le eredità normanno-sveve nell’età angioina. Atti delle quindicesime giornate normanno-sveve, Bari 22–25 ottobre 2002, Bari (2004), pp. 25–68. Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager A. Kiousopoulou, Emperor or manager: power and political ideology in Byzantium before 1453, Geneva (2011). Kiparissi-Apostolika, “Βυζαντινά νομίσματα Τρικάλων” A. Kiparissi-Apostolika, “Βυζαντινά νομίσματα Τρικάλων και σύντομη ιστορία της περιοχής κατά την βυζαντινή περίοδο”, Trikalina (1992), pp. 139–162. Klein, “Barbarossa” U. Klein, “Die nichtdeutschen Münzen des ‘Barbarossa-Funds’”, SNR 66 (1987), pp. 193–199. Kleiner, Mediaeval and Modern Coins in the Athenian Agora F. Kleiner, Mediaeval and Modern Coins in the Athenian Agora, Princeton (1978). Kluge, Numismatik des Mittelalters B. Kluge, Numismatik des Mittelalters, Berlin – Vienna (2007). Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III R.C. Knapp and J.D. MacIsaac, Excavations at Nemea III. The Coins, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London (2005). Koder, Negroponte J. Koder, Negroponte: Untersuchungen zur Topographie und Siedlungsgeschichte der Insel Euboia während der Zeit der Venezianerherrschaft, Vienna (1973). Koder, Lebensraum J. Koder, Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner, Graz (1984). Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, “Cattaneo” S. Kofopoulos and A. Mazarakis, “The Cattaneo in the Aegean (1307–1341) and their coins for Phokaia and Lesvos”, in A.P. Tzamalis (ed.), MNHMH Martin J. Price, Athens (1996), pp. 303–317. Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio S. Kofopoulos and A. Mazarakis, I Gattilusio: Revisioni Genealogiche e Numismatiche, Athens (1996) (reprint from the Acts of the conference Οι Γατελούζοι της Λέσβου).

Bibliography

561

Koilakou, “Thebes” Ch. Koilakou, “Thebes”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 180–191. Kojčev and Mumafov, “Agatopolis” A. Kojčev and V. Mumafov, “Numizmatični i arheologičeski rezultati ot razkopkite prez 2000 g. v Avleotejhos-Agatopolis”, Numismatica Bulgarica, 1, 2 (2002), pp. 18–43. Köker, “Cyzicus” H. Köker, “The Roman Provincial, Roman Imperial, Byzantine, Medieval and Islamic Coins from the 1952–3 Excavations at Cyzicus”, NC, 167 (2007), pp. 305–314. Kolyva-Karaleka, “La penetrazione della repubblica veneta nella contea palatina degli Orsini” M. Kolyva-Karaleka, “La penetrazione della repubblica veneta nella contea palatina degli Orsini e nel ducato dei di Tocco nelle isole Ionie dalla quarta crociata alla prima guerra Veneto-Turca”, Italoellinika, 1 (1988), pp. 75–86. Komata, Kanines D. Komata, Qyteti Iliro Arberor i Kanines, Tirana (1991). Kondylis, “Η Αργολίδα την περίοδο 1350–1400” Th. Kondylis, “Η Αργολίδα την περίοδο 1350–1400. Το τέλος της φραγκοκρατίας και η αρχή της βενετοκρατίας”, in Ch. Maltezou and A. Panopoulou, Βενετία-Άργος. Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος και στην περιοχή του, Athens – Venice (2010), pp. 19–38. Kontogiannis, “Τα νομίσματα” N. Kontogiannis, “Τα νομίσματα”, in E. Dori et al. (eds.), Κάτω Κάστρο. Η πρώτη φάση των ανασκαφών στο βενετικό φρούριο της χώρας Άνδρου, Αndros (2003), pp. 173–174. Kontogiannis, “Το δακτυλίδι” N. Kontogiannis, “Το δακτυλίδι”, in E. Dori et al. (eds.), Κάτω Κάστρο. Η πρώτη φάση των ανασκαφών στο βενετικό φρούριο της χώρας Άνδρου, Αndros (2003), pp. 174–176. Kontogiannis, “Vasilitsi” N. Kontogiannis, “Excavation of a 13th-Century Church near Vasilitsi, Southern Messenia”, Hesperia, 77.3 (2008), pp. 497–537. Kontogiannis, “Messenia” N. Kontogiannis, “Settlements and countryside of Messenia during the late Middle Ages: the testimony of the fortifications”, BMGS, 34 (2010), pp. 3–29. Kontogiannis, “Euripos-Negroponte-Εğriboz” N. Kontogiannis, “Euripos-Negroponte-Εğriboz: material culture and historic topography of Chalcis from Byzantium to the end of Ottoman rule”, JÖB, 62 (2012), pp. 29–56. Kontogiannis, “Translatio imaginis” N. Kontogiannis, “Translatio imaginis: assimilating the triple-towered castle in late Byzantine coinage”, BZ, 106 (2013), pp. 713–744.

562

Bibliography

Kontogiannis and Arvaniti, “Andros” N. Kontogiannis and S. Arvaniti, “The medieval Kato Kastro (lower castle) of Andros: excavation data and ceramic material”, in B. Böhlendorf-Arslan et al. (eds.), Çanak: late antique and medieval pottery and tiles in Mediterranean archaeological contexts; proceedings of the First International Symposium on Late Antique, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman Pottery and Tiles in Archaeological Context (Çanakkale, 1–3 June 2005), Istanbul (2007), pp. 348–361. Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues” A. Kontogiannopoulou, “La fiscalité à Byzance sous les Paléologues (13–15 siècle) : les impôts directs et indirects”, REB, 67 (2009), 5–57. Kontogiannopoulou, “Φορολογικές πληροφορίες για τη Θεσσαλία” A. Kontogiannopoulou, “Φορολογικές πληροφορίες για τη Θεσσαλία από προνομιακά έγγραφα του 13ου και 14ου αιώνα”, Byzantiaka, 29 (2010), pp. 163–177. Kool, “Vadum Jacob” R. Kool, “The crusader mint of Vadum Jacob: new implications for the minting of coins in the Latin kingdom during the second half of the 12th century”, in L. Travaini (ed.), I luoghi della moneta, Milan (2001), pp. 329–332. Kool, “Gold Florins” R. Kool, “A Thirteenth Century Hoard of Gold Florins from the Medieval Harbour of Acre”, NC, 166 (2006), pp. 301–320. Kool and Berman, “Safed” R. Kool and A. Berman, “The Coins of Safed”, ‘Atiqot, forthcoming. Kordosis, “Σχέσεις του Μιχαήλ Αγγέλου” Μ. Kordosis, “Σχέσεις του Μιχαήλ Αγγέλου Δούκα με την Πελοπόννησο”, Epeirotika Chronika, 22 (1980), pp. 49–57. Kordosis, Συμβολή στην ιστορία και τοπογραφία της περιοχής Κορίνθου M. Kordosis, Συμβολή στην ιστορία και τοπογραφία της περιοχής Κορίνθου στους μέσους χρόνους, Athens (1981). Kordosis, “Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας” M. Kordosis, “Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας από τούς Φράγκους. Ιστορικά και τοπογραφικά προβλήματα”, Istoriogeografika, 1 (1985–1986), pp. 53–194, reprinted as a monograph Thessalonike (1986). Kordosis, Southern Greece under the Franks M. Kordosis, Southern Greece under the Franks (1204–1262). A study of the Greek population and the Orthodox church under the Frankish domination, Ioannina (1987). Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” Α. Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων”, in Βυζαντινό Μουσείο Αργολίδας. Κατάλογος μόνιμης έκθεσης, Athens (2016), pp. 244–245. Kossyva, “Άργος” Α. Kossyva, “Μεσαιωνικό Άργος: Η μαρτυρία δύο νομισματικών ‘θησαυρών’”, in Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο, 2, Athens (2017), pp. 225–237.

Bibliography

563

Koumanoudi, “The Venier Kytheran estate records (15th c.)” M. Koumanoudi, “Fragments of an island economy: the Venier Kytheran estate records (15th c.)”, in Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi (eds.), I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), Venice (1999), pp. 497–514. Koumanoudi, “Η διαμαχή Σανύδων-Γκίζη για το νησί σης Αμοργού” M. Koumanoudi, “Για ένα κομμάτι γης. Η διαμαχή Σανύδων-Γκίζη για το νησί σης Αμοργού (14ος. αι.)”, Thesaurismata, 29 (1999), pp. 45–89. Koumanoudi, “The trial of Bartolomeo Querini, bailo and capitano of Negroponte” M. Koumanoudi, “Contra deum, jus et justitiam. The trial of Bartolomeo Querini, bailo and capitano of Negroponte”, in Ch.A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo) (Venice, 2002), pp. 235–287. Koumanoudi, “Μία επιχείρηση εκμετάλλευσης στυπτηρίας στο δουκάτο του Πελάγους” M. Koumanoudi, “‘Circa conventionem alluminam sive allumeriarum’. Μία επιχείρηση εκμετάλλευσης στυπτηρίας στο δουκάτο του Πελάγους”, in C. Dendrinos et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot (2003), pp. 265–274. Koumanoudi, “First Venetian lords of Kythera” M. Koumanoudi, “Illi de Ca’ Venier. The first Venetian lords of Kythera”, in M. Koumanoudi and Ch. Maltezou, Venezia e Cerigo. Atti del Simposio Internazionale Venezia, 6–7 dicembre 2002, Venice (2003), pp. 87–106. Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204” M. Koumanoudi, “The Latins in the Aegean after 1204: interdependence and interwoven interests”, A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences/La IVe Croisade et ses consequences, Paris (2005), pp. 247–267. Koumanoudi, “Η κατάσταση του αγροτικού πληθυσμού του Άργους στα τέλη του 14ου αιώνα” M. Koumanoudi, “Η κατάσταση του αγροτικού πληθυσμού του Άργους στα τέλη του 14ου αιώνα”, in Ch. Maltezou and A. Panopoulou, Βενετία-Άργος. Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος και στην περιοχή του, Athens – Venice (2010), pp. 121–133. Kourelis, “Byzantium and the avant-garde” K. Kourelis, “Byzantium and the avant-garde: excavations at Corinth, 1920s–1930s”, Hesperia, 76 (2007), pp. 391–442. Kraay, Greek Coins and History C. Kraay, Greek Coins and History, London (1969). Kravari, Macédoine occidentale V. Kravari, Villes et villages de Macédoine occidentale, Paris (1989). Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος βυζαντινών νομισμάτων” D. Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος βυζαντινών νομισμάτων (491–1203 μ.Χ.) μεμονωμένων ευρημάτων Αμφίσσης”, Tetramena, 2 (1974), pp. 1–24.

564

Bibliography

Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος ενετικών και ουγγρικών νομισμάτων” D. Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος ενετικών και ουγγρικών νομισμάτων (1342–1400) ευρήματος Καλαποδίου Λοκρίδος”, Tetramena, 13 (1977), pp. 995–1005. [reprinted in D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 119–125]. Kravartogiannos, “Αμφισσαϊκό εύρημα” D. Kravartogiannos, “Αμφισσαϊκό εύρημα φραγκικών τορνεσίων (ΙΓ΄–ΙΔ΄ αι.)”, Tetramena, 14 (1977), pp. 1–7. [reprinted in D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 94–96]. Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος νομισματικών ευρημάτων Καλλιπόλεως” D. Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος νομισματικών ευρημάτων Καλλιπόλεως, ανασκαφής 1978”, Tetramena, 19–20 (1981–1982), pp. 1309–1340. Kravartogiannos, “Νομισματικές μαρτυρίες” D. Kravartogiannos, “Νομισματικές μαρτυρίες του ανταγωνισμού των Ανδηγαυών και Αραγωνίων για την κυριαρχία της Ελλάδος”, Syllektikos Kosmos, 27 (1983), no pagination. [reprinted in D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 235–243]. Kravartogiannos, “Θησαυροί που χάνονται” D. Kravartogiannos, “Θησαυροί που χάνονται. Με αφορμή διασκορπισμένο εύρημα Θηβών μεσαιωνικών νομισμάτων”, Tetramena, 31–33 (1987), pp. 2181–2187. [reprinted D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 228–234]. Kravartogiannos, “Νομισματοκοπία της Ναυπάκτου” D. Kravartogiannos, “Η νομισματοκοπία της Ναυπάκτου στον Μεσαίωνα”, Naupaktiaka (2000), pp. 1–7. [reprinted in D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 113–118]. Kravartogiannos, “Τορνέσιο της Δημοκρατίας της Αγκώνας” D. Kravartogiannos, “Ένα σπάνιο τορνέσιο της Δημοκρατίας της Αγκώνας”, in D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 46–49. Kravartogiannos, “Φραγκικά νομίσματα των Σαλώνων” D. Kravartogiannos, “Τα φραγκικά νομίσματα (τορνέσια) των Σαλώνων”, in D. Kravartogiannos, Αρχαία νομίσματα. Ιστορικά τεκμήρια, Amphissa (2009), pp. 97–112. Krekić, Dubrovnik V. Krekić, Dubrovnik (Raguse) et le Levant au Moyen Age, Paris – La Haye (1961). Krekić, “Helias and Blasius de Radoano” B. Krekić, “Helias and Blasius de Radoano, Ragusan merchants in the second half of the fourteenth century”, ZRVI, 41 (2004), pp. 399–422. Krstić, “Paraćina” S. Krstić, “Ostava vizantijskih skifata iz Mirilobca kod Paraćina”, Numizmatičar, 21 (1998), pp. 117–126.

Bibliography

565

Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten” S. Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten der Metropolis in Thessalonike aus dem Anfang des XV. Jahrhundert”, BZ, 23 (1914–19), pp. 143–163. Kürkman and Ender, Fourteenth century Aegean Anatolian begliks G. Kürkman and C. Ender, Coins of the fourteenth century Aegean Anatolian begliks: 700–829AH, Istanbul (2001). Kuroda, “Eurasian silver century” A. Kuroda, “The Eurasian silver century, 1276–1359: commensurability and multiplicity”, Journal of Global History, 4 (2009), pp. 245–269. Kutlumus 2 P. Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus, 2, Paris (1988) (= Archives de l’Athos, 22). Kyriakidis, “Mercenaries” K. Kyriakidis, “The employment of large groups of mercenaries in Byzantium in the period ca. 1290–1305 as viewed by the sources”, B, 79 (2009), pp. 208–230. Kyriakidis, “Booty” K. Kyriakidis, “The division of booty in late Byzantium (1204–1453)”, JÖB, 59 (2009), pp. 163–175. Kyriakidis, Warfare K. Kyriakidis, Warfare in late Byzantium, 1204–1453, Leiden (2011). Kyriakidis, “Carlo I Tocco” K. Kyriakidis, “The wars and the army of the duke of Cephalonia Carlo I Tocco (c. 1375–1429)”, Journal of medieval military history, 11 (2013), pp. 167–181. Kyritses, “Common chrysobulls” D. Kyritses, “The ‘common chrysobulls’ of cities and the notions of property in late Byzantium”, Symmeikta, 13 (1999), pp. 229–245. Kyritses, “Revolts in late Byzantine cities” D. Kyritses, “Revolts in late Byzantine cities. Is a reappraisal possible?”, in T. Kiousopoulou (ed.), Οι Βυζαντινές πόλεις (8ος–15ος αιώνας), Rethymno (2012), pp. 263–275. La Torre, “Skotoussa” F. La Torre et al., “Il progetto Skotoussa: relazione preliminare sulle campagne 2014–15”, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 94 (2016), pp. 141–182. Labrot, Jetons J. Labrot, Une histoire économique du moyen âge. Les jetons et les méreaux, Paris (1989). Lafaurie, Monnaies des rois de France J. Lafaurie, Les monnaies des rois de France. I Hugues Capet à Louis XII, Paris – Basel (1951). Lafe, “Archaeology in Albania” O. Lafe, “Archaeology in Albania 2000–2004”, AR, 51 (2004–2005), pp. 119–137.

566

Bibliography

Lagos and Karyanos, “Μουχλί” Κ. Lagos and Ph. Karyanos, “Μουχλί: Οικονομικά δεδομένα και νομισματική κυκλοφορία κατά την ύστερη βυζαντινή περίοδο”, in Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο, 2, Athens (2017), pp. 193–202. Laiou, “Marino Sanudo Torsello, Byzantium and the Turks” A.E. Laiou, “Marino Sanudo Torsello, Byzantium and the Turks: The background to the anti-Turkish league”, Speculum, 45.3 (1970), pp. 374–392. Laiou, Andronicus II A.E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins. The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II 1282– 1328, Cambridge, Mass. (1972). Laiou, “Byzantine aristocracy in the Palaeologan period” A.E. Laiou, “The Byzantine aristocracy in the Palaeologan period: a story of arrested development”, Viator, 3 (1973), pp. 131–151 [= A.E. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (1992), no. VI]. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society A.E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire: A Social and Demographic Study, Princeton (1977). Laiou, “Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system” A.E. Laiou, “The Byzantine economy in the Mediterranean trade system, thirteenth– fifteenth centuries”, DOP, 34–35 (1980–81), pp. 177–222. [= A.E. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (1992), no. VII]. Laiou-Thomadakis, “Greek merchant of the Palaeologan period” A.E. Laiou-Thomadakis, “The Greek merchant of the Palaeologan period. A collective portrait”, Praktika tis Akadimias Athinon, 57.1 (1982), pp. 96–132 [= A.E. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (1992), no. VIII]. Laiou, “Crète vénitienne” A.E. Laiou, “Quelques observations sur l’économie et la société de Crète vénitienne (ca. 1270–ca. 1305)”, in ‘Bisanzio e Italia’, Raccolta di studi in memoria di Agostino Pertusi, Milan (1982), pp. 177–198 [= A.E. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (1992), no. X]. Laiou, “Contribution à l’étude de l’institution familiale” A.E. Laiou, “Contribution à l’étude de l’institution familiale en Epire au XIII siècle”, Fontes Minores, 6 (1984), pp. 275–323 [= A.E. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (1992), no. V]. Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans” A.E. Laiou, “In the medieval Balkans: economic pressures and conflicts in the fourteenth century”, in S. Vryonis Jr. (ed.), Byzantine Studies in Honor of Milton V. Anastos, Malibu (1985), pp. 137–162 [= A.E. Laiou, Gender, Society and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (1992), no. IX].

Bibliography

567

Laiou, “God and Μammon” A.E. Laiou, “God and Μammon: credit, trade and profit and the canonists”, in N. Oikonomides (ed.), Το Βυζάντιο κατά τον 12ο αιώνα. Κανονικό δίκαιο, κράτος και κοινωνία, Athens (1991), pp. 261–300. Laiou, “Venetians and Byzantines” A.E. Laiou, “Venetians and Byzantines: investigation of forms of contact in the fourteenth century”, Thesaurismata, 22 (1992), pp. 29–43. Laiou, “Η Θεσσαλονίκη” A.E. Laiou, “Η Θεσσαλονίκη, η ενδοχώρα της και ο οικονομικός της χώρος στην εποχή των Παλαιολόγων”, in Βυζαντινή Μακεδονία 324–1430 μ.Χ., Thessalonike (1995), pp. 183–194. Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy” A.E. Laiou, “In search of the Byzantine economy”, in Bilan et perspectives des études médiévales en Europe, Louvain-La-Neuve (1995), pp. 43–64. Laiou, “Italy and the Italians” A.E. Laiou, “Italy and the Italians in the political geography of the Byzantines (14th century)”, DOP, 49 (1995), pp. 73–98. [= A.E. Laiou, Byzantium and the Other: Relations and Exchanges, Farnham (2012), no. X]. Laiou, “Byzantium and the commercial revolution” A.E. Laiou, “Byzantium and the commercial revolution”, G. Arnaldi and G. Cavallo (eds.), Europa medievale e mondo bizantino, Contatti effettivi e possibilità di studi comparati, Rome (1997), pp. 239–253. Laiou, “Droits du fisc et les droits régaliens” A.E. Laiou, “Le débat sur les droits du fisc et les droits régaliens au début du 14e siècle”, REB, 58 (2000), pp. 97–122. Laiou, “Byzantine trade with Christians and Muslims” A.E. Laiou, “Byzantine trade with Christians and Muslims and the Crusades”, in A.E. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The crusades from the perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim world, Washington D.C. (2001), pp. 157–196. [= A.E. Laiou, Byzantium and the Other: Relations and Exchanges, Farnham (2012), no. VIII]. Laiou, “Epiros” A.E. Laiou, “Use and Circulation of Coins in the Despotate of Epiros”, DOP, 55 (2001), pp. 207–215. Laiou, “Human resources” A.E. Laiou, “The human resources”, in EHB, pp. 47–55. Laiou, “Agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries” A.E. Laiou, “The agrarian economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 311–375. Laiou, “Economic and noneconomic exchange” A.E. Laiou, “Economic and noneconomic exchange”, in EHB, pp. 681–696.

568

Bibliography

Laiou, “Exchange and trade, seventh–twelfth centuries” A.E. Laiou, “Exchange and trade, seventh–twelfth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 697–770. Laiou, “Economic thought and ideology” A.E. Laiou, “Economic thought and ideology”, in EHB, pp. 1123–1144. Laiou, “Byzantine economy: an overview” A.E. Laiou, “The Byzantine economy: an overview”, in EHB, pp. 1145–1164. Laiou, “Διαμόρφωση της τιμής της γης” A.E. Laiou, “Διαμόρφωση της τιμής της γης στο Βυζάντιο”, in A. Avramea, A.E. Laiou, E. Chrysos (eds.), Byzantium, State and Society, in Memory of Nikos Oikonomides, Athens (2003), pp. 339–348. Laiou, “Monopoly” A.E. Laiou, “Monopoly and privileged free trade in the Eastern Mediterranean”, in Chemins d’outre mer. Etudes sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, Paris (2004), pp. 511–526. [= A.E. Laiou, Byzantium and the other: relations and exchanges, Farnham (2012), no. XII]. Laiou, “Είχαν οικονομία οι βυζαντινές πόλεις;” A.E. Laiou, “Μεταξύ παραγωγής και κατανάλωσης: είχαν οικονομία οι βυζαντινές πόλεις;”, Praktika tes Akademias Athinon, 81 (2006), pp. 85–126. Laiou, “Regional networks in the Balkans” A.E. Laiou, “Regional networks in the Balkans in the middle and late Byzantine periods”, in C. Morrisson (ed.), Trade and markets in Byzantium, Washington D.C. (2012), pp. 125–146 [= A.E. Laiou, Byzantium and the other: relations and exchanges, Farnham (2012), no. XIII]. Laiou, “Palaiologoi” A.E. Laiou, “The Palaiologoi and the world around them (1261–1400)”, in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492, Cambridge (2008), pp. 803–833. Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy A.E. Laiou and C. Morrisson, The Byzantine economy, Cambridge (2007). Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III A.E. Laiou and C. Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III. L’empire grec et ses voisins XIIIe– XV e siècle, Paris (2011). Lala, Regnum Albaniae E. Lala, Regnum Albaniae, the Papal Curia, and the Western Visions of a Borderline Nobility, unpublished doctoral thesis, Central European University, Budapest (2008). Lambros, “Monnaies et bulles inédites de Néopatras et de Carytaena” P. Lambros, “Monnaies et bulles inédites de Néopatras et de Carytaena”, RN, 2, 14 (1869), pp. 184–193.

Bibliography

569

Lambros, “Unedierte Münzen und Bleibullen der Despoten von Epirus” P. Lambros, “Unedierte Münzen und Bleibullen der Despoten von Epirus”, ZfN, 3 (1871), pp. 485–500. Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen” P. Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen von Athen und Naxos”, ZfN, 1 (1874), pp. 190–197. Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα κοπέντα εν Γλαρέντσα P. Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα κοπέντα εν Γλαρέντσα κατά μίμησιν ενετικών υπό Ροβέρτου του εξ Ανδηγαύων, Athens (1876). Lambros, “Monnaies inédites en or et en argent frappées à Clarence” P. Lambros, “Monnaies inédites en or et en argent frappées à Clarence, à l’imitation des monnaies vénitiennes, par Robert d’Anjou, prince du Péloponnèse”, BCH, 1 (1877), pp. 89–99. Lambros, “Damala” P. Lambros, “Monnaies inédites de Damala”, Mélanges de Numismatique, 2 (1877), pp. 65–66. Lambros, “Monnaies inédites de Chio” P. Lambrod, “Monnaies inédites de Chio”, Mélanges de Numismatique, 2 (1877), pp. 246–269. Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα και μολυβδόβουλλα P. Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα και μολυβδόβουλλα των κατά τους μέσους αιώνας δυναστών της Ελλάδος, Athens (1880). Lambros, “Ducs de Naxos” P. Lambros, “Monnaies inédites des ducs de Naxos”, RN, 3, 5 (1887), pp. 277–280. Lambros, Unpublished coins struck at Glarentsa P. Lambros, Unpublished coins struck at Glarentsa in imitation of Venetian coins by Robert of Taranto, Sovereign of the Peloponnesus, 1346–1364, Oak Park, Illinois (1969). Lambropoulou, “Πανηγύρεις” A. Lambropoulou, “Οι πανηγύρεις στην Πελοππόνησο κατά την μεσαιωνική εποχή”, in Η καθημερινή ζωή στο Βυζάντιο, Athens (1989), pp. 291–310. Lampinen, “The coins” P. Lampinen, “The coins, preliminary report, 1990”, in R.L. Vann (ed.), Caesarea Papers. Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, Ann Arbor (1992), pp. 169–172. Lampinen, “Preliminary coin report” Lampinen, “Preliminary coin report, areas LL and TP, 1996–2000, 2002 seasons”, in K.G. Holum, J.A. Stabler, E.G. Reinhardt (eds.), Caesarea Reports and Studies. Excavations 1995–2007 within the Old City and the Ancient Harbour, Oxford (2008), pp. 41–47.

570

Bibliography

Lane, “Fleets and Fairs” F.C. Lane, “Fleets and Fairs”, Studi in onore di Armando Sapori, 1 (1957), pp. 651–663 [= F.C. Lane, Venice and History. The Collected Papers of Frederic C. Lane, Baltimore (1966), no. 9, pp. 128–141]. Lane, “Venetian Merchant Galleys” F.C. Lane, “Venetian Merchant Galleys, 1300–1334: Private and Communal Operation”, Speculum, 38.2 (1963), pp. 179–205 [= F.C. Lane, Venice and History. The Collected Papers of Frederic C. Lane, Baltimore (1966), no. 13, pp. 193–226]. Lane, “Funded debt of the Venetian Republic” F.C. Lane, “The funded debt of the Venetian Republic, 1262–1482”, in F.C. Lane, Venice and history. The collected papers of Frederic C. Lane, Baltimore (1966), no. 6, pp. 87–98 [English translation of a contribution to G. Luzzatto (ed.), Il debito pubblico della repubblica di Venezia dagli ultimi decenni del XII secolo alla fine del XV, Milan (1963), pp. 275–292]. Lane, Venice. A Maritime Republic F.C. Lane, Venice. A Maritime Republic, Baltimore (1973). Lane, “Exportations vénitiennes d’or et d’argent” F.C. Lane, “Exportations vénitiennes d’or et d’argent de 1200 à 1450”, in J. Day (ed.), Etudes d’histoire monétaire, XIIe–XIXe siècles, Lille (1984), pp. 29–48. Lane and Mueller, Money and banking F.C. Lane and R.C. Mueller, Money and banking in medieval and Renaissance Venice. Volume 1. Coins and moneys of account, Baltimore – London (1985). Laurent, “ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ” V. Laurent, “TO ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ. Monnaie divisionnaire de l’époque des Paléologues”, Cronica Numismatică şi Arheologică, 119–120 (1940), pp. 3–25. Laurent, “Le basilicon” V. Laurent, “Le basilicon, nouveau nom de monnaie sous Andronic II Paléologue”, BZ, 45 (1952), pp. 50–58. Laurent, “Vêpres siciliennes” V. Laurent, “Les vêpres siciliennes et la dévaluation de l’hyperpère”, in Χαριστήριον εις Αναστάσιον Κ. Αρλάνδον, 1, Athens (1964), pp. 36–45. Laurent, Regestes V. Laurent, Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1, fasc. 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309, Paris (1971). Lazari, Monete dei possedimenti veneziani V. Lazari, Le monete dei possedimenti veneziani di Oltremare e di Terraferma, Venice (1851). Leduc, “13th-century Euboea” F.-X. Leduc, “Enhancing earlier and managing later Latin identity and power through women: the case of 13th-century Euboea”, in G. Saint-Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos

Bibliography

571

(eds.), Liquid and multiple: Individuals and identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean, Paris (2012), pp. 155–171. Lefort, “Rural economy” J. Lefort, “Rural economy and social relations in the countryside”, DOP, 47 (1993), pp. 101–113. Lefort, “The rural economy, seventh–twelfth centuries” J. Lefort, “The rural economy, seventh–twelfth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 231–310. Lefort and Smyrlis, “Gestion du numéraire” J. Lefort and K. Smyrlis, “La gestion du numéraire dans les monastères byzantins”, RN, 153 (1998), pp. 187–215. Lefort, Vatopedi II J. Lefort, V. Kravari, C. Giros, K. Smyrlis (eds.), Actes de Vatopédi II. De 1330 à 1376, Paris (2006). Le Goff, Moyen âge et l’argent J. Le Goff, Le moyen âge et l’argent, Paris (2010). Legrand, “Antiquités de Trézène” P.E. Legrand, “Antiquités de Trézène”, BCH, 29 (1905), pp. 269–315. Lemerle, “Trois actes du despote d’Epire Michel II” P. Lemerle, “Trois actes du despote d’Epire Michel II concernant Corfou connus en traduction latine”, Ellinika, 4 (1953) (= Προσφορά εις Στίλιωνα Π. Κυριακίδην), pp. 405– 426 [= P. Lemerle, Le monde de Byzance. Histoire et Institutions, London (1978), no. VI]. Lenormant, “Monnaies” F. Lenormant, “Monnaies du moyen âge découvertes à Eleusis”, RN, 2,9 (1864), pp. 37–52. Léonard, “Comptes de l’hôtel de Jeanne I ère” E.G. Léonard, “Comptes de l’hôtel de Jeanne I ère, reine de Naples, de 1352 à 1369”, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 38 (1920), pp. 215–278. Léonard, Les Angevins E.G. Léonard, Les Angevins de Naples, Paris (1954). Leonard, “Effects of the Fourth Crusade on European gold coinage” R.D. Leonard, “The effects of the Fourth Crusade on European gold coinage,” in T.F. Madden (ed.), The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, Perception, Aldershot (2008), pp. 75–85. Lewis, “The Catalan failure of acculturation” A.R. Lewis, “The Catalan failure of acculturation in Frankish Greece and the Islamic World during the Fourteenth Century”, Viator, 11 (1980), pp. 361–369. Lianta, “Module Classification” E. Lianta, “Notes on the Module Classification of the Latin Imitative Billon Trachea (1204–1261)”, Numismatic Circular, 114 (2006), pp. 203–204.

572

Bibliography

Lianta, “John II Comnenus” E. Lianta, “John II Comnenus (1148–43) or John III Vatatzes (1222–54)? (Distinguishing the Hyperpyra of John II from those of John III)”, NC, 166 (2006), pp. 269–299. Lianta, “Palaeologan half-stavrata” Lianta E., “Palaeologan half-stavrata: the case of Manuel II Palaiologos”, Cercetàri numismatice, 12–13 (2006–2007), pp. 155–208. Lianta, “Sigla” E. Lianta, “The development and function of sigla on late Byzantine coins (AD 1204– 1453)” Byzantinos Dromos, 16 (2007–2008), pp. 249–262. Lianta, “A die-study of the half-stavrata of Manuel II Palaeologus” E. Lianta, “A die-study of the half-stavrata of Manuel II Palaeologus (1391–1425)”, Acta Musei Varnaensis, 7, 1 (2008), pp. 447–456. Lianta, “Some ‘Stavraton’ Hoards Re-examined” E. Lianta, “Some ‘Stavraton’ Hoards Re-examined”, NCirc, 116.3 (2008), pp. 121–124. Lianta, “Thessalonica/2007” E. Lianta, “The Thessalonica/2007 hoard of Byzantine Thirteenth-Century Billon Trachea”, in XIV International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009. Abstract of Papers, Glasgow (2009), p. 96. Lianta, Late Byzantine coins Lianta, Late Byzantine coins 1204–1453 in the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford, London (2009). Liata, Κυκλοφορία νομισμάτων Ε. Liata, Φλωρία δεκατέσσερα στένουν γρόσια σαράντα. Η κυκλοφορία νομισμάτων στον ελληνικό χώρο, 15ος–19ος αι., Athens (1996). Libero Mangieri, “Castello di Salerno” G. Libero Mangieri, “Gruzzoli di monete medievali e moderne rinvenuti nel Castello di Salerno”, BdN, 6–7 (1986), pp. 205–230. Libero Mangieri, “Scavi di Velia” G. Libero Mangieri, “Monete rinvenute negli scavi di Velia: l’Acropoli”, RIN, 92 (1990), pp. 19–32. Libero Mangieri, “Il tesoretto di denari rinvenuto in Puglia” G. Libero Mangieri, “Il tesoretto di denari rinvenuto in Puglia”, in Federico II: immagine e potere, Catalogo della mostra, Bari 1995, Venice (1995), pp. 469–70. Libero Mangieri, Pomarici-Santomasi G. Libero Mangieri, La collezione numismatica Pomarici-Santomasi, Naples (1995). Libero Mangieri et al., Muro Leccese G. Libero Mangieri et al., Tornesi, gigliati e pierreali in un tesoretto rinvenuto a Muro Leccese, Spoleto (2010). Lilie, Handel und Politik R.-J. Lilie, Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa, Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und Angeloi (1081– 1204), Amsterdam (1984).

Bibliography

573

Lilie, “Zerfall der Zentralgewalt” R.-J. Lilie, “Des Kaisers Macht und Ohnmacht. Zum Zerfall der Zentralgewalt in Byzanz vor dem vierten Kreuzzug”, Poikila Byzantina, 4, Varia I, Bonn (1984), pp. 9–120. Leonardo Marcello M. Chiaudano and A. Lombardo (eds.), Leonardo Marcello, notaio in Candia (1278– 1281), Venice (1960). Lock, Franks P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean 1204–1500, London (1995). Loenertz, “Pour l’histoire du Péloponèse au XIV e siècle 1382–1404” R.-J. Loenertz, “Pour l’histoire du Péloponèse au XIVe siècle 1382–1404”, Etudes byzantines, 1 (1943), pp. 152–196 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca. Articles parus de 1935 à 1966 réedités avec la collaboration de Peter Schreiner, Rome (1970), pp. 209–265]. Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I” R.-J. Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I”, AFP, 25 (1955), pp. 100–212 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, series altera. Articles choisis parus de 1936 à 1969 républiés avec la collaboration de P.-M. de Contenson, Enrico Follieri et Peter Schreiner, Rome (1978), no. 9, pp. 183–303]. Loenertz, “Hospitaliers et Navarrais en Grèce” R.-J. Loenertz, “Hospitaliers et Navarrais en Grèce 1376–1383. Régestes et documents”, OCP, 22 (1956), pp. 319–360 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca. Articles parus de 1935 à 1966 réedités avec la collaboration de Peter Schreiner, Rome (1970), pp. 329–369]. Loenertz, “Une page de Jérôme Zurita relative aux duchés catalans” R.-J. Loenertz, “Une page de Jérôme Zurita relative aux duchés catalans de Grèce 1386”, REB, 14 (1956), pp. 158–168 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca. Articles parus de 1935 à 1966 réedités avec la collaboration de Peter Schreiner, Rome (1970), pp. 371–381]. Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras II” R.-J. Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras II”, AFP, 28 (1958), pp. 5–91 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, series altera. Articles choisis parus de 1936 à 1969 républiés avec la collaboration de P.-M. de Contenson, Enrico Follieri et Peter Schreiner, Rome (1978), no. 10, pp. 305–393]. Loenertz, “Marino Dandolo” R.-J. Loenertz, “Marino Dandolo, seigneur d’Andros, et son conflit avec l’évêque Jean 1225–1238”, OCP, 35 (1959), pp. 165–181 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca. Articles parus de 1935 à 1966 réedités avec la collaboration de Peter Schreiner, Rome (1970), pp. 399–419]. Loenertz, “Ghisi I” R.-J. Loenertz, “Généalogie des Ghisi, dynastes vénitiens dans l’Archipel, 1207–1390”, OCP, 28 (1962), pp. 121–172.

574

Bibliography

Loenertz, “Les Querini. I” R.-J. Loenertz, “Les Querini. I. Comtes d’Astypalée 1413–1537”, OCP, 30 (1964), pp. 385–397 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca. Articles parus de 1935 à 1966 réedités avec la collaboration de Peter Schreiner, Rome (1970), pp. 503–514] BSA. Loenertz, “Seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont” R.-J. Loenertz, “Les seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont de 1205 à 1280”, B, 35 (1965), pp. 235–276 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca, series altera. Articles choisis parus de 1936 à 1969 républiés avec la collaboration de P.-M. de Contenson, Enrico Follieri et Peter Schreiner, Rome (1978), no. 8, pp. 141–181]. Loenertz, “Les Querini. II” R.-J. Loenertz, “Les Querini. II. Comtes d’Astypalée et seigneurs d’Amorgos 1413– 1446–1537”, OCP, 32 (1966), pp. 372–393 [= R.-J. Loenertz, Byzantina et Franco-Graeca. Articles parus de 1935 à 1966 réedités avec la collaboration de Peter Schreiner, Rome (1970), pp. 515–536]. Loenertz, “Origines du despotat d’Épire” R.-J. Loenertz, “Aux origines du despotat d’Épire et la principauté d’Achaïe”, B, 43 (1973), pp. 360–394. Loenertz, “Hosios Lukas de Stiris” R.-J. Loenertz, “Hosios Lukas de Stiris dans quelques documents latins”, Thesaurismata, 11 (1974), pp. 21–35. Loenertz, Ghisi II R.-J. Loenertz, Les Ghisi, dynastes vénitiens dans l’Archipel 1207–1390, P. Schreiner (ed.), Florence (1976). Lombardo, Deliberazioni del Consiglio A. Lombardo, Le deliberazioni del Consiglio dei XL della Reppublica di Venezia; t. 1 (1342–1344); t. 2 (1347–1359) (= Monumenti storici, n.s., vols. IX and XII: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie), Venice (1957 and 1958). Longnon, “Les Autrementcourt” J. Longnon, “Les Autrementcourt seigneurs de Salona en Grèce (1204–1311)”, Bulletin de la Société historique de Haute-Picardie, 15 (1937), pp. 15–48. Longnon, “Le rattachement” J. Longnon, “Le rattachement de la principauté de Morée au royaume de Sicile en 1267”, JS (1942), pp. 134–143. Longnon, “Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée” J. Longnon, “Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée. (Premier article)”, JS (1946), pp. 77–93, and “Problèmes de l’histoire de la principauté de Morée. (Deuxième et dernier article)”, JS (1946), pp. 147–161. Longnon, L’empire J. Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée, Paris (1949). Longnon, “Les Assises de Romanie” J. Longnon, “Les Assises de Romanie”, JS (1953), pp. 13–26.

Bibliography

575

Longnon, “Traité de Viterbe” J. Longnon, “Le traité de Viterbe entre Charles Ier d’ Anjou et Guillaume de Villehardouin, prince de Morée”, in Studi in onore di Riccardo Filangieri, Naples (1959), pp. 307–314. Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311” J. Longnon, “The Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”, in K.M. Setton and R.L. Wolff (eds.), The Later Crusades 1189–1311, Philadelphia (1962) [= Setton, History of the Crusades, 2], pp. 234–274. Longnon, “La vie rurale dans la Grèce franque” J. Longnon, “La vie rurale dans la Grèce franque”, JS (1965), pp. 343–357. Longnon, “Topographie et archéologie de la Morée franque” J. Longnon, “Topographie et archéologie de la Morée franque”, JS (1969), pp. 193–242. [= review of A. Bon, La Morée franque: recherches historiques, topographiques, et archéologiques sur la Principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430), Paris (1969)]. Longnon, “Les premiers ducs d’Athènes” J. Longnon, “Les premiers ducs d’Athènes et leur famille”, JS (1973), pp. 61–80. Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres J. Longnon and P. Topping, Documents sur le régime des terres dans la principauté de Morée au XIVe siècle, Paris – The Hague (1969). Longuet, “Une trouvaille de monnaies des Paléologues” H. Longuet, “Une trouvaille de monnaies des Paléologues”, RBN, 106 (1960), pp. 243–66. Lopez, The commercial revolution R.S. Lopez, The commercial revolution of the middle ages, 950–1350, Englewood Cliffs (1971). Lopez, “Bilancia dei pagamenti” R.S. Lopez, “Il problema della bilancia dei pagamenti nel commercio di Levante”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 1, Florence (1973), pp. 431–452. Lopez, “Trade of medieval Europe: the South” R.S. Lopez, “Trade of medieval Europe: the South”, in Cambridge economic history of Europe. Vol. 2. Trade and industry in the middle ages, 2nd edition, Cambridge (1987), pp. 306–401. Lopez and Raymond, Medieval trade in the Mediterranean world R.S. Lopez and I.W. Raymond, Medieval trade in the Mediterranean world, New York (1955). Loungis, “Απόψεις περί χρήματος και αγοράς” T. Loungis, “Βυζαντινές λόγιες απόψεις περί χρήματος και αγοράς το 14ο αιώνα”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 349–363.

576

Bibliography

Louvi-Kizi, “Thebes” A. Louvi-Kizi, “Thebes”, in EHB, pp. 631–638. Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Θησαυρός γροσσίων” K. Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Θησαυρός γροσσίων 13ου–14ου αι. από τα Ασώματα Βέροιας”, AAA, 20 (1987), pp. 167–171. Lowry, Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans H. Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1500, Istanbul (2008). Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi G. Lunardi, Le monete delle colonie genovesi, Genoa (1980). Luschin von Ebengreuth, Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte A. Luschin von Ebengreuth, Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Munich and Berlin (1926). Luttrell, “A fourteenth century list of barons of Achaea” A. Luttrell, “A fourteenth century list of barons of Achaea”, BZ, 51 (1958), pp. 355–356. Luttrell, review of Thiriet, Régestes and Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne A. Luttrell, review of Thiriet, Régestes and Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, Speculum, 36 (1961), pp. 183–185. Luttrell, “The Principality of Achaea in 1377” A. Luttrell, “The Principality of Achaea in 1377”, BZ, 57 (1964), pp. 340–345. Luttrell, “Vonitsa in Epirus” A. Luttrell, “Vonitsa in Epirus and its Lords: 1306–1377”, RSBN, 11 (1964), pp. 131–141 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. VII]. Luttrell, “The crusade in the fourteenth century” A. Luttrell, “The crusade in the fourteenth century”, in J.R. Hale et al. (eds.), Europe in the late middle ages, London (1965), pp. 122–154 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. XVI]. Luttrell, “Argos and Nauplia” A. Luttrell, “The Latins of Argos and Nauplia: 1311–1394”, PBSR, 34 (1966), pp. 34–55 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. VIII]. Luttrell, “Venezia e il principato di Acaia: secolo XIV” A. Luttrell, “Venezia e il principato di Acaia: secolo XIV”, SV, 10 (1968), pp. 407–414 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. X]. Luttrell, “La Corona de Aragón y la Grecia catalana: 1379–1394” A. Luttrell, “La Corona de Aragón y la Grecia catalana: 1379–1394”, Anuario de estudios medievales, 6 (1969) pp. 219–252 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. XI]. Luttrell, “Aldobrando Baroncelli in Greece: 1378–1382” A. Luttrell, “Aldobrando Baroncelli in Greece: 1378–1382”, OCP, 36 (1970), pp. 273–300 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. XII].

Bibliography

577

Luttrell, “Slavery at Rhodes: 1306–1440” A. Luttrell, “Slavery at Rhodes: 1306–1440”, Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome, 46–47 (1976–1977), pp. 81–100 [= A. Luttrell, Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, London (1982), no. VI]. Luttrell, “Guglielmo de Tocco” A. Luttrell, “Guglielmo de Tocco, captain of Corfu, 1330–1331”, BMGS, 3 (1977), pp. 45–56. Luttrell, “Appunti sulle compagnie navarresi in Grecia, 1376–1404” A. Luttrell, “Appunti sulle compagnie navarresi in Grecia, 1376–1404”, RSBS, 3 (1984), pp. 113–127 [= A. Luttrell, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World, Aldershot (1992), no. VIII]. Luttrell, “Life in the smaller Aegean islands” A. Luttrell, “The Latins and life in the smaller Aegean islands”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 146–157 [= MHR, 4 (1989)]. Luttrell, “El final de la dominació catalana d’Atenes: la Companya Navarresa i els Hospitalers” A. Luttrell, “El final de la dominació catalana d’Atenes: la Companya Navarresa i els Hospitalers”, L’Avenç, 213 (1997), pp. 30–34. Luttrell, “The Hospitallers and their Florentine bankers” A. Luttrell, “The Hospitallers and their Florentine bankers”, in P.X. Msida (ed.), Karissime Gotifride: historical essays presented to Godfrey Wettinger on his seventieth birthday, Malta (1999), pp. 17–24 [= A. Luttrell, Studies on the Hospitallers after 1306, Aldershot (2007), no. VI]. Luttrell, “Hospitaller Commandery of the Morea” A. Luttrell, “The Hospitaller Commandery of the Morea: 1366”, in C. Dendrinos et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot (2003), pp. 291–300. Luttrell, “Juan Fernández de Heredia’s History of Greece” A. Luttrell, “Juan Fernández de Heredia’s History of Greece”, BMGS, 34 (2010), pp. 30–37. Luzzatto, “L’oro e l’ argento” G. Luzzatto, “L’oro e l’argento nella politica monetaria veneziana dei secoli XIII e XIV”, RSI, 5, 2, 3 (1937), pp. 17–29. Luzzatto, “Navigazione di linea e navigazione libera” G. Luzzatto, “Navigazione di linea e navigazione libera”, in G. Luzzatto, Studi di storia economica veneziana, Padua (1954), pp. 53–57. Luzzatto, Debito pubblico della repubblica di Venezia G. Luzzatto, Il debito pubblico della repubblica di Venezia dagli ultimi decenni del XII secolo alla fine del XV, Milan – Varese (1963).

578

Bibliography

McDonald et al., Nichoria W.A. McDonald, W.D.E. Coulson, J. Rosser, Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece. Volume III. Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation, Minneapolis (1983). Machaira-Ontoni, “Giovanni Soranzo” E. Machaira-Ontoni, “Giovanni Soranzo: πρώτος (και τελευταίος) βενετσιάνος αυθέντης της Σίφνου”, in Πρακτικά Γ΄ διεθνούς σιφναϊκού συμποσίου, Athens (2009), pp. 247–260. MacIsaac, “Corinth” J.D. MacIsaac, “Corinth: Coins, 1925–1926. The Theater Districts and the Roman Villa”, Hesperia, 56 (1987), pp. 97–157. MacKay, “Medieval pottery” C. MacKay, “The medieval pottery”, in S. Campbell (ed.), The Cistercian Monastery of Zaraka, Greece, Kalamazoo (2018), pp. 113–137. McKee, “Households” S. McKee, “Households in fourteenth-century Venetian Crete”, Speculum, 70 (1995), pp. 27–67. McKee, Wills from Late Medieval Venetian Crete S. McKee (ed.), Wills from Late Medieval Venetian Crete 1312–1420, Washington D.C. (1998). McLeod, “Chalcis treasure” B. McLeod, “Some aspects of the finger-rings in the Chalcis treasure at the British Museum”, in C. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), Intelligible beauty. Recent research on Byzantine jewellery, London (2010), pp. 233–236. Magdalino, Thessaly P. Magdalino, The History of Thessaly, 1266–1393, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford (1975). Magdalino, “Between Romaniae” P. Magdalino, “Between Romaniae: Thessaly and Epiros in the Later Middle Ages”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 87–110 [= MHR, 4 (1989)]. Magdalino, Manuel I P. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180, Cambridge (1993). Maguire, “Magic and money” H. Maguire, “Magic and Money in the Early Middle Ages”, Speculum, 72, 4 (1997), pp. 1037–1054. Major, “Etrangers et minorités éthniques en Méssenie” A. Major, “Etrangers et minorités éthniques en Méssenie vénitienne (XIIIe–XVe)”, SV, 22 (1991), pp. 361–381. Major, “Le complexe militaire vénitien en Grèce: Méssenie et Eubée” A. Major, “Le complexe militaire vénitien en Grèce: Méssenie et Eubée (XIVe–XVe)”, Erytheia, 15 (1994), pp. 105–124.

Bibliography

579

Major, “L’administration vénitienne à Négrepont” A. Major, “L’administration vénitienne à Négrepont (fin XIVe–XVe siècle)”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Coloniser au moyen âge, Paris (1995), pp. 246–258 and 273–275. Maksimović, “Poreski sistem” Lj. Maksimović, “Poreski sistem u grčkim oblastima srpskog ceretva”, ZRVI, 17 (1976), pp. 101–125. Maksimović, “Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt” Lj. Maksimović, “Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt (13.-15. Jh.)”, JÖB, 31.1 (1981), pp. 149–188, with corresponding discussion in JÖB, 32.1 (1982), pp. 183–188. Maksimović, Byzantine provincial administration Lj. Maksimović, The Byzantine provincial administration under the Palaiologoi, Amsterdam (1988). Maksimović, “Despotenhof von Epiros” Lj. Maksimović, “Der Despotenhof von Epiros im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert”, in R. Lauer and H.G. Majer (eds.), Höfische Kultur in Südosteuropa, Göttingen (1994), pp. 86–105. Maksimović, “L’empire de Stefan Dušan” Lj. Maksimović, “L’empire de Stefan Dušan: Genèse et caractère”, TM, 14 (2002) [= Mélanges Gilbert Dagron], pp. 415–428. Maladakis, “Late Byzantine Chalkidiki” V. Maladakis, “Coinage and money in the ‘years of insecurity’: the case of late Byzantine Chalkidiki (thirteenth–fourteenth century)”, in N. Holmes (ed.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Conference Glasgow 2009, Glasgow (2011), pp. 517–1534. Malamut, Iles E. Malamut, Les îles de l’empire byzantin, Paris (1988). Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States A.G. Malloy, I.F. Preston, A.J. Seltman, Coins of the Crusader States, New York (1994). Maltezou, “Θεσσαλονίκη: ορμητήριο κουρσάρων” Ch. Maltezou, “Θεσσαλονίκη: ορμητήριο κουρσάρων στα τέλη του 13ου αιώνα”, in Βυζαντινή Μακεδονία 324–1430 μ.Χ., Thessalonike (1995), pp. 209–216. Maltezou, “Portrait of the notary in the Latin-ruled Greek regions” Ch. Maltezou, “Portrait of the notary in the Latin-ruled Greek regions of the fourteenth century”, in W. Seibt (ed.), Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit, Referate des Internazionalen Symposiums zu Ehren von Herbert Hunger (Wien 30. Nov. bis 3. Dez. 1994), Vienna (1996), pp. 121–131.

580

Bibliography

Maltezou, “Mer Égée à l’Archipel” Ch. Maltezou, “De la mer Égée à l’Archipel : quelques remarques sur l’histoire insulaire égéenne”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 2, Paris (1998), pp. 459–467. Maltezou, “Dove va la storia della venetocrazia in Grecia?” Ch. Maltezou, “Dove va la storia della venetocrazia in Grecia? Stato della ricerca e orientamento”, in Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi (eds.), I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), Venice (1999), pp. 21–38. Maltezou, “Greci tra Veneziani e Genovesi” Ch. Maltezou, “I Greci tra Veneziani e Genovesi”, in G. Ortalli and D. Puncuh (eds.), Genova, Venezia, il levante nei secoli XII–IV, Venice (2001), pp. 189–200. Maltezou, “Αναία” Ch. Maltezou, “Έλληνες και Ιταλοί έμποροι στην Αναία της Μικράς Ασίας (αρχές 14ου αι.)”, in C. Dendrinos et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot (2003), pp. 253–263. Maltezou, “Από τον πειρατή Σιφάντο” Ch. Maltezou, “Από τον πειρατή Σιφάντο στη νήσο Sifanto των δυτικών πηγών”, in Πρακτικά Γ΄ διυθνούς σιφναϊκού συμποσίου, Athens (2009), pp. 217–223. Mandic, Ananijev, Morrisson, “Čanakli” L. Mandic, J. Ananijev, C. Morrisson, “Un trésor d’hyperpères du XIIIe siècle trouvé à Čanakli près de Strumica (Macédoine orientale)”, RN, 6, 36, (1994), pp. 155–169. Maniati-Kokkini, “‘Χρονικό του Μορέος’ και η βυζαντινή πρόνοια” T. Maniati-Kokkini, “Το ‘Χρονικό του Μορέος’ και η βυζαντινή πρόνοια”, Byzantiaka, 14 (1994), pp. 483–508. Mano and Dautaj, “Teatri i Apollonisë” A. Mano and B. Dautaj, “Teatri i Apollonisë”, Iliria, 1 (1982), pp. 191–205. Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081–1453 V. Marchev and R. Wachter, Catalogue of the late Byzantine coins 1081–1453 volume I, Veliko Tarnovo (2011). Maridaki-Karatza, “Legal aspects of the financing of trade” O. Maridaki-Karatza, “Legal aspects of the financing of trade”, in EHB, pp. 1105–1120. Marinatos, “Ανασκαφαί Goekoop” S. Marinatos, “Αι ανασκαφαί Goekoop εν Κεφαλληνία”, AE (1932), pp. 1–47. Marki, “Σωστική ανασκαφή” E. Marki, “Σωστική ανασκαφή στο αγρομετάχιο 575 Πύδνας Μακρυγιάλου 1990”, AEMTh, 4 (1990), pp. 247–258. Markl, Ortsamen Griechenlands O. Markl, Ortsnamen Griechenlands in “fränkischer” Zeit, Graz – Cologne (1966).

Bibliography

581

Martin, “Fiscalité et économie étatique dans le royame angevin de Sicile” J.-M. Martin, “Fiscalité et économie étatique dans le royame angevin de Sicile à la fin du XIIIe siècle”, in L’état angevin. Pouvoir, culture et société entre XIIIe et XIVe siècle. Actes du colloque international organize par l’American Academy in Rome, L’École Française de Rome, l’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, l’UMR. Telemme et l’Université de Provence, l’Università degli studi di Napoli “Federico II” (Rome-Naples 1995), Rome (1998), pp. 601–648. Mass, English short cross coins J.P. Mass (ed.), Sylloge of coins of the British Isles, 56. The J.P. Mass collection. English short cross coins, 1180–1247, Oxford (2001), pp. 112–30. Mattingly, “Arta” H. Mattingly, “A Find of Thirteenth-century Coins at Arta in Epiros”, NC, 5, 3 (1923), pp. 31–46. Matschke, “Geldgeschäfte” K.-P. Matschke, “Geldgeschäfte, Handel und Gewerbe in spätbyzantinischen Rechenbüchern und in der spätbyzantinischen Wirklichkeit”, Jahrbuch für Geschichte des Feudalismus, 3 (1979), pp. 181–204. Matschke, Ankara K.-P. Matschke, Die Schlacht bei Ankara und das Schicksal von Byzanz, Weimar (1981). Matschke, “Griechische Kaufleute” K.-P. Matschke, “Griechische Kaufleute am Übergang von der byzantinischen Epoche zur Türkenzeit”, in R. Lauer and P. Schreiner (eds.), Die Kultur Griechenlands in Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Göttingen (1996), pp. 73–88. Matschke, “Münzstätten, Münzer und Münzprägung im späten Byzanz” K.-P. Matschke, “Münzstätten, Münzer und Münzprägung im späten Byzanz”, RN, 152 (1997), pp. 191–210. Matschke, “Mining” K-P. Matschke, “Mining”, in EHB, pp. 115–120. Matschke, “Late Byzantine urban economy” K-P. Matschke, “The late Byzantine urban economy, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 463–495. Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries” K-P. Matschke, “Commerce, trade, markets, and money, thirteenth–fifteenth centuries”, in EHB, pp. 771–806. Matschke, “Stadtgeschichte Thessalonikes” K.-P. Matschke, “Bemerkungen zur Stadtgeschichte Thessalonikes in spätbyzantinischer Zeit”, in L.M. Hoffmann (ed.), Zwischen Polis und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, Wiesbaden (2005), pp. 433–444.

582

Bibliography

Matschke, “Der Malvasier” K.-P. Matschke, “Der Malvasier. Byzanz und die lateinische Romania im spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Westen”, Hellenika. Jahrbuch für griechische Kultur und deutsch-griechische Beziehungen, 5 (2010), pp. 99–119. Matschke, “Warenversorgung” K.-P. Matschke, “Rechtliche und administrative Organisation der Warenversorgung im byzantinischen Raum: Die Strukturen des 13. bis 15. Jahrhunderts”, in E. Kislinger (et al.), Handelsgüter und Verkehrswege: Aspekte der Warenversorgung im östlichen Mittelmeeraum (4. Bis 5. Jahrhundert). Akten Des Internationalen Symposions Wien 2005, Vienna (2010), pp. 205–221. Matschke and Tinnefeld, Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz K.-P. Matschke and F. Tinnefeld, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz. Gruppen, Strukturen und Lebensformen, Cologne – Weimar – Vienna (2001). Matzke, “Vom Ottolinus zum Grossus” M. Matzke, “Vom Ottolinus zum Grossus: Münzprägung in der Toskana vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert”, SNR, 72 (1993), pp. 135–196. Matzke, “Denar von Lucca” M. Matzke, “Der Denar von Lucca als Kreuzfahrermünze”, SM, 43 (1993), pp. 36–44. Matzke, “Die sieben Kreuzfahrermünzen” M. Matzke, “Die sieben Kreuzfahrermünzen und das Papsttum”, SM, 44 (1994), pp. 13–19. Matzke, “Grosso-Prägung” M. Matzke, “Beginn und Frühzeit der Grosso-Prägung im Königreich Italien”, in B. Kluge and B. Weisser (eds.), Internationaler Numismatischer Kongreß Berlin 1997. Akten, 2, Berlin (2000), pp. 1045–1051. Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge H.-E. Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge, Stuttgart (2005). Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century” N.J. Mayhew, “Numismatic evidence and falling prices in the fourteenth century”, Economic History Review, 27 (1974), pp. 1–15. Mayhew, “Population, Money Supply, and the Velocity of Circulation” N.J. Mayhew, “Population, Money Supply, and the Velocity of Circulation in England, 1300–1700”, Economic History Review, 48.2 (1995), pp. 238–257. Mayhew, “Late medieval countryside” N.J. Mayhew, “Money in the late medieval countryside”, in P. Delogu and S. Sorda (eds.), La moneta in ambiente rurale nell’Italia tardomedioevale, Rome (2002), pp. 5–26. Mayhew, Gros tournois N.J. Mayhew (ed.), The gros tournois. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, London (1997).

Bibliography

583

Mayhew, “Money supply” N.J. Mayhew, “The quantity theory of money: 1. The money supply”, NC, 170 (2010), pp. 525–531. Mayhew, “Prices” N.J. Mayhew, “The quantity theory of money: 2. Prices”, NC, 171 (2011), pp. 519–524. Mayhew, “Velocity” N.J. Mayhew, “The quantity theory of money: 3. Velocity”, NC, 172 (2012), pp. 397–403. Mayhew, “Transactions” N.J. Mayhew, “The quantity theory of money: 4. Transactions”, NC, 173 (2013), pp. 567–572. Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία” Mazarakis, “Το νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία 1304–1329”, NomChron, 11 (1992), pp. 43–52. Mazarakis, “Το εύρημα της Σιδερούντας” Mazarakis, “Το εύρημα της Σιδερούντας”, NomChron, 12 (1993), pp. 27–36. Mazarakis, “Some thoughts on the Chios Mint” A. Mazarakis, “Some thoughts on the Chios Mint during the time of the Zaccaria Family rule 1304–1329”, in L. Balleto (ed.), Atti del Congresso Internazionale “dai feudi monferrini e dal Piemonte ai nuovi mondi oltre gli oceani”, Alessandria, 2–6 aprile 1990, Alessandria (1993), pp. 319–336. Mazarakis, “Chio” A. Mazarakis, “Chio: revisioni monetarie”, in L. Balletto (ed.), Oriente e Occidente tra Medioevo ed Età Moderna. Studi in onore di Geo Pistarino, Genoa (1997), pp. 813–901. Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο” A. Mazarakis, “Ένα Μαρτινέλλο των Εμμανουήλ και Παλαιολόγου Ζακκαρία (1307– 1310) της Συλλογής Ε. Zunino”, NomChron, 18 (1999), pp. 101–118. Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου A. Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου, Athens (2003). Mazarakis, “Coins of Rhodes” A. Mazarakis, “The coins of Rhodes 1310–1476”, in Το νόμισμα στa Nησιά του Αιγαίου, 2, Athens (2010), pp. 191–229. Mazarakis, Δουκάτο της Βενετίας και οι απομιμήσεις του A. Mazarakis, Το δουκάτο της Βενετίας και οι απομιμήσεις του στην Ανατολή 14ος–16ος αι., Αthens (2012). Mazarakis, “Salona” A. Mazarakis, “The tornesia of Salona”, NomChron, 33 (2015), pp. 111–117. Mazarakis, “Coins of the de Brienne and Enghien” A. Mazarakis, “Coins of the de Brienne and Enghien, successors to the de la Roche”, NomChron, 34 (2016), pp. 89–103.

584

Bibliography

Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις” Α. Mazarakis and Th. Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις για το Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου”, in Χίος και Εμπόριο. Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Χίου για την Ιστορία και τον Πολιτισμό του Νησίου, Athens (1990), pp. 59–62. Mee and Forbes, Methana peninsula C. Mee and H. Forbes, A rough and rocky place. The landscape and settlement history of the Methana peninsula, Greece, Liverpool (1997). Mercangöz, Kadıkalesi Z. Mercangöz (ed.), Byzantine craftsmen – Latin patrons. Reflections from the Anaian commercial production in the light of the excavations at Kadıkalesi nearby Kuşadası, Istanbul (2013). Merendino, “Manfredi fra Epiro e Nicea” E. Merendino, “Manfredi fra Epiro e Nicea”, in Actes du XVe Congrès International d’Etudes Byzantines. IV. Histoire, Athens (1980), pp. 245–252. Metcalf, “Deniers tournois” D.M. Metcalf, “The currency of deniers tournois in Frankish Greece”, ABSA, 55 (1960), pp. 38–59. Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus” D.M. Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus: Questions of Style and Detail in Byzantine Numismatics”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 3 (1960), pp. 203–214. Metcalf, “Byzantine scyphate bronze coinage” D.M. Metcalf, “Byzantine scyphate bronze coinage in Greece”, ABSA, 56 (1961), pp. 42–63. Metcalf, “Money of a medieval French traveller” D.M. Metcalf, “The money of a medieval French traveller in the Balkans”, NC, 7, 1 (1961), pp. 145–9. Metcalf, “Brauron” D.M. Metcalf, “The Brauron Hoard and the Petty Currency of Central Greece, 1143– 1204”, NC, 7, 4 (1964), pp. 251–259. Metcalf, “Areopagus” D.M. Metcalf, “Frankish petty currency from the Areopagus at Athens”, Hesperia, 34 (1965), pp. 203–223. Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans D.M. Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans, 820–1355, Thessalonike (1965), reprinted Chicago (1966). Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence, and Antioch” D.M. Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence, and Antioch”, HBN, 12–13 (1968–1969), pp. 443–470. Metcalf, “Ras Shamra” D.M. Metcalf, “The Short-Cross coins in the Ras Shamra hoard of 1966”, BNJ, 38 (1969), pp. 188–189.

Bibliography

585

Metcalf, “Pylia” D.M. Metcalf, “The Pylia Hoard: Deniers Tournois of Frankish Greece”, ANSMN, 17 (1971), pp. 173–227. Metcalf, “Echoes of the name of Lorenzo Tiepolo” D.M. Metcalf, “Echoes of the name of Lorenzo Tiepolo: imitations of Venetian grossi in the Balkans”, NC, 7, 12 (1972), pp. 183–191. Metcalf, “Peter and Paul” D.M. Metcalf, “The Peter and Paul hoard: Bulgarian and Latin imitative trachea in the time of Ivan Asen II”, NC, 7, 13 (1973), pp. 144–172. Metcalf, “Byzantinobulgarica” D.M. Metcalf, “Byzantinobulgarica: the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Problem of ‘Byzantine imitative’ trachea before and after 1204”, NCirc, 81, 11 (1973), pp. 418–421. Metcalf, “Berbati” D.M. Metcalf, “The Berbati hoard, 1953: deniers tournois and sterlings from the Frankish Morea”, NC, 7, 14 (1974), pp. 119–124. Metcalf, “Denari Primitivi” D.M. Metcalf, “Classification of the Denari Primitivi of Ancona in the light of a recent hoard”, NCirc, 82, 10 (1974), pp. 378–380. Metcalf, “Some hoards and stray finds from the Latin East” D.M. Metcalf, “Some hoards and stray finds from the Latin East”, ANSMN, 20 (1975), pp. 139–152. Metcalf, “Hoard of billon trachea from the Empire of Nicaea” D.M. Metcalf, “A hoard of billon trachea from the Empire of Nicaea, c. 1215/1220”, HBN, 30–32 (1976–78), pp. 55–70. Metcalf, “Tetarteron” D.M. Metcalf, “The Tetarteron in the Twelfth Century”, NCirc, 86, 12 (1978), pp. 574–575. Metcalf, SE Europe D.M. Metcalf, Coinage in South-Eastern Europe 820–1396, London (1979). Metcalf, “Agrinion Hoard” D.M. Metcalf, “The Agrinion hoard. Gold hyperpyra of John III Vatatzes”, NC, 7, 20 (1980), pp. 113–131. Metcalf, Ashmolean 1st edition D.M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East in the Ashmolean Museum, London (1983). Metcalf, “Monete del Regno di Sicilia” D.M. Metcalf, “Ritrovamenti di monete del Regno di Sicilia negli Stati Crociati d’Oriente”, BdN, 6–7 (1986), pp. 81–84.

586

Bibliography

Metcalf, “Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East: some new hoards and site finds” D.M. Metcalf, “Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East: some new hoards and site finds”, NC, 147 (1987), pp. 84–105. Metcalf, “Amorgos and Thira hoards” D.M. Metcalf, “The value of the Amorgos and Thira hoards as a test case for the interpretation of sub-Byzantine trachea in the years around 1204”, NomChron, 8 (1989), pp. 49–59. Metcalf, “Circulation of tornesia” D.M. Metcalf, “A comment on the circulation of tornesia of Charles of Anjou, and their chronology”, NomChron, 11 (1992), pp. 27–32. Metcalf, “A New Catalogue” D.M. Metcalf, “A New Catalogue of Crusader Coins: Problem and Strategies”, in Actes du XIe Congrès International de Numismatique, Bruxelles 1991, 3, Brussels (1993), pp. 141–145. Metcalf, Ashmolean D.M. Metcalf, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East in the Ashmolean Museum Oxford, 2nd edition, thoroughly revised and enlarged, London (1995). Metcalf, “Three hoards” D.M. Metcalf, “Three hoards of deniers tournois from Frankish Greece”, QT, 24 (1995), pp. 351–362. Metcalf, “Coins of the Latin princes of Antioch” D.M. Metcalf, “Coins of the Latin princes of Antioch, 1098–1130, found at Corinth and Athens”, NomChron, 14 (1995), pp. 77–78. Metcalf, “Faithful Copies” D.M. Metcalf, “Faithful Copies and a Hoard containing Neatly-Clipped Trachea”, in Χαρακτήρ. Αφιέρωμα στη Μαντώ Οικονομίδου, Athens (1996), pp. 177–183. Metcalf, review of DOC IV D.M. Metcalf, review of DOC IV, NC, 160 (2000), pp. 396–401. Metcalf, “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki” D.M. Metcalf, “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki”, in Tο νόμισμα στο Μακεδονικό χώρο, Thessalonike (2000), pp. 171–182. Metcalf, “Paphos” D.M. Metcalf, “Byzantine, Islamic and Crusader Coins from Saranda Kolones, Paphos”, NC, 163 (2003), pp. 205–226. Metcalf, “The Palaeologan coinage in the east Mediterranean world” D.M. Metcalf, “The Palaeologan coinage in the east Mediterranean world”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 15–23. Metcalf, “Monetary history of Antioch” D.M. Metcalf, “Six unresolved problems in the monetary history of Antioch, 969–1268”, in K. Ciggaar and D.M. Metcalf (eds.), East and west in the medieval

Bibliography

587

eastern Mediterranean I. Antioch from the Byzantine reconquest until the end of the principality, Leuven (2006), pp. 283–318. Metcalf, SE Europe Greek edition D.M. Metcalf, Coinage in South-Eastern Europe 820–1396. Greek edition with a new introductory essay and a supplementary bibliography, Athens (2016). Metcalf and Holland, “Crusader Coins from Caesarea Maritima (Part 2)” D.M. Metcalf and L. Holland, “Crusader Coins from Caesarea Maritima (Part 2)”, INJ, 13 (1994–1999), pp. 156–162. Metcalf, Kool, Berman, “‘Atlit” D.M. Metcalf, R. Kool, A. Berman, “Coins from the Excavations at ‘Atlit (Pilgrims’ Castle and its Faubourg)”, ‘Atiqot, 37 (1999), pp. 89–164. Mihajlovski, “Pelagonia” R. Mihajlovski, “The Battle of Pelagonia, 1259: a new look at the march routes and topography”, BSl, 64 (2006), pp. 275–284. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, Vienna (1860–1890). Miles, The Islamic Coins G.C. Miles, The Islamic Coins, Princeton (1962) (= The Athenian Agora, 9). Miles, “Circulation of Islamic coinage” G.C. Miles, “The circulation of Islamic coinage of the 8th–12th centuries in Greece”, in Congresso internazionale di Numismatica, Roma 11–16 settembre 1961, vol. II. Atti, Rome (1965), pp. 485–498. Miles, “Ag. Petros” G.C. Miles, “Coins from the excavation at Ag. Petros, Heraklion, Crete”, ANSMN, 17 (1971), pp. 163–172. Miller, “Zaccaria” W. Miller, “The Zaccaria of Phocaea and Chios. (1275–1329)”, JHS, 31 (1911), pp. 42–55. Miller, “Gattilusj of Lesbos” W. Miller, “The Gattilusj of Lesbos (1355–1462)”, BZ, 22 (1913), pp. 406–447. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1973–74” S. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1973–74”, Hesperia, 44 (1975), pp. 143–172. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1984–86” S. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1984–86”, Hesperia, 57 (1988), pp. 1–20. Milne, “J.T. Wood’s Coins from Ephesos” J.G. Milne, “J.T. Wood’s Coins from Epesos”, NC, 5, 5 (1925), pp. 385–391. Mirnik, Coin Hoards I.A. Mirnik, Coin Hoards in Yugoslavia, London (1981). Miskimin, Money, prices and foreign exchange H. Miskimin, Money, prices and foreign exchange in fourteenth-century France, New Haven (1963).

588

Bibliography

Miskimin, Economy of early Renaissance Europe H. Miskimin, The economy of early Renaissance Europe 1300–1460, Englewood Cliffs (1969). Mitsos, “Λιγουριό” Μ. Mitsos, “Το μεσαιωνικόν Λιγουριό”, in Praktika A’ Syndedriou Argolikon Spoudon, Athens (1979), pp. 37–41. Moesgard, “Monnaies à la campagne” C. Moesgard, “Monnaies à la campagne au moyen âge. Remarques de méthode”, in J. Lefort et al., Les villages dans l’empire byzantin IVe–XVe siècle, Paris (2005), 135–148. Modern Coin Hoards P. Kokkas and Y. Nikolaou, Modern Coin Hoards in the Numismatic Museum, Athens (2005). Monti, “La zecca di Napoli sotto Giovanna Ia d’Angiò” G.M. Monti, “La zecca di Napoli sotto Giovanna Ia d’Angiò”, Bolletino del Circolo Numismatico Napoletano (1925), pp. 33–56. Morfakidis, “La presencia catalana en Grecia” M. Morfakidis, “La presencia catalana en Grecia: relaciones entre Griegos y Catalanes segun las fuentes”, Erytheia, 8.2 (1987), pp. 217–231. Morgan, “Venetian Claims Commission” G. Morgan, “The Venetian Claims Commission of 1278”, BZ, 69 (1976), pp. 412–438. Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo, Documenti del commercio venziano nei secoli XI–XIII, vol. 2, Turin (1940). Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti R. Morozzo della Rocca and A. Lombardo, Nuovi documenti del commercio venziano dei secoli XI–XIII, Venice (1953). Morrisson, “Michaèlaton” C. Morrisson, “Le michaèlaton et les noms de monnaies à la fin du XIe siècle”, TM, 3 (1968), pp. 369–374. Morrisson, Catalogue C. Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines de la Bibliothèque Nationale, 2, Paris (1970). Morrisson, review of DOS XII C. Morrisson, review of DOS XII, in NC, 7.11 (1971), pp. 356–366. Morrisson, “Monnaies de l’époque des Paléologues provenant de Prilep” C. Morrisson, “Monnaies de l’époque des Paléologues provenant de Prilep (Macédoine)”, BSFN, July (1973), pp. 437–441. Morrisson, “Dévaluation de la monnaie byzantine” C. Morrisson, “La dévaluation de la monnaie byzantine au XIe siècle”, TM, 6 (1976), pp. 3–47 (= C. Morrisson, Monnaie et finances à Byzance: analyses, techniques, Aldershot (1994), no. IX).

Bibliography

589

Morrisson, “La logarikè” C. Morrisson, “La logarikè: réforme monétaire et réforme fiscale sous Alexis Ier Comnène”, TM, 7 (1979), pp. 419–464 (= C. Morrisson, Monnaie et finances à Byzance: analyses, techniques, Aldershot (1994), no. VI). Morrisson, “La monnaie fiduciaire à Byzance” C. Morrisson, “La monnaie fiduciaire à Byzance ou ‘vraie monnaie’, ‘monnaie fiduciaire’ et fausse monnaie’ à Byzance”, BSFN, 34 (1979), pp. 612–616. Morrisson, “Alterazioni e svalutazioni” C. Morrisson, “Alterazioni e svalutazioni (in French)”, in La Cultura bizantina oggetti e messaggio. Moneta ed economia, Rome (1986), pp. 63–150. Morrisson, “L’économie monétaire byzantine” C. Morrisson, “‘L’économie monétaire byzantine’ : à propos d’un ouvrage récent”, RN, 6, 29 (1987), pp. 245–256 (= review of Hendy, Studies). Morrisson, “Monnaie et finances” C. Morrisson, “Monnaie et finances dans l’empire byzantin Xe–XIVe siècle”, in V. Kravari, J. Lefort, C. Morrisson (eds.), Hommes et richesses de l’empire byzantin, 2, Paris (1991), pp. 291–315. Morrisson, “L’empereur ailé” C. Morrisson, “L’empereur ailé dans la numismatique byzantine : un empereur ange”, Studii şi Cercetâri de Numismaticâ, 11 (1995), pp. 191–195. Morrisson, “La diffusion de la monnaie de Constantinople” C. Morrisson, “La diffusion de la monnaie de Constantinople: routes commerciales ou routes politiques?”, in C. Mango and G. Dagron (eds.), Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, Aldershot (1995), pp. 77–89. Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies” C. Morrisson, “Les noms des monnaies sous les Paléologues”, in W. Seibt (ed.), Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit, Referate des Internazionalen Symposiums zu Ehren von Herbert Hunger (Wien 30. Nov. bis 3. Dez. 1994), Vienna (1996), pp. 151–162. Morrisson, “Manier l’argent” C. Morrisson, “Manier l’argent à Constantinople au Xe siècle”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 2, Paris (1998), pp. 557–565. Morrisson, “Moneta, Kharagè, Zecca” C. Morrisson, “Moneta, Kharagè, Zecca: les ateliers byzantins et le palais impérial”, in L. Travaini (ed.), I luoghi della moneta, Milan (2001), pp. 49–58. Morrisson, “Badoer” C. Morrisson, “Coin and Exchange Rates in Badoer’s ‘Libro dei Conti’”, DOP, 55 (2001), pp. 217–245. Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika” C. Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, DOP, 56 (2002), pp. 263–275. Morrisson, “Byzantine Money” C. Morrisson, “Byzantine Money: Its Production and Circulation”, in EHB, pp. 909–966.

590

Bibliography

Morrisson, “Thessalonike” C. Morrisson, “The Emperor, the Saint and the City: Coinage and Money in Thessalonike from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Century”, DOP, 57 (2003), pp. 173–203. Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204” C. Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204: un aspect positif de la IVe croisade?”, A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences/La IVe Croisade et ses consequences, Paris (2005), pp. 215–232. Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique” Morrisson, “Les traités d’arithmétique byzantins des XIIIe–XVe siècles, source d’histoire monétaire”, RN, 167 (2011), pp. 171–183. Morrisson L’or monnayé C. Morrisson et al., L’or monnayé I. Purification et alterations de Rome à Byzance, Paris (1985). Morrisson, Barrandon, Bendall, “Proton activation” C. Morrisson, J.-N. Barrandon, S. Bendall, “Proton activation and XRF analysis: an application to the study of the alloy of Nicaean and Palaeologan coins”, in W.A. Oddy (ed.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, 2, London (1988), pp. 23–39. Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire” C. Morrisson and S. Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire byzantin à Dumbarton Oaks : un catalogue de référence”, RN, 157 (2001), pp. 471–493 (= review of DOC V). Morrisson and Cheynet, “Prices and wages” C. Morrisson and J.-C. Cheynet, “Prices and wages in the Byzantine world”, in EHB, pp. 815–878. Morrisson and Ganchou, “Lingots de Thessalonique” C. Morrisson and T. Ganchou, “‘Lingots de Thessalonique’, stavrati de conto et sommi de Trébizonde”, RN, 165 (2009), pp. 163–185. Morrisson and Ivanišević, “Macédoine” C. Morrisson and V. Ivanišević, “Trouvaille de monnaies de cuivre byzantines des XIIe–XIIIe siècles provenant de Macédoine”, Bulletin des Musées et Monuments lyonnais, 2 (1992), pp. 32–40. Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “Eclatement du monnayage” C. Morrisson and P. Papadopoulou, “L’éclatement du monnayage dans le monde byzantin après 1204 : apparence ou réalité ?”, Revue française d’héraldique et de sigillographie, 73–75 (2003–2005), pp. 135–143. Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “CNG hoard” C. Morrisson and P. Papadopoulou, “Matériaux pour servir à la numismatique byzantine tardive: le ‘CNG hoard’”, RN, 173 (2016), pp. 373–395. Moschonas, “Tocco” N. Moschonas, “Η επιδρομή του Καρόλου Α΄ Tocco στην Αργολίδα το 1395”, Diptycha, 3 (1982–1983), pp. 242–248.

Bibliography

591

Moschonas, “Νομίσματα” Ν. Moschonas, “Νομίσματα με νόμιμη κυκλοφορία στο Ιόνιο κατά την περίοδο της βενετικής κυριαρχίας”, in N. Moschonas (ed.), Το Ιόνιο, Οικολογία-Οικονομία-Ρεύματα ιδεών, (Ζάκυνθος 24–27 Οκτωβρίου 1985), Athens (1990), pp. 197–235. Moschonas, “Η αγορά των δούλων” N. Moschonas, “Η αγορά των δούλων”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 249–272. Moschonas, “Sklavenmarkt” N. Moschonas, “Der Sklavenmarkt im östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der Palaiologenzeit”, Südostforschungen, 65/66 (2006/2007), pp. 28–49. Moschonas, “Εύριπος” N. Moschonas, “Εύριπος, κέντρο βενετικού εμπορίου”, in Ch. Maltezou and Ch. Papakosta, Βενετία-Εύβοια, από τον Εύριπο στο Νεγροπόντε, Athens – Venice (2006), pp. 157–171. Moschonas, “Presenza veneziana nell’Egeo” N. Moschonas, “La presenza veneziana nell’Egeo/Η βενετική παρουσία στο Αιγαίο”, in N. Moschonas and A. Panopoulou (eds.), Il Ducato dell’Egeo/Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου, Athens (2009), pp. 35–54. Moschonas and Panopoulou Ducato dell’Egeo N. Moschonas and A. Panopoulou (eds.), Il Ducato dell’Egeo/Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου, Athens (2009). Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards S. McA. Mosser, A bibliography of Byzantine coin hoards, New York (1935) (= ANSNNM, 67). Mousouras, “Η μονή Στροφάδων” D. Mousouras, “Η μονή Στροφάδων (1200–1500). Ενα παράδειγμα αμυντικού μοναχισμού”, in V. Konti (ed.), Ο μοναχισμός στην Πελοπόννησο 4ος–15ος αι., Athens (2004), pp. 215–241. Moutsopoulos and Dimitrokallis, Γεράκι N. Moutsopoulos and G. Dimitrokallis, Γεράκι. Οι εκκλησίες του οικισμού, Thessalonike (1981). Μοutzali, “Αγία Ειρήνη Ριγανοκάμπου Πατρών” Α. Μοutzali, “Αγία Ειρήνη Ριγανοκάμπου Πατρών”, in V. Konti (ed.), Ο μοναχισμός στην Πελοπόννησο 4ος–15ος αι., Athens 2004, pp. 131–145. Muçaj, “Qyteza mesjetare e Mashkiezës” S. Muçaj, “Qyteza mesjetare e Mashkiezës. Gërmime të vitit 1983”, Iliria, 1 (1984), pp. 251–263. Muçaj, Lako, Hobdari, Vitaliotis, “Rezultatet e gërmimeve në bazilikën e Shën Janit, Delvinë” S. Muçaj, K. Lako, E. Hobdari, Y. Vitaliotis, “Rezultatet e gërmimeve në bazilikën e Shën Janit, Delvinë (2001–2003)”, Candavia, 1 (2004), pp. 93–123.

592

Bibliography

Muçaj and Hobdari, “Manastiri i Shën Mërisë, Ballsh (Glavinicë)” S. Muçaj and E. Hobdari, “Manastiri i Shën Mërisë, Ballsh (Glavinicë). Gërmime të vitit 2003”, Candavia, 1 (2004), pp. 189–210. Muçaj, Hobdari, Vitaliotis, “Kisha Mesjetare e Peshkëpisë (Nivicë)” S. Muçaj, E. Hobdari, Y. Vitaliotis, “Kisha Mesjetare e Peshkëpisë (Nivicë), Sarandë”, Candavia, 2 (2005), pp. 273–309. Muçaj, Poçi, et al., “Shën Kollit, Mesopotam” S. Muçaj, E. Poçi, et al., “Manastiri i Shën Kollit, Mesopotam (Sondazhe 2004)”, Candavia, 2 (2005), pp. 361–380. Mueller, “Bank money” R.C. Mueller, “The role of bank money in Venice, 1300–1500”, SV, n.s. 3 (1979), pp. 47–96. Mueller, “‘Chome l’ucciello di passegio’” R. Mueller, “‘Chome l’ucciello di passegio’ : la demande saisonnière des espèces et le marché des changes à Venise au Moyen Age”, in J. Day (ed.), Etudes d’histoire monétaire, XIIe–XIXe siècles, Lille (1984), pp. 195–219. Mueller, The Venetian money market R. Mueller, The Venetian money market: banks, panics, and the public debt, 1200–1500, Baltimore (1997). Mueller, “Greeks in Venice and ‘Venetians’ in Greece” R.C. Mueller, “Greeks in Venice and ‘Venetians’ in Greece”, in Ch. Maltezou (ed.), Πλούσιοι και Φτωχοί στην κοινωνία της Ελληνολατινικής Ανατολής, Venice (1998), pp. 167–180. Muntaner K. Lanz (ed.), Chronik des edlen En Ramon Muntaner, Stuttgart (1844). Mystras Byzantine hours. Works and days in Byzantium. The city of Mystras, Athens (2001). Nakas and Krapf, “Amarynthos” Y. Nakas and T. Krapf, “Medieval Ship Graffiti from Amarynthos, Euboea, Greece”, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, (2017) 46, pp. 433–437. Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata A. Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, vols. 1 and 2, Athens (1999 and 2007). Nanetti, “Case di ordini mendicanti nella Messenia veneziana” A. Nanetti, “Case di ordini mendicanti nella Messenia veneziana: testimonianze documentarie fino al 1500”, Bizantinistica, 3 (2001), pp. 343–355. Nanetti, “Il Peloponneso tra 1414 e 1433” A. Nanetti, “Il Peloponneso tra 1414 e 1433 nella ‘Cronicha de Veniexia’ (1094–1433) di Antonio di Marco Morosini”, Peloponnesiaka, 26 (2001–2002), pp. 317–330.

Bibliography

593

Nanetti, “Houses of the mendicant orders in Venetian Messenia” A. Nanetti, “Houses of the mendicant orders in Venetian Messenia: The documentary evidence until 1500”, in V. Konti (ed.), Ο μοναχισμός στην Πελοπόννησο 4ος–15ος αι., Athens 2004, pp. 335–347. Nanetti, “Korone e Methone” A. Nanetti, “Modalità e tempi dell’inizio del dominio diretto dei Venetici sul Peloponneso (1204–1209) e la scelta di governare direttamente solo Korone e Methone”, Symmeikta, 17 (2005–2007), pp. 255–278. Nanetti, “Venetian notaries in the Peloponnese” A. Nanetti, “Venetian notaries in the Peloponnese: 14th–15th century”, in Ch. Kalligas and A. Malliaris (eds.), Πελοπόννησος. Πόλεις και επικοινωνίες στη Μεσόγειο και τη Μαύρη Θάλασσα, Athens (2006), pp. 207–214. Nanetti, Patto con Geoffroy de Villehardouin A. Nanetti, Il patto con Geoffroy de Villehardouin per il Peloponneso 1209, Rome (2009). Nassa, Catalogo del Museo Alifano M. Nassa, Catalogo del Museo Alifano – Parte II. Le Monete, Piedimonte Matese (1995). Nassa, “Medio Volturno” M. Nassa, “Ritrovamenti monetari del Medio Volturno e delle zone campane limitrofe nel quadro dei più noti ripostigli scoperti in area Sannitica”, Annuario. Associazione Storica del Medio Volturno (1999), pp. 209–250. Năsturel, “Valaques balcaniques” P.S. Năsturel, “Les Valaques balcaniques aux Xe–XIIIe siècles”, BF, 7 (1979), pp. 89–112. Năsturel, “Présences valaques” P.S. Năsturel, “Présences valaques (aroumaines) à Coron et en Morée”, Etudes Byzantines et Post-Byzantines, 4 (2001), pp. 199–205. Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins N. Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: politics and society in the late empire, Cambridge (2009). Nicol, Epiros I D.M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, Oxford (1957). Nicol, Last centuries of Byzantium D.M. Nicol, The last centuries of Byzantium 1261–1453, Cambridge (1972). Nicol, “Charles of Anjou with Nikephoros of Epiros” D.M. Nicol, “The relations of Charles of Anjou with Nikephoros of Epiros”, BF, 4 (1972), pp. 170–94. Nicol, “The date of the death of Nikephoros I of Epiros” D.M. Nicol, “The date of the death of Nikephoros I of Epiros”, RSBS, 1 (1981) [= Miscellanea Agostino Pertusi, 1], pp. 251–257.

594

Bibliography

Nicol, Epiros II D.M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros 1267–1479, Cambridge (1984). Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία” G. Nikolaou, “Νομισματική κυκλοφορία στη Βυζαντινή Θεσσαλία (6ος–14ος αι.)”, in Το νόμισμα στο Θεσσαλικό χώρο, Athens (2004), pp. 571–588. Nikolaou and Papaefthymiou, “Bank of Albania” Y. Nikolaou and E. Papaefthymiou, “The coin collection from the 3rd–16th cent. AD of the Museum of the Bank of Albania”, NomChron, 33 (2015), pp. 123–144. Nitti and Papageorgiou, “Φραγκικά τορνέσια των Σαλώνων” Ι. Nitti and D. Papageorgiou, “Φραγκικά τορνέσια των Σαλώνων”, Phokika Chronika, 3 (1991), pp. 49–50. North, English Hammered Coinage J.J. North, English Hammered Coinage. Volume 1. Early Anglo-Saxon c.600–1272, third edition, London (1994). Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Έγγραφα Πάτμου Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Βυζαντινά έγγραφα της μονής Πάτμου. Β. Δημοσιών Λειτουργών, Athens (1980). Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Circulation monétaire” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Quelques aspects de la circulation monétaire dans la zone de l’embouchure du Danube au XIIe Siècle”, Dacia, 23 (1979), pp. 265–273. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Făgăraş” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Din nou despre tezaurul de monede bizantine din secolele XII–XIII descoperit la Făgăraş (jud. Braşov)”, Studii şi Comunicări-Muzeul Brukenthal, 21 (1979) 287–289. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Două tezaure de monede byzantine” E. Oberländer-Târvnoveanu, “Două tezaure de monede byzantine din secolul al XIIlea descoperite în Nordul Dobrogei”, BSNR, 70–74 (1976–1980), pp. 263–295. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Câteva observaţii” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Câteva observaţii asupra structurii şi datării unor tezaure de monede bizantine din colecţia Muzeului Naţional de Istorie a României”, Cercetări Numismatice, 6 (1991), pp. 85–103. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Byzantine coin hoards” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Numismatic and historical remarks on the Byzantine coin hoards from the 12th century at the lower Danube”, RESEE, 30.1–2 (1992), pp. 41–60. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Les hyperpères de type Jean III Vatatzès – Classification, chronologie et évolution du titre (à la lumière du trésor d’Uzun Baïr, dép. de Tulcea)”, in Istro-Pontica. Muzeul Tulcean la a 50-a aniversare (Tulcea, 2000), pp. 499–561.

Bibliography

595

Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Espace rural” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “La monnaie dans l’espace rural byzantin des Balkans orientaux – un essai dy synthèse au commencement du XXIe siècle”, Peuce, 14 (2003), pp. 342–412. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Francesco Ier Gattilusio” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “‘Immo verius sub ducati Venetiarum communis proprio stigmate’. La question des émissions d’or de Francesco Ier Gattilusio, seigneur de Metelino (1355–1384)”, RN, 160 (2004), pp. 223–40. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Pera” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Notes on the Genoese coinage at Pera during the first half of the 15th century”, Etudes Byzantines et Post-Byzantines, 5 (2006), pp. 377–385. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Imitative gold coinage” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “The imitative gold coinage of Byzantine type from the late 12th and early 13th century”, in Κερμάτια φιλίας. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιωάννη Τουράτσογλου, 1, Athens (2009), pp. 491–505. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Rodi/Rodos” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Rodi/Rodos”, in L. Travaini (ed.), Guida per la storia delle zecche italiane medievali e moderne ( fino all’Unità), Rome (2011), pp. 1423–1432. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate pe teritoriile de la Sud şi Est de Carpaţi (secolele VI–XIV ), forthcoming. Oberländer-Târnoveanu and Constantinescu, “Buzău” E. Oberländer-Târnoveanu and E.-M. Constantinescu, “Monede romane târzii şi bizantine din colecţia Muzeului judeţean Buzău”, Mousaios 4.1 (1994) 311–341. Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires N. Oikonomides, Hommes d’affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe–XVe siècles), Montreal (1979). Oikonomides, “La décomposition de l’Empire byzantin de 1204” N. Oikonomides, “La décomposition de l’Empire byzantin de 1204 et les origines de l’Empire de Nicée: à propos de la ‘Partitio Romanie’”, in XV e Congrès international d’études byzantines Athènes 1976, Rapports et Co-rapports, I, Histoire, Athens (1980), pp. 3–28. Oikonomides, “Armées des premiers Paléologues” N. Oikonomides, “A propos des armées des premiers Paléologues et des compagnies de soldats”, TM, 8 (1981), pp. 353–371 [= N. Oikonomides, Society, Culture and Politics in Byzantium, Aldershot (2005), no. XVI]. Oikonomides, “Ottoman influence” N. Oikonomides, “Ottoman influence on late Byzantine fiscal practice”, Südostforschungen, 45 (1986), pp. 1–24.

596

Bibliography

Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West” N. Oikonomides, “Byzantium between East and West (XIII–XV cent.)”, in J.D. Howard-Johnston (ed.), Byzantium and the West c.850–c.1200. Proceedings of the XVIII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Amsterdam (1988), pp. 319–332 [= N. Oikonomides, Society, Culture and Politics in Byzantium, Aldershot (2005), no. XVII]. Oikonomides, “Byzantine diplomacy” N. Oikonomides, “Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 1204–1453: means and ends”, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Publications of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Aldershot (1992), pp. 73–88 [= N. Oikonomides, Society, Culture and Politics in Byzantium, Aldershot (2005), no. XXIII]. Oikonomides, “Σε ποιο βαθμό ήταν εκχρηματισμένη η μεσοβυζαντινή οικονομία;” N. Oikonomides, “Σε ποιο βαθμό ήταν εκχρηματισμένη η μεσοβυζαντινή οικονομία;”, in Ροδωνιά. Τιμή στον Μ.Ι. Μανούσακα, Rethymno (1994), pp. 363–370 [= N. Oikonomides, Social and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (2004), no. XIV]. Oikonomides, “Rinascita” N. Oikonomides, “La rinascita dell istituzioni bizantine dopo il 1204”, in Federico II e il mondo mediterraneo, Palermo (1995), pp. 320–332 [= N. Oikonomides, Society, Culture and Politics in Byzantium, Aldershot (2005), no. XV]. Oikonomides, “Emperor of the Romans – Emperor of Romania” N. Oikonomides, “Emperor of the Romans – Emperor of Romania”, in E. Papadopoulou and D. Dialeti (eds.), Βυζάντιο και Σερβία κατά τον ΙΔ΄ αιώνα, Athens (1996), pp. 121–128. Oikonomides, “Medieval via Egnatia” N. Oikonomides, “The medieval via Egnatia”, in E. Zachariadou (ed.), The via Egnatia under Ottoman rule (1380–1699), Rethymnon (1996), pp. 9–16 [= N. Oikonomides, Social and Economic Life in Byzantium, Aldershot (2004), no. XXIII]. Oikonomides, “Villes ‘séparées’ sous les Paléologues” N. Oikonomides, “Pour une typologie des villes ‘séparées’ sous les Paléologues”, in W. Seibt (ed.), Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit, Referate des Internazionalen Symposiums zu Ehren von Herbert Hunger (Wien 30. Nov. bis 3. Dez. 1994), Vienna (1996), pp. 169–175. [= N. Oikonomides, Society, Culture and Politics in Byzantium, Aldershot (2005), no. XXI]. Oikonomides, “Andronic II Paléologue et la ville de Kroia” N. Oikonomides, “Andronic II Paléologue et la ville de Kroia”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), pp. 241–247 [= N. Oikonomides, Society, Culture and Politics in Byzantium, Aldershot (2005), no. XXII]. Oikonomides, “Role of the Byzantine state in the economy” N. Oikonomides, “The role of the Byzantine state in the economy”, in EHB, pp. 973–1058.

Bibliography

597

Oikonomidou, “Θεσσαλία” M. Oikonomidou, “Νομίσματα εξ ανασκαφής εν Θεσσαλία”, Thessalika, 4 (1962), pp. 3–15. Oikonomidou, “Μουσείου του Βόλου” M. Oikonomidou, “Νομίσματα εκ του Μουσείου του Βόλου”, Thessalika, 5 (1966), pp. 5–20. Oikonomidou, “Saint-Achilée” M. Oikonomidou, “Contribution à l’étude de la numismatique byzantine du XIIIe siècle. Monnaies trouvées dans les fouilles de la basilique de Saint-Achilée”, RN, 6, 9 (1967), pp. 252–264. Oikonomidou, “Michel II d’Epire” M. Oikonomidou, “Contribution à l’étude du monnayage de Michel II d’Epire”, Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Etudes Byzantines (Bucarest 6–12 septembre 1971), 3, Bucharest (1976), pp. 187–190. Oikonomidou, “La circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle” M. Oikonomidou, “Contribution à l’étude de la circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle”, in Actes du XVe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Athènes-1976. II.A. Art et Archéologie, Athens (1981), pp. 121–128. Oikonomidou, “Τρείς θησαυροί” M. Oikonomidou, “Τρείς θησαυροί του 13ου αιώνα του Νομισματικού Μουσείου Αθηνών”, Byzantina, 13 (1985) (= Δώρημα στον Ι. Καραγιαννόπουλο), pp. 981–1002. Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας” Μ. Oikonomidou, Ι. Touratsoglou, I. Tsourti, “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας των βυζαντινών νομισμάτων στην Ήπειρο (1204–1332)”, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαίου 1990), Arta (1992), pp. 102–123. Oikonomidou, “Ανασκόπηση της νομισματοκοπίας του ‘Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου’” Μ. Oikonomidou, “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας των βυζαντινών νομισμάτων στην Ήπειρο (1204–1332)”, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαίου 1990), Arta (1992), pp. 95–99. Olbrich, “Boiotien” K. Olbrich, “Der ‘Herr’ von T – Griechische Wiedererneuerung im Boiotien des 15. Jahrhunderts?”, JNG, 61 (2011), pp. 159–168. Ölçer, “Chiesa di S. Giovanni” C. Ölçer, “Selçuk (Efeso). Il tesoro venuto alla luce durante gli scavi della Chiesa di S. Giovanni”, BdN, 6–7 (1986), pp. 299–304. Opsahl, Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights in the Morea E.P. Opsahl, The Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights in the Morea after the Fourth Crusade, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1994).

598

Bibliography

Origone, “Travels between the Peloponnese and the Black Sea” S. Origone, “Testimonies of travels between the Peloponnese and the Black Sea”, in Ch. Kalligas and A. Malliaris (eds.), Πελοπόννησος. Πόλεις και επικοινωνίες στη Μεσόγειο και τη Μαύρη Θάλασσα, Athens (2006), pp. 321–332. Ortega, Lignages nobiliaires dans la Morée latine I. Ortega, Les lignages nobiliaires dans la Morée latine (XIIIe–XVe siècles), Turnhout (2012). Ortega, “La mainmise financière des Angevins sur leur périphérie” I. Ortega, “La mainmise financière des Angevins sur leur périphérie. L’exemple de la principauté de Morée aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles”, in S. Morelli, Périphéries financières angevines. Institutions et pratiques de l’administration de territoires composites (XIIIe–XVe siècle), Rome (2018), no pagination, viewed online at https://books .openedition.org/efr/3535. Ostrogorsky, Féodalité byzantine G. Ostrogorsky, Pour l’histoire de la féodalité byzantine, Brussels (1954). Ostrogorsky, “Das Chrysobull des Despoten Johannes Orsini für das Kloster von Lykousada” G. Ostrogorsky, “Das Chrysobull des Despoten Johannes Orsini für das Kloster von Lykousada”, ZRVI, 11 (1968), pp. 205–213. Overbeek, “Small Finds” M. Overbeek, “The Small Finds”, in W. Cavanagh et al. (eds.), The Laconia Survey II, London (1996), pp. 183–198. Pachymeres A. Failler and V. Laurent (eds and transl.), G. Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, Paris (1984, 1999, 2000) (= CFHB, 24/1–5). Page, Being Byzantine G. Page, Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans, Cambridge (2008). Païsidou, “Άγιο Αχίλλειο” M. Païsidou, “Νομίσματα από τον Άγιο Αχίλλειο Μικρής Πρέσπας κατά της ανασκαφικής περιόδου 1996–1999”, in Το νόμισμα στο Μακεδονικό χώρο, Thessalonike (2000), pp. 351–354. Pallas, “Ο Άγιος Ονούφριος Μεθώνης” D. Pallas, “Ο Άγιος Ονούφριος Μεθώνης”, AE (1968), pp. 119–176. Pamuk, Monetary history of the Ottoman Empire Ş. Pamuk, A monetary history of the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge (2000). Panagiotopoulos, Πλυθυσμός V. Panagiotopoulos, Πλυθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοποννήσου, 13ος–18ος αιώνας, Athens (1987). Panopoulou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο αλατίου στην Πελοπόννησο” A. Panopoulou, “Παραγωγή και εμπόριο αλατίου στην Πελοπόννησο (13ος–16ος αι.)”, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Χρήμα και Αγορά στην Εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Athens (2003), pp. 157–179.

Bibliography

599

Pannuti, “Tocco” M. Pannuti, “Una inedita moneta abruzzese della zecca di Tocco”, BdN, 32–33 (1999), pp. 145–146. Papadakis, “Σπάνιον νόμισμα κοπής Γουλιέλμου” N. Papadakis, “Σπάνιον νόμισμα κοπής Γουλιέλμου Βιλλαρδουίν ως τριάρχου Ευβοίας”, AAA, 6, 3 (1973), pp. 463–465. Papadia-Lala, Θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων A. Papadia-Lala, Ο θεσμός των αστικών κοινοτήτων στον ελληνικό χώρο κατά την περίοδο της Βενετοκρατίας (13ος–18ος αι.), Venice (2004). Papadia-Lala, “Κοινωνική οργάνωση και αστική κοινότητα στην Εύβοια” A. Papadia-Lala, “Κοινωνική οργάνωση και αστική κοινότητα στην Εύβοια κατά τη βενετική περίοδο”, in Ch. Maltezou and Ch. Papakosta, Βενετία-Εύβοια, από τον Εύριπο στο Νεγροπόντε, Athens – Venice (2006), pp. 27–40. Papadia-Lala, “Society, administration and identities in Latin Greece” A. Papadia-Lala, “Society, administration and identities in Latin Greece”, in N.I. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, A companion to Latin Greece, Leiden (2015), pp. 114–144. Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia N. Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Le monete di Venezia, Venice (1893–1919), 4 vols, reprinted Bologna (1967). Papadopoli, “Zecca di Nasso” N. Papadopoli, “La zecca di Nasso”, RIN, 8 (1895), pp. 457–464. Papadopoulou, Arta B. Papadopoulou, Byzantine Arta and its Monuments, Athens (2007). Papadopoulou, “Arta” B. Papadopoulou, “Arta”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 126–139. Papadopoulou, “A propos de l’Istoria de Romania de Marin Sanudo Torsello” E. Papadopoulou, “A propos de l’Istoria de Romania de Marin Sanudo Torsello”, Symmeikta, 10 (1996), pp. 195–233. Papadopoulou, “Butrint” P. Papadopoulou, “Un trésor monétaire de trachea de billon du XIIe s. provenant de Butrint (Albanie)”, in XIII Congreso internacional de numismática. Resúmenes de las comunicaciones, Madrid (2003), p. 184. Papadopoulou, “Butrint2” P. Papadopoulou, “Un trésor monétaire de trachea de billon du XIIe s. provenant de Butrint (Albanie)”, in XIII Congreso internacional de numismática, 2, Madrid (2005), pp. 1231–1236. Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation” P. Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation du XIIIe siècle: à propos du trésor de Durrës (Albanie)”, RN, 161 (2005), pp. 145–162.

600

Bibliography

Papadopoulou, “Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο” P. Papadopoulou, “Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο: με αφορμή το θησαυρό Ρόδου/1998”, in Το νόμισμα στa Nησιά του Αιγαίου, 2, Athens (2010), pp. 175–189. Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change” P. Papadopoulou, “The big problem of small change in the Byzantine world (twelfth and thirteenth century)”, in 1. Uluslararası Bizans Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Istanbul (2010), pp. 206–210. Papadopoulou, “Coins and pots” P. Papadopoulou, “Coins and pots: numismatic and ceramic evidence in the economic history of the middle ages”, in J. Vroom (ed.), Medieval and post-medieval ceramics in the eastern Mediterranean – fact and fiction, Turnhout (2015), pp. 199–226. Papakosma, “Ιδιωτικός δανεισμός” K. Papakosma, “Amoris et dilectionis causa, pro prode η/και loco pignoris. Ο ιδιωτικώς δανεισμός στην λατινοκρατούμενη Πελοπόννησο (13ος–15ος αι.)”, in Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο, 2, Athens (2017), pp. 249–261. Papamastorakis, “Mistra” Papamastorakis, “Myzithras of the Byzantine/Mistra to Byzantinists”, in T. Kiousopoulou (ed.), Οι Βυζαντινές πόλεις (8ος–15ος αιώνας), Rethymno (2012), pp. 277–296. Papanikola-Bakirtzi and Waksman, “Thessaloniki ware reconsidered” D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi and Y. Waksman, “Thessaloniki ware reconsidered”, in J. Vroom (ed.), Medieval and post-medieval ceramics in the eastern Mediterranean – fact and fiction, Turnhout (2015), pp. 227–248. Parani, Byzantine material culture M. Parani, Reconstructing the reality of images: Byzantine material culture and religious iconography (11th–15th centuries), Leiden (2003). Parani, “Byzantine jewellery” M. Parani, “Byzantine jewellery: the evidence from Byzantine legal documents”, in C. Entwistle and N. Adams (eds.), Intelligible beauty. Recent research on Byzantine jewellery, London (2010), pp. 186–192. Parmeggiani, Libro dele Uxanze A. Parmeggiani, Libro dele Uxanze e Statuti delo Imperio de Romania, Spoleto (1998). Parmeggiani, “Funzioni amministrative del principato di Acaia” A. Parmeggiani, “Le funzioni amministrative del principato di Acaia”, Bizantinistica. RSBS, 2nd series, 1 (1999), pp. 91–108. Pasquale Longo A. Lombardo (ed.), Pasquale Longo, notaio in Corone (1289–1293), Venice (1951). Patlagean, “L’immunité des Thessaloniciens” E. Patlagean, “L’immunité des Thessaloniciens”, in Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, 2, Paris (1998), pp. 593–601.

Bibliography

601

Pedroni, “Chiesa di S. Restituta” L. Pedroni, “Le monete conservate nell’antiquarium della chiesa di S. Restituta”, BdN, 32–33 (1999), pp. 149–188. Peduto, “La turris maior di Salerno” P. Peduto, “La turris maior di Salerno”, S. Patitucci Uggeri (ed.), Scavi Medievali in Italia 1996–1999, Rome (2001), pp. 345–352. Pegolotti A. Evans (ed.), Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La Pratica della Mercatura, Cambridge, Mass. (1936). Penčev, “Imitacionni monetosečenija” V. Penčev, “Imitacionni monetosečenija v Bălgarija prez XIV v.”, Numizmatika, 2 (1984), pp. 14–30. Penčev, “Drăstăr” V. Penčev, “Kăm istorijata na Drăstăr prez XIII v. (po numizmatični danni)”, Numizmatika, 2 (1987), pp. 26–30. Penčev, “Ivan Asen” V. Penčev, “Where Have the Coins of the Bulgarian Czar Ivan Asen II Been Struck?”, Macedonian Numismatic Journal, 2 (1996), pp. 105–112. Penčev, “Ustovo” V. Penčev, “Kolektivna nahodka s medni skifati ot XIII v. ot Ustovo”, Numizmatika i sfragistika, 8 (2001), pp. 61–69. Penčev, “Vidin” V. Penčev, “Kolektivna nahodka s medni (bilonovi) moneti ot XIII–XIV v. ot Vidin”, Numizmatika i epigrafika, 1 (2003), pp. 129–159. Penčev, Petrič V. Penčev, Kolektivna nahodka ot medni (bilonovi) skifati ot părvata polovina na XIII v., namerena kraj Petrič, Sofia (2003). Penčev, “Liljač” V. Penčev, “Kolektivna nahodka ot bilonovi skifati ot XII–načaloto na XIII v., namerena v selo Liljač, Kjustendilsko”, Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika, 1 (2004), pp. 93–104. Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese” V. Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese: the numismatic evidence (8th–12th century)”, in A.P. Tzamalis (ed.), MNHMH Martin J. Price, Athens (1996), pp. 195–288. Penna, “Κατάσχεση Κομοτηνής 1996” V. Penna, “Κατάσχεση Κομοτηνής 1996: μελέτη στην κοπή και στην κυκλοφορία των υπερπύρων του Ανδρονίκου Β΄”, in Ο Μανουήλ Πανσέληνος και η εποχή του, Athens (1999), pp. 159–176.

602

Bibliography

Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις” V. Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα, Athens (2000), pp. 7–21. Penna, “Corinth” V. Penna, “Numismatic circulation in Corinth from 976 to 1204”, in EHB, pp. 655–658. Penna, “Ηλεία” B. Penna, “Νομισματική κυκλοφορία στην Ηλεία κατά τη Βυζαντινή περίοδο”, in P.G. Themelis and V. Konti (eds.), Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία, Athens (2002), pp. 229–237. Penna, “‘Θησαυρός’ Πάρου/1999” V. Penna, “‘Θησαυρός’ Πάρου/1999. Επανεξέταση των ‘Πιστών Απομιμησέων’”, in Κερμάτια φιλίας. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιωάννη Τουράτσογλου, 1, Athens (2009), pp. 507–515. Penna, “Χρήμα και αγορά στην Αχαϊα” V. Penna, “Χρήμα και αγορά στην Αχαϊα κατά τον δέκατο τρίτο αιώνα: η μαρτυρία των νομισματικών θησαυρών”, in Δύμη. Φραγκοκρατία – Βενετοκρατία – Α΄ Τουρκοκρατία. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου 1–2 Οκτωβρίου 2005, Patra (2010), pp. 87–111. Penna, “Αιγαίο” V. Penna, “Κοινωνία και οικονομία στο Αιγαίο κατά τους Βυζαντινούς χρόνους (4ος–12ος αι.)”, in Το νόμισμα στa Nησιά του Αιγαίου, 2, Athens (2010), pp. 11–42. Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988” Penna and Touratsoglou, “Ο ‘θησαυρός’ Παλιοθεολόγου Μελιβοίας/1988. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της κυκλοφορίας χρυσών υπερπύρων της δυναστείας των Κομνηνών στον ελλαδικό χώρο”, in Το νόμισμα στο Θεσσαλικό χώρο, Athens (2004), pp. 365–408. Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων” Ch. Pennas and I. Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”, in Το νόμισμα στa Nησιά του Αιγαίου, 2, Athens (2010), pp. 135–157. Perfetto, “Ladislao di Durazzo” S. Perfetto, “I gigliati postumi battuti a Napoli al tempo di Ladislao di Durazzo durante la ‘Great Bullion Famine’ (1386–1414)”, BCEN, 55 (2018), pp. 16–22. Perfetto, “Giovanna II d’Angiò” S. Perfetto, “‘Avemo libre d’ariento il quale metemo in zecha’: I ‘charlini’ postumi battuti a Napoli al tempo di Giovanna II d’Angiò (1414–1435)”, RIN, 120 (2019), pp. 227–268. Perrat and Longnon, Actes C. Perrat and J. Longnon, Actes relatifs à la principauté de Morée (= Collection de documents inédites sur l’histoire de France, 6), Paris (1967). Perrat and Prawer, “Une ‘tenure en bourgeoisie’ de Morée au XIIIe siècle” C. Perrat and P. Prawer, “Une ‘tenure en bourgeoisie’ de Morée au XIIIe siècle”, Revue historique de droit français et étranger (1955), pp. 99–102.

Bibliography

603

Petrescu, “Vie rurale en Morée” E.C. Petrescu, “La vie rurale en Morée au XIVe siècle. Quelques directions de recherches”, in I. Cândea, P. Cândea, Gh. Lazăr (eds.), Închinare lui Petre S. Năsturel la 80de ani, Brăila (2003), pp. 95–102. Pétridis, “Delphes, Castorion, Castri” P. Pétridis, “Delphes, Castorion, Castri: l’histoire d’une evolution urbaine ou d’une confusion linguistique?”, BCH, 127 (2003), pp. 301–310. Phillips, Fourth Crusade J. Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople, London (2004). Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean” M. Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean”, in N.J. Mayhew (ed.), The gros tournois. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, London (1997), pp. 279–337. Piccinni and Travaini, Libro del Pellegrino G. Piccinni and L. Travaini, Il libro del Pellegrino (Siena 1382–1446), Naples (2001). Pietro Pizolo S. Carbone (ed.), Pietro Pizolo, Notaio in Candia (1300 e 1304–5), 1 and 2, Venice (1978 and 1985). Pietro Scardon A. Lombardo (ed.), Documenti della Colonia Veneziana di Creta I. Imbreviature di Pietro Scardon (1271), Turin (1942). Pistarino, “Gattilusio di Lesbo e d’Enos” G. Pistarino, “I Gattilusio di Lesbo e d’Enos signori nell’Egeo”, in G. Pistarino, Genovesi d’Orient, Genoa (1990), pp. 383–420. Pitarakis, “Objects of Devotion” B. Pitarakis, “Objects of Devotion and Protection”, in D. Krueger (ed.), A People’s History of Christianity Volume 3. Byzantine Christianity, Augsburg Fortress (2006), pp. 164–181. Pitsillidis and Metcalf, “Paphos” A.G. Pitsillidis and D.M. Metcalf, “A hoard of English and Scottish coins from Paphos, including issues of Richard Lion-Hart”, Cyprus Numismatic Society’s Numismatic Report, 26–27 (1995–1996), pp. 23–26. Plassart, “Fouilles d’Orchomène d’Arcadie” A. Plassart, “Fouilles d’Orchomène d’Arcadie”, BCH, 39 (1915), pp. 117–122. Ploumidis, “Nομισματική αγορά κατά τη λατινοκρατία” G. Ploumidis, “Η νομισματική αγορά κατά τη λατινοκρατία”, Symmeikta, 9 (1994), pp. 265–278. Poey d’Avant, monnaies féodales de France F. Poey d’Avant, Les monnaies féodales de la France, Paris (1858, 1860, 1862).

604

Bibliography

Pohl, Münzzeichen A. Pohl, Münzzeichen und Meisterzeichen auf ungarischen Münzen des Mittelalters 1300–1540, Graz and Budapest (1982). Pokorny, “Karpathos, 1307” R. Pokorny, “Ein Herrschaftsvertrag mit Rücktrittsrecht der Untertanen: Karpathos, 1307”, BZ, 101 (2008), pp. 155–168. Polemis, The Doukai D.I. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography, London (1968). Polosa, “Moneta” A. Polosa, “La moneta e la circolazione”, in E. Greco and E. Papi (eds.), Hephaestia 2000–2006, Paestum and Athens (2008), pp. 139–163. Ponomarev, “Silver in, silver out” A. Ponomarev, “Silver in, silver out: principles for calculating outflow of a medieval currency”, in S. Cavaciocchi (ed.), Relazioni economiche tra Europa e mondo islamico secc. XIII–XVIII/Europe’s economic relations with the Islamic world, 13th–18th centuries. Atti della trentottesima settimana di studi, 1–5 maggio 2006. Florence (2007), pp. 1005–1024. Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde” A.L. Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde: State of Affairs According to the Account Books of the Genoese Treasurers of Caffa, 1374– 1381”, in R. Shukurov (ed.), Mare and Litora. Essays presented to S. Karpov on his 60th birthday, Moscow (2009), pp. 595–611. Postan, Medieval economy and society M.M. Postan, The medieval economy and society, London (1972). Pounds, Economic history of medieval Europe N.J.G. Pounds, An economic history of medieval Europe, London (1974). Predelli, Commemoriali R. Predelli, I libri commemoriali della republica di Venezia. Regesti, vols. 1–4 (= books 1–13), Venice (1876–1896). Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine empire” J. Preiser-Kapeller and E. Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractuals: ecclesiastical revenues as indicator for the distribution of relative demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine empire in the early 14th century”, Byzantina Symmeikta, 20 (2010), pp. 245–308. Prestwich, “Italian merchants in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England” M. Prestwich, “Italian merchants in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England”, in The dawn of modern banking, New Haven (1979), pp. 77–104.

Bibliography

605

Prinzing, “Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung I” G. Prinzing, “Studien zur Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung im Machtbereich der epeirotischen Herrscher Michael I und Theodore Dukas. Erster Teil”, Epeirotika Chronika, 24 (1982), pp. 73–120. Prinzing, “Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung II” G. Prinzing, “Studien zur Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung im Machtbereich der epeirotischen Herrscher Michael I und Theodore Dukas. Zweiter Teil”, Epeirotika Chronika, 25 (1983), pp. 37–109. Prinzing, “Das Kaisertum im Staat von Epeiros” G. Prinzing, “Das Kaisertum im Staat von Epeiros: Propagierung, Stabilisierung und Verfall”, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27–31 Μαίου 1990), Arta (1992), pp. 17–30. Prinzing, “Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Umbruch” G. Prinzing, “Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Umbruch. Zwischen regionaler Aufspaltung und erneuter Zentrierung in den Jahren 1204–1282”, in R. Gundlach and H. Weber (eds.), Legitimation und Funktion des Herrschers. Vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator, Stuttgard (1992), pp. 129–183. Prinzing, “Epirus und die ionischen Inseln im Hochmittelalter” G. Prinzing, “Epirus und die ionischen Inseln im Hochmittelalter. Zur Geschichte der Region im Rahmen des Themas Nikopolis und der Inselthemen Kerkyra und Kephallenia im Zeitraum ca. 1000–1204”, Südostforschungen, 56 (1997), pp. 1–25. Prinzing, “Quasi patriarch in the state of Epiros” G. Prinzing, “A quasi patriarch in the state of Epiros: the autocephalous Archbishop of ‘Boulgaria’ (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos”, ZRVI, 41 (2004), pp. 165–182. Probszt, Österreichische Münz- und Geldgeschichte G. Probszt, Österreichische Münz- und Geldgeschichte, Vienna – Cologne – Graz (1973). Promis, La zecca di Scio D. Promis, La zecca di Scio durante il dominio dei Genovesi, Turin (1865). Protonotarios, “Proskynesis” P. Protonotarios, “Is a reattribution of the hyperperon of the ‘Proskynesis’ type justified?”, NCirc, 82, 7 (1974), pp. 283–285. Protonotarios, “Monnayage d’or et d’argent d’Andronic III” P. Protonotarios, “Le monnayage d’or et d’argent d’Andronic III avec Jean V et Anne de Savoie”, RN, 19 (1977), pp. 77–86. Protonotarios, “Η νομισματοκοπία του βυζαντινού κράτους της Ηπείρου (1204–1268)” P. Protonotarios, “Η νομισματοκοπία του βυζαντινού κράτους της Ηπείρου (1204–1268)”, Epeirοtika Chronika, 24 (1982), pp. 130–150.

606

Bibliography

Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire” P. Protonotarios, “Le Monayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Épire”, RN, 6, 25 (1983), pp. 83–99. Protonotarios, “Serres hoard” P. Protonotarios, “John V and Anna of Savoy in Thessaloniki (1351–1365). The Serres hoard”, NomChron, 8 (1989), pp. 69–84. Protonotarios, “Michael I or II of Epeiros” P. Protonotarios, “Michael I or II of Epeiros”, NomChron, 13 (1994), pp. 55–64. Pryor, Geography and technology, and war J.H. Pryor, Geography and technology, and war. Studies in the maritime history of the Mediterranean 649–1571, Cambridge (1988). Psarras, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα S.E. Psarra, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα στην Ελλάδα, Athens (1986). Puech, “Constantinople au 14e siècle vue par Ibn Battuta” V. Puech, “Constantinople au 14e siècle vue par Ibn Battuta”, Byzantion, 82 (2012), pp. 305–322. Racine, “Hommes d’affaires et artisans de l’Italie intérieure en Méditerranée orientale” P. Racine, “Hommes d’affaires et artisans de l’Italie intérieure en Méditerranée orientale (vers 1250–vers 1350)”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Coloniser au moyen âge, Paris (1995), pp. 142–149 and 156–275. Radić and Ivanišević, Byzantine Coins V. Radić and V. Ivanišević, Byzantine Coins from the National Museum in Belgrade, Belgrade (2006). Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade” V. Radić, P. Papadopoulou, V. Ivanišević, “The 12th and 13th Century Hoards of Byzantine Coins from the National Museum in Belgrade”, Numizmatičar, 26–27 (2003– 2004), pp. 319–354. Rahmani and Spaer, “Acre” L.Y. Rahmani and A. Spaer, “Stray finds of medieval coins from Acre”, INJ, 3 (1965– 1966), pp. 67–73. Ranucci, Cittareale S. Ranucci, Le monete della rocca di Cittareale, Pescara (2015). Rapti, “Image et monnaie dans le royaume arménien de Cilicie” I. Rapti, “Image et monnaie dans le royaume arménien de Cilicie (XIIIe–XIVe siècle)”, in M.-F. Auzépy and J. Cornette (eds.), Des images dans l’histoire, Saint-Denis (2008), pp. 33–56. Ravegnani, “La conquista veneziana di Corfù” G. Ravegnani, “La conquista veneziana di Corfù”, in Ch. Maltezou and G. Ortalli (eds.), Venezia e le isole Ionie, Venice (2005), pp. 101–112.

Bibliography

607

Razmovska-Bačeva, “Dve docnovizantiski depoa” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Dve docnovizantiski depoa od Ohridsko-Prespanskiot Region”, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica, 7–8 (1981–1982), pp. 221–236. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Numizmatičkata zbirka vo Ohrid” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Pregled na vizantiskite moneti od V do XIII vek od numizmatičkata zbirka vo Ohrid”, Lihnid, 5 (1983), pp. 83–108. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Docnovizantiskite moneti” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Docnovizantiskite moneti od numizmatičkata zbirka vo Zavodot i Muzej – Ohrid”, Lihnid, 6 (1988), pp. 117–127. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Circulation of Coins of the Paleologi in the Ohrid Region” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Circulation of Coins of the Paleologi in the Ohrid Region”, Macedonian Numismatic Journal, 3 (1999), pp. 119–138. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Theodore Angelus Comnenus Ducas” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Hoard of Late Byzantine Coins of Theodore Angelus Comnenus Ducas (1224–1230) Found in 1999 at the site of Paosnik St. Pantelejmon, Ohrid”, Macedonian Numismatic Journal, 4 (2000), pp. 121–135. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coin Circulation in the Ohrid region” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coin Circulation in the Ohrid region in the XIII and XIV centuries”, in Coins and Mints in Macedonia. Proceedings of the Symposium held in honor of the 80th birthday and 50th anniversary of the scholarly and educational work of Ksente Bogoev, Member of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Skopje (2001), pp. 113–123. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coins of the Palaeologians” D. Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coins of the Palaeologians from the Numismatic Collection of the Museum of Ohrid”, in Coins and Mints in Macedonia. Proceedings of the Symposium held in honor of the 80th birthday and 50th anniversary of the scholarly and educational work of Ksente Bogoev, Member of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Skopje (2001), pp. 125–141. Razmovska-Bačeva, Numizmatičkite naodi D. Razmovska-Bačeva, Numizmatičkite naodi od jugozapadniot del na Republika Makedonija od V vek pr.n.e. do XIV vek, Ohrid (2002). Registri R. Filangieri et al. (eds.), I registri della cancellaria angioina, 1–50, Naples (1950–2010). Reis, “Zur Datierungen der lateinischen Prägungen der anatolischen beyliks” L. Reis, “Zur Datierungen der lateinischen Prägungen der anatolischen beyliks im 14. Jahrhundert”, Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft, 42 (2002), pp. 5–13. Regling, “Münzfunde aus Pergamon” K. Regling, “Münzfunde aus Pergamon”, Blätter für Münzfreunde, 40, 10/11 (1914), pp. 5672–5685.

608

Bibliography

Regling, Die Münzen von Priene K. Regling, Die Münzen von Priene, Berlin (1927). Repertorio L. Gianazza (ed.), Repertorio dei ritrovamenti monetari, digital edition available at http://www.sibrium.org/Materiali/. Retowski, Trapezunt O. Retowski, Die Münzen der Komnenen von Trapezunt, Moscow (1910). Richard, “Le régime de fiefs à Chypre” J. Richard, “Le régime de fiefs à Chypre entre service arme et contribution fiscale”, Α. Papageorgiou (ed.), Πρακτικά του Τρίτου Διεθνούς Κυπρολογικού Συνεδρίου (Λευκωσία, 16–20 Απριλίου 1996). Τόμος Β΄: Μεσαιωνικό Τμήμα, Nicosia (2001), pp. 535–545. Rigold, “Trail of the Easterlings” S.E. Rigold, “The Trail of the Easterlings”, BNJ, 26 (1949–1951), pp. 31–55. Robinson, The Coins found at Olynthus in 1928 D.M. Robinson, The Coins found at Olynthus in 1928, Baltimore (1931) (= Excavations in Olynthus, 3). Robinson, “Corinth 1960” H.S. Robinson, “Excavations at Corinth, 1960”, Hesperia, 31 (1962), pp. 130–133. Robinson, “Church of Haghia Paraskevi” H.S. Robinson, “Church of Haghia Paraskevi, Ancient Corinth”, AD, 22 (1967) B’1, pp. 218–219. Robinson and Weinberg, “Corinth, 1959” H.S. Robinson and S.S. Weinberg, “Excavations at Corinth, 1959”, Hesperia, 29 (1960), pp. 225–253. Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence H. Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence XIIIe–XVe siècles, Paris (1956). Rollin, “Monnois d’or des empereurs de Nicée” G. Rollin, “Monnois d’or des empereurs de Nicée pendant l’occupation de Constantinople par les princes croisés”, RN (1841), pp. 171–176. Rolnick et al., “Debasement puzzle” A.J. Rolnick, F.R. Velde, W.E. Weber, “The debasement puzzle: an essay on medieval monetary history”, Journal of Economic History, 56.4 (1996), pp. 789–808. Rolnick and Weber, review of Sargent and Velde, Small change T.J. Sargent and W.E. Weber, review of Sargent and Velde, Small change, in Journal of Political Economy, 111.2 (2003), pp. 459–463. Rotman, Byzantine slavery Y. Rotman, Byzantine slavery in the Mediterranean world, Cambridge Mass. (2009). Rouillard, “Taxes maritimes” G. Rouillard, “Les taxes maritimes et commerciales d’après les actes de Patmos et de Lavra”, in Mélanges Ch. Diehl, 1, Paris (1930), pp. 277–289.

Bibliography

609

Rovelli, “Monete del Castello di Scarlino” A. Rovelli, “Le Monete del Castello di Scarlino. Materiali per lo studio della circolazione monetaria nella Toscana meridionale”, AIIN, 43 (1996), pp. 225–254. Rovelli, “The Medieval Coins” A. Rovelli, “The Medieval Coins”, in E. Fentress (ed.), Cosa V: An Intermittent Town, Excavations 1991–1997, Ann Arbor (2003), pp. 260–265. Rovelli and Gourdin, “Le monete” A. Rovelli and P. Gourdin, “Le monete”, in M.S. Calò Mariani (ed.), Fiorentino, Campagne di scavo 1984–1985, Galatina (1987) (= Quaderni di Archaeologia e Storia dell’ Arte in Capitanata, 1.3). Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català A. Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català (1301–1409), Barcelona (1947); reedited Barcelona (2001). Ruggiero, “Napoli” M. Ruggiero, “Napoli. Nota del direttore degli scavi e monumenti”, NSc (1886), pp. 332–333. Ruotolo, “Conte Nicola II di Monforte” G. Ruotolo, “Osservazioni per l’attribuzione dei denari-tornesi di Campobasso al Conte Nicola II di Monforte-Gambatesa (1461–1463)”, Bollettino del Circolo Numismatico Napoletano, 62–63 (1977–1978), pp. 31–62. Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero G. Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero (1461–1463), Termoli (1997). Ruotolo, “Denari tornesi dalla Grecia all’Italia meridionale” G. Ruotolo, “I denari tornesi dalla Grecia all’Italia meridionale”, in G. Colucci (ed.), 3o Congresso Nazionale di Numismatica. La monetazione angioina nel Regno di Napoli, Bari 12–13 novembre 2010, Bari (2011), pp. 443–476. Ruß, “Kleinasiatische Imitationen neapolitanischer Gigliati” H. Ruß, “Zwei kleinasiatische Imitationen neapolitanischer Gigliati”, Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt (1996), pp. 25–28. Sabatier, Description générale J. Sabatier, Description générale des monnaies byzantines, Paris (1862). Saccocci, “La moneta nel Veneto medioevale” A. Saccocci, “La moneta nel Veneto medioevale (secoli X–XIV)”, in Il Veneto nel medioevo: dai comuni cittadini al predominio Scaligero nella Marca, Verona (1991), pp. 245–262. Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach” A. Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach: alcune ipotesi sull’origine della moneta grosso in Italia”, QT, 23 (1994), pp. 313–341. Saccocci, “Monete romane in contesti archeologici medioevali” A. Saccocci, “Monete romane in contesti archeologici medioevali in Italia”, QT, 26 (1997), pp. 385–405.

610

Bibliography

Saccocci, “Circolazione monetale nel medioevo marchigiano” Saccocci, “La circolazione monetale nel medioevo marchigiano alla luce dei rinvenimenti e delle fonti scritte (secc. IX–XIII)”, in Atti e Memorie della Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Marche, 102 (1997), pp. 79–111. Saccocci, “Ritrovamenti monetali in tombe” A. Saccocci, “Ritrovamenti monetali in tombe di santi nell’Italia centro-settentrionale (secoli VI–XV)”, in O.F. Dubuis, S. Frey-Kupper, G. Perret (eds.), Trouvailles monétaires de tombes. Actes du deuxième colloque international du Groupe suisse pour l’étude des trouvailles monétaires (Neuchâtel, 3–4 mars 1995), Lausanne (1999), pp. 83–96. Saccocci, “Quartarolo” A. Saccocci, “Il quartarolo: un nominale bizantino prodotto in Occidente (secc. XIII– XIV)”, in A. Saccocci (ed.), Inspecto nummi. Scritti di numismatica, medaglistica e sfragistica offerti dagli allievi di Giovanni Gorini, Padua (2001), pp. 147–164. Saccocci, “Wage payments” A. Saccocci, “Wage payments in Italy before the introduction of the ‘moneta grossa’, 11th–12th centuries”, RBN, 149 (2003), pp. 151–164. Saccocci, “Struttura dei rinvenimenti” A. Saccocci, “Struttura dei rinvenimenti monetali in Italia centro-settentrionale nel periodo della grande svalutazione del denaro (secc. X–XIV)”, in M. Asolati and G. Gorini (eds.), I ritrovamenti monetali e i processi inflativi nel mondo antico e medievale, Padua (2008), pp. 95–111. Saccocci, “L’introduzione dei grossi” A. Saccocci, “L’introduzione dei grossi agli inizi del XIII secolo e la massiccia esportazione di argento dall’Europa Occidentale ai territori islamici: una semplice coincidenza?”, in B. Callegher and A. D’Ottone (eds.), The 2nd Simone Assemani Symposium on Islamic Coins, Trieste (2010), pp. 127–164. Saccocci and Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV” A. Saccocci and F.M. Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV dagli scavi della missione americana a Corinto”, RIN, 110 (1999), pp. 201–242. Saint-Guillain, “Nicolò Adoldo, seigneur de Sériphos” G. Saint-Guillain, “Nicolò Adoldo, seigneur de Sériphos. Un tyran dans l’Archipel au tournant des XIV e et XVe siècles”, Thesaurismata, 28 (1998), pp. 15–55. Saint-Guillain, “Amorgos” G. Saint-Guillain, “Amorgos au XIVe siècle”, BZ, 94 (2001), pp. 62–189. Saint-Guillain, “Andros et Lemnos au 13e siècle” G. Saint-Guillain, “Deux îles grecques au temps de l’Empire latin. Andros et Lemnos au 13e siècle”, MEFRM, 113 (2001), pp. 603–609. Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel et le coton de Santorin” G. Saint-Guillain, “Les ducs de l’Archipel et le coton de Santorin (fin XIVe–début XVe siècle)”, in Ch.A. Maltezou and P. Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo) (Venice, 2002), pp. 365–394.

Bibliography

611

Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires” G. Saint-Guillain, “Seigneuries insulaires: les Cyclades au temps de la domination latine (XIIIe–XVe siècle)”, Médiévales, 47 (2004), pp. 31–46. Saint-Guillain, “L’Apocalypse et le sens des affaires” G. Saint-Guillain, “L’Apocalypse et le sens des affaires. Les moines de Saint-Jean de Patmos, leurs activités économiques et leurs relations avec les Latins (XIIIe et XIVe siècles)”, in Chemins d’outre mer. Etudes sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, Paris (2004), pp. 765–790. Saint-Guillain, “Les conquérants de l’archipel” G. Saint-Guillain, “Les conquérants de l’archipel: l’Empire latin de Constantinople, Venise et les premiers seigneurs des Cyclades”, in G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, P. Schreiner (eds.), Quarta Crociata. Venezia – Bisanzio – Impero Latino, Venice (2006), pp. 125–237. Saint-Guillain, “Cavalieri, feudatari, borghesi e altri vassalli” G. Saint-Guillain, “Cavalieri, feudatari, borghesi e altri vassalli/Ιππότες, φεουδάρχες, αστοί και άλλοι υποτέλεις”, in N. Moschonas and A. Panopoulou (eds.), Il Ducato dell’Egeo/Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου, Athens (2009), pp. 123–147. Saint-Guillain, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète” G. Saint-Guillain, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète”, TM, 16 (2010) (= Mélanges C. Morrisson), pp. 713–758. Saint-Guillain, “Argos” G. Saint-Guillain, “Abus de pouvoir ou gouvernance de proximité? Administrateurs vénitiens et administrés à travers l’exemple de la prise d’Argos par les Ottomans en 1397”, in Ch. Maltezou and A. Panopoulou, Βενετία-Άργος. Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος και στην περιοχή του, Athens – Venice (2010), pp. 81–119. Saint-Guillain, “Lady and the merchants” Saint-Guillain, “The lady and the merchants: Byzantine and Latin prosopographies in dialogue in a commercial court case relating to Epiros”, in G. Saint-Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos (eds.), Liquid and multiple: Individuals and identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean, Paris (2012), pp. 195–234. Saint-Guillain, “Salona” Saint-Guillain, “Les seigneurs de Salona, un lignage picard en Grèce médiévale”, Thesaurismata, 44 (2014), pp. 9–50. Saint-Guillain and Schmitt, “Ägäis” G. Saint-Guillain and O.J. Schmitt, “Die Ägäis als Kommunikationsraum im späten Mittelalter”, Saeculum, 56 (2005), pp. 215–225. Sakellariou, “Οι Ανδεγαβοί και η Ήπειρος” Ε. Sakellariou, “Οι Ανδεγαβοί και η Ήπειρος”, in Μεσαιωνική Ήπειρος, Ioannina (2001), pp. 277–303.

612

Bibliography

Sakellariou, “Latin Morea” E. Sakellariou, “Latin Morea in the Late Middle Ages: observations on its demography and economy”, in C. Dendrinos et al. (eds.), Porphyrogenita. Essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot (2003), pp. 301–316. Sallusto, “Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Paestum” F. Sallusto, “Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Paestum”, AIIN, 16–17 (1969–70), pp. 247–251. Sambon, “Roberto d’Angiò” A. Sambon, “Monetazione napoletana di Roberto d’Angiò (1309–1343)”, RIN, 25 (1912), pp. 181–202. Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée” F. Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée par Charles Ier d’Anjou (1267–1285)”, MEFRM, 120 (2008), pp. 139–157. Sampsonis, “Charles Ier d’Anjou et l’île de Négrepont” F. Sampsonis, “Charles Ier d’Anjou et l’île de Négrepont: une souveraineté très théorique”, in E. Cuozzo et al. (eds.), Puer Apuliae. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Marie Martin, Paris (2008), pp. 605–614. Sanders, “Assemblage of Frankish pottery at Corinth” G.D.R. Sanders, “An assemblage of Frankish pottery at Corinth”, Hesperia, 56 (1987), pp. 159–195. Sanders, “Sparta” G.D.R. Sanders, “Excavations at Sparta: The Roman Stoa, 1988–91 Preliminary Report, Part 1: (c) Medieval Pottery”, ABSA, 88 (1993), pp. 251–286. Sanders, “Melos” G.D.R. Sanders, “Two kastra on Melos and their relations in the Archipelago”, in G.D.R. Sanders and P. Lock (eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford (1996), pp. 147–177. Sanders, “Late Roman Bath” G.D.R. Sanders, “A Late Roman Bath at Corinth”, Hesperia, 68 (1999), pp. 441–480. Sanders, “New relative and absolute chronologies” G.D.R. Sanders, “New relative and absolute chronologies for 9th to 13th century glazed wares at Corinth. Methodology and social conclusions”, in K. Belke et al. (eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, Vienna (2000), pp. 154–173. Sanders, “Corinth” G.D.R. Sanders, “Corinth”, in EHB, pp. 647–654. Sanders, “Chronology of Byzantine Corinth” G.D.R. Sanders, “Recent developments in the chronology of Byzantine Corinth”, in C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, the Centenary 1896–1996, Princeton (2003) (= Corinth Excavations, 20), pp. 385–399.

Bibliography

613

Sanders, “The medieval pottery” G.D.R. Sanders, “The medieval pottery”, in W.D. Taylour and R. Janko (eds.), Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Laconia, Athens (2008), pp. 389–410. Sanders, Recent finds from Ancient Corinth G. Sanders, Recent finds from Ancient Corinth: how little things make big differences, Leiden (2016). Sanders and Lock, The archaeology of medieval Greece G.D.R. Sanders and P. Lock (eds.), The archaeology of medieval Greece, Oxford (1996). Sanders and Whitbread, “Central places and major roads in the Peloponnese” G.D.R. Sanders and I.K. Whitbread, “Central places and major roads in the Peloponnese”, ABSA, 85 (1990), pp. 333–361. Sansaridou-Hendrickx, Εθνικισμός Th. Sansaridou-Hendrickx, Εθνικισμός και εθνική συνδείδηση στον μεσαίωνα με βάση το Χρονικό του Μορέως, Thessalonike (2007). Sanudo E. Papadopoulou (ed.), Μαρίνος Σανούδος Τορσέλλο, Ιστορία της Ρωμανίας, Athens (2000). Saradi, “Patras” E. Saradi, “A propos de la ville de Patras aux 13e–15e siècles”, REB, 38 (1980), pp. 219–232. Saradi, “Barter” E. Saradi, “Evidence of the barter economy in the documents of private transactions”, BZ, 88 (1995), pp. 405–418. Saradi, “Acts of private transactions” E. Saradi, “The Frankish Morea. Evidence provided by acts of private transactions”, in S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013), pp. 187–211. Sargent and Velde, Small change T.J. Sargent and F.R. Velde, The big problem of small change, Princeton (2002). Saulnier, Thasos J.-M. Saulnier, Thasos à l’époque paléochrétienne et byzantine : étude de numismatique et d’histoire, unpublished doctoral thesis, Paris (1992). Saulnier, “Époque byzantine” J.-M. Saulnier, “Les monnaies. Époque byzantine”, in Y. Grandjean, F. Salviat et al., Guide de Thasos, Athens (2000), p. 315. Sauvaget, “Péra” J. Sauvaget, “Note sur la colonie génoise de Péra”, Syria, 15.3 (1934), pp. 252–275. Savaş Lenger and Yaraş, “Güre” D. Savaş Lenger and A. Yaraş, “Coins from excavations at Güre 2006–2007”, NC, 170 (2010), pp. 453–456.

614

Bibliography

Savio, “Imitazioni e contraffazioni del ducato d’oro di Venezia” A. Savio, “Imitazioni e contraffazioni del ducato d’oro di Venezia nei secoli XIV e XV”, QT, 6 (1977), pp. 389–400. Savvides, Βυζαντινά στασιαστικά και αυτονομιστικά κινήματα A.G.K. Savvides, Βυζαντινά στασιαστικά και αυτονομιστικά κινήματα στα Δωδεκάνησα και τή Μικρά Ασία, 1189–1240 μ.Χ. Συμβολή στή μελέτη της υστεροβυζαντινής προσωπογραφίας και τοπογραφίας την εποχή τών Αγγέλων, των Λασκαριδών της Νίκαιας και των Μεγαλοκομνηνών του Πόντου, Athens (1987). Savvides, “Rhodes from the end of the Gabalas rule” Α.G.K. Savvides, “Rhodes from the end of the Gabalas rule to the conquest by the Hospitallers, A.D. c. 1250–1309”, Byzantinos Domos, 2 (1988), pp. 199–232 [= Α.G.K. Savvides, Βυζαντινοτούρκικα Μελετήματα, Athens (1991), no. ΧΙΙ]. Savvides, “Nauplion” A. Savvides, “Nauplion in the Byzantine and Frankish periods”, Peloponnesiaka, 19 (1991–1992), pp. 286–302. Savvides, Οθωμανική κατάκτηση της Θήβας και της Λεβαδειάς Α.G.K. Savvides, Η Οθωμανική κατάκτηση της Θήβας και της Λεβαδειάς, Athens (1993). Savvides, “Splintered medieval Hellenism” Α.G.K. Savvides, “Splintered medieval Hellenism: the semi-autonomous state of Thessaly (A.D. 1213/1222 to 1454/1470)”, B, 68 (1998), pp. 406–418 [= Α.G.K. Savvides, Βυζαντινά, Τούρκικα, Μεσαιωνικά. Ιστορικές Συμβολές, Athens (2002), no. XIIΙ]. Savvides, “‘Λατινοκρατία’ – ‘Φραγκοκρατία’” A.G.K. Savvides, “‘Λατινοκρατία’ – ‘Φραγκοκρατία’ μετά το 1204 μ.Χ. – Όροι ταυτόσημοι;”, Byzantiaka, 23 (2003), pp. 187–209. Schachinger and Schindel, “Münzen und Siegel” U. Schachinger and N. Schindel, “Münzen und Siegel”, in S. Ladstätter (ed.), Die Türbe im Artemision. Ein frühosmanischer Grabbau in Ayasuluk/Selçuk und sein kulturhistorisches Umfeld, Vienna (2015), pp. 345–589. Schachinger, “Münzumlauf in Ephesos” U. Schachinger, “Der Münzumlauf in Ephesos von hellenistischer Zeit bis in die spätbyzantinische Periode − ein Überblick”, in G. Grabherr and B. Kainrath (eds.), Akten des 15. Österreichischen Archäologentages in Innsbruck 27. Februar−1. März 2, Innsbruck (2016), pp. 307–320. Scheers, “La circolazione monetaria” S. Scheers, “La circolazione monetaria”, in J. Mertens (ed.), Herdonia. Scoperta di una città, Bari (1995), pp. 327–336. Scheers and Bex, “Les monnaies trouvées durant la campagne de 1964 à 1970” S. Scheers and F. Bex, “Les monnaies trouvées durant la campagne de 1964 à 1970”, in J. Mertens (ed.), Ordona, 4, Brussels – Rome (1974), pp. 143–160.

Bibliography

615

Scheers and Van Heesch, “Les monnaies trouvées durant les campagnes de 1972 à 1986” S. Scheers and J. van Heesch, “Les monnaies trouvées durant les campagnes de 1972 à 1986”, in Ordona, 8, Brussels (1988), pp. 229–93. Schilbach, Metrologie E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, Munich (1970). Schlumberger, Numismatique G. Schlumberger, Numismatique de l’Orient Latin, Paris (1878), augmented Paris (1882), reprinted Graz (1954). Schmitt, “Glarentza” O.J. Schmitt, “Zur Geschichte der Stadt Glarentza im 15. Jahrhundert”, B, 65 (1995), pp. 98–135. Schmitt, “Vostitza” O.J. Schmitt, “Beitrag zur Geschichte der Stadt Vostitza im späten Mittelalter”, BSl, 57 (1996), pp. 284–292. Schmitt, “Lepanto” O.J. Schmitt, “Geschichte Lepantos unter der Venezianerherrschaft (1407–1499)”, Südostforschungen, 56 (1997), pp. 43–103. Schmitt, Albanien O.J. Schmitt, Das venezianische Albanien (1392–1479), Munich (2001). Schmitt, “Patras” O.J. Schmitt, “‘El Viazo de Patras’ – Venezianische Kaufleute und die moreotische Gesellschaft in den letzten Jahrzehnten der byzantinischen Peloponnes (1430– 1458)”, BZ 94 (2001), pp. 670–83. Schreiner, Kleinchroniken P. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken (Chronica Byzantina Breviora), Vienna (1975, 1977, 1979) (= CFHB, 12/1–3). Schreiner, “I diritti della città di Malvasia” P. Schreiner, “I diritti della città di Malvasia nell’epoca tardo-bizantina”, in Miscellanea di studi storici, 2, Genoa (1983), pp. 91–98. Schreiner, Texte P. Schreiner, Texte zur spätbyzantinischen Finanz- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Vatican City (1991). Schreiner, “Neue höfische Zentren” P. Schreiner, “Neue höfische Zentren im Byzantinischen Reich”, in R. Lauer and H.G. Majer (eds.), Höfische Kultur in Südosteuropa, Göttingen (1994), pp. 42–55. Schulze, “Anonymous copper coin re-attributed from Trebizond to Syria” W. Schulze, “An anonymous copper coin re-attributed from Trebizond to Syria”, NC, 168 (2008), pp. 321–330.

616

Bibliography

Schwabacher, “Zwei Denarfunde” W. Schwabacher, “Zwei Denarfunde von ostgriechischen Inseln”, Deutsche Münzblätter, 55, 396 (1935), pp. 454–460. Scranton, Mediaeval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth R.L. Scranton, Mediaeval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth, Princeton (1957) (= Corinth Excavations, 16). Seltman, “Two deniers of medieval Athens” A.J. Seltman, “Two deniers of medieval Athens”, NCirc, 69, 9 (1961), p. 186. Seltman, “Venetian coins” A.J. Seltman, “A hoard of Venetian coins”, NCirc, 71 (1963), p. 27. Seltman, “Venetian torneselli” A.J. Seltman, “A hoard of Venetian torneselli”, NC, 7, 4 (1964), pp. 283–285. Seltman, “Late deniers tournois” A.J. Seltman, “Late deniers tournois of Frankish Greece”, in R.A.G. Carson (ed.), Mints, dies and currency. Essays in memory of Albert Baldwin, London (1971), pp. 319–323. Seltman, “A hoard” C.P. Seltman, “A hoard of coins of Frankish Greece”, NCirc, 72, 6 (1964), p. 135. Serafini, “Appendice numismatica” C. Serafini, “Appendice numismatica”, in B.M. Apollonj Ghetti et al. (eds.), Esplorazioni sotto la confessione di San Pietro in Vaticano, 1, Vatican City (1951), pp. 223–244. Setton, “Athens in the later twelfth century” K.M. Setton, “Athens in the later twelfth century”, Speculum, 19 (1944), pp. 179–208 [= K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages, London (1975), no. III]. Setton, Catalan domination of Athens 1311–1388 K.M. Setton, Catalan domination of Athens 1311–1388, Cambridge, Mass. (1948), revised edition, London (1975). Setton, History of the Crusades K.M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades, 6 volumes, various places (1955–1989). Setton, “The Archaeology of Medieval Athens” K.M. Setton, “The Archaeology of Medieval Athens”, in Essays in Medieval Life and Thought, presented in Honor of Austin Patterson Evans, New York (1955), pp. 227–258. [= K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages, London (1975), no. I]. Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece” K.M. Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece in the Fourteenth Century”, in L. Laourdas (ed.), Essays to the Memory of Basil Laourdas, Thessaloniki (1975), pp. 241–284 [= K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages, London (1975), no. V]. Setton, “Catalans in Greece” K.M. Setton, “The Catalans in Greece 1311–1380”, in H.W. Hazard, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Madison (1975) [= Setton, History of the Crusades, 3], pp. 167–224 [= K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages, London (1975), no. IV].

Bibliography

617

Setton, “Catalans and Florentines in Greece” K.M. Setton, “The Catalans and Florentines in Greece 1380–1462”, in H.W. Hazard, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Madison (1975) [= Setton, History of the Crusades, 3], pp. 225–277 [reprinted in K.M. Setton, Athens in the Middle Ages, London (1975), no. VI]. Shawcross, Chronicle of Morea T. Shawcross, The Chronicle of Morea. Historiography in Crusader Greece, Oxford (2009). Shawcross, “Plethon” T. Shawcross, “A new Lykourgos for a new Sparta. George Gemistos Plethon and the despotate of the Morea”, in S. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea: Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington (2013), pp. 419–452. Shea, “Longuet’s ‘Salonica hoard’” J. Shea, “Longuet’s ‘Salonica hoard’ and the mint of Thessalonike in the midfourteenth century”, DOP, 69 (2015), pp. 297–328. Shear, “Analytical Table of Coins” J.P. Shear, “Analytical Table of Coins”, Hesperia, 5 (1936), pp. 123–150. Shepard, The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492, Cambridge (2008). Siciliano, “Monete” A. Siciliano, “Monete”, in E.M. De Juliis (ed.), Il Museo Archeologico di Bari, 1, Bari (1983), pp. 189–210. Skartsis, Chlemoutsi S. Skartsis, Cheloutsi Castle (Clermont, Castel Tornese), NW Peloponnese: its pottery and its relations with the west (13th–early 19th c.), Oxford (2012). Slane and Sanders, “Corinth: Late Roman Horizons” K.W. Slane and G.D.R. Sanders, “Corinth: Late Roman Horizons”, Hesperia, 74 (2005), pp. 243–297. Smyrlis, “Management of monastic estates” K. Smyrlis, “The management of monastic estates: the evidence of the Typika”, DOP, 56 (2002), pp. 245–261. Smyrlis, Fortune des grands monastères K. Smyrlis, La fortune des grands monastères byzantins ( fin du Xe–milieu du XIVe siècle), Paris (2006). Smyrlis, “Pronoia” K. Smyrlis, “Taxation reform and the pronoia system in thirteenth-century Byzantium”, in 1. Uluslararası Bizans Araştırmaları Sempozyumu, Istanbul (2010), pp. 211–217. Smyrlis, “Our Lord and father” K. Smyrlis, “Our Lord and father. Peasants and monks in mid-fourteenth-century Macedonia”, TM, 16 (2010) (= Mélanges C. Morrisson), pp. 779–791.

618

Bibliography

Smyrlis, “Byzantium” K. Smyrlis, “Byzantium”, in H. Kistikopoulos (ed.), Agrarian Change and Crisis in Europe, 1200–1500, New York (2012), pp., pp. 128–166. Smyrlis, “Financial crisis and the limits of taxation” K. Smyrlis, “Financial crisis and the limits of taxation under Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1321)”, in D. Angelov and M. Saxby (eds.), Power and Subversion in Byzantium, Farnham (2013), pp. 71–82. Smyrlis, “Estate Fortifications in Late Byzantine Macedonia” K. Smyrlis, “Estate Fortifications in Late Byzantine Macedonia: the Athonite Evidence”, in F. Daim and J. Drauschke (eds.), Hinter den Mauern und auf dem offenen Land. Leben im Byzantinischen Reich, Mainz (2016), pp. 189–205. Sogliano, Museo Provinciale Sannitico A. Sogliano, Museo Provinciale Sannitico di Campobasso, Naples (1889). Sotiriou and Sotiriou, Αγίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης G.A. and M.G. Sotiriou, Η βασιλική του Αγίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης, Athens (1952). Soulis, “Θεσσαλία” G.C. Soulis, “Η πρώτη περίδος της σερβοκρατίας εν Θεσσαλία (1348–1356)”, Epeteris etaireias Byzantinon spoudon, 20 (1950), pp. 56–73. Soulis, “Thessalian Vlachia” G.C. Soulis, “The Thessalian Vlachia”, ZRVI, 8 (1963), pp. 271–273. Soulis, Serbs and Byzantium G.C. Soulis, The Serbs and Byzantium during the reign of Stephan Dusan (1331–1355) and his successors, Washington, D.C. (1984). Soustal, “Antonio Barbier” P. Soustal, “Historisch-topographisches aus dem Kontobuch des Antonio Barbier von 1366–1367”, in W. Hörandner et al. (eds.), Byzantios. Festschrift für Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag, Vienna (1984), pp. 311–320. Soustal, “Butrint” P. Soustal, “The historical sources for Butrint in the middle ages”, in R. Hodges, W. Bowden, K. Lako (eds.), Byzantine Butrint: excavations and surveys 1994–99, Oxford (2004), pp. 20–26. Spahiu, “Monedha bizantine” H. Spahiu, “Monedha bizantine të shek. V–XIII të zbuluara në territorin e Shqipërisë”, Iliria, 9–10 (1979–1980), pp. 353–422. Spahiu, Qyteti Iliro-Arberor i Beratit H. Spahiu, Qyteti Iliro-Arberor i Beratit, Tirana (1990). Sphrantzes V. Grecu (ed.), Memorii, 1401–1477 / Georgios Sphrantzes. In anexa Pseudo-Phrantzes (Macarie Melissenos) Cronica, 1258–1481, Bucharest (1966). Spier, Late Byzantine rings J. Spier, Late Byzantine rings 1204–1453, Wiesbaden (2013).

Bibliography

619

Spoerri Butcher, “Erétrie” M. Spoerri Butcher, “Erétrie (Eubée) aux époques romaine, paléochrétienne, et médiévale. L’apport des trouvailles monétaires à l’histoire de la cité”, in N. Badoud (ed.), Philologos Dionysios. Mélanges offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler, Geneva (2011), pp. 423–465. Spufford, “Monnaie dans la révolution commerciale” P. Spufford, “Le rôle de la monnaie dans la révolution commerciale du XIIIe siècle”, in J. Day (ed.), Etudes d’histoire monétaire, XIIe–XIXe siècles, Lille (1984), pp. 355–395. Spufford, Handbook P. Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange, London (1986). Spufford, “Mint organisation in late medieval Europe” P. Spufford, “Mint organisation in late medieval Europe”, in P. Spufford and N.J. Mayhew (eds.), Later medieval mints: organisation, administration and techniques, Oxford (1988), pp. 7–29. Spufford, Money and its use P. Spufford, Money and its use in medieval Europe, Cambridge (1988). Spufford, “Late medieval merchants notebooks” P. Spufford, “Late medieval merchants notebooks: a project. Their potential for the history of banking”, in M.A. Denzel, J.C. Hocquet, H. Witthöft (eds.), Kaufmannsbücher und Handelspraktiken vom Spätmittelalter bis zum beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart (2002), pp. 47–61. Spufford, Power and profit P. Spufford, Power and profit: the merchant in medieval Europe, London (2003). Spufford, “First century of the Florentine florin” P. Spufford, “The first century of the Florentine florin”, RIN, 107 (2006), pp. 421–436. Spufford, How rarely did medieval merchants use coins? P. Spufford, How rarely did medieval merchants use coins?, Utrecht (2008). Spufford and Mayhew, Later medieval mints P. Spufford and N.J. Mayhew (eds.), Later medieval mints: organisation, administration and techniques, Oxford (1988). Srećković, Akches S. Srećković, Akches (Volume one). Orhan Gazi-Murad II 699–848 AH, Belgrade (1999). Stahl, Tornesello A.M. Stahl, The Venetian Tornesello. A Medieval Colonial Coinage, New York (1985) (= ANSNNM, 163). Stahl, “Circulation of European Coinage” A.M. Stahl, “The Circulation of European Coinage in the Crusader States”, in V.P. Gross and C.V. Bornstein (eds.), The Meeting of Two Worlds. Cultural Exchange between East and West during the Period of the Crusades, Kalamazoo (1986), pp.

620

Bibliography

Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production” A.M. Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, in G. Depeyrot, T. Hackens, G. Moucharte (eds.), Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l’antiquité à nos jours. Actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986, Louvain-LaNeuve (1987), pp. 467–481. Stahl et al, “The analysis of a hoard of Venetian torneselli” A. Stahl, P.P. Gaspar, M.F. Striegel, “The analysis of a hoard of Venetian torneselli”, in W.A. Oddy (ed.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, 2, London (1988), pp. 87–93. Stahl, “Mint of Venice” A.M. Stahl, “The mint of Venice in the thirteenth century”, in P. Spufford and N.J. Mayhew (eds.), Later medieval mints: organisation, administration and techniques, Oxford (1988), pp. 97–127. Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece” A.M. Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece after the Fourth Crusade”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 356–363 [= MHR, 4 (1989)]. Stahl, “Coinage of Cilician Armenia” A.M. Stahl, “Italian sources for the coinage of Cilician Armenia”, Armenian Numismatic Journal, 15 (1989), pp. 59–66. Stahl, “Cephalonia” A.M. Stahl, “The Cephalonia Hoard of Venetian and Hungarian Coins”, NomChron, 13 (1994), pp. 85–102. Stahl, “Doge Mocenigo” A.M. Stahl, “The deathbed oration of Doge Mocenigo and the mint of Venice”, MHR, 10, 1–2 (1995) (= Studies in Honour of David Jacoby: Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean), pp. 284–301. Stahl, “Coinage of Venice in the age of Enrico Dandolo” A.M. Stahl, “The coinage of Venice in the age of Enrico Dandolo”, in E.E. Kittell and T.F. Madden (eds.), Medieval and Renaissance Venice, Urbana – Champaign (1999), pp. 124–140. Stahl, Zecca A.M. Stahl, Zecca. The Mint of Venice in the Middle Ages, Baltimore, London, New York (2000). Stahl, “Latin Empire” A.M. Stahl, “Coinage and Money in the Latin Empire of Constantinople”, DOP, 55 (2001), pp. 197–206. Stahl, “Genova e Venezia” A.M. Stahl, “Genova e Venezia, la moneta dal XII al XIV secolo”, in G. Ortalli and D. Puncuh (eds.), Genova, Venezia, il levante nei secoli XII–XIV, Venice (2001), pp. 319–334.

Bibliography

621

Stahl, “The sterling abroad” A.M. Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, Haskins Society Journal, 18 (2006), pp. 132–139. Stahl, “Monetary crosscurrents” A.M. Stahl, “The Mediterranean melting pot: monetary crosscurrents of the twelfth through fifteenth centuries”, in M.S. Brownlee and D.H. Gondicas (eds.), Renaissance encounters: Greek east and Latin west, Leiden (2013), pp. 241–262. Stahl, “Venetian coinage and money of account” A.M. Stahl, “Venetian coinage and money of account: an introduction for researchers”, News on the Rialto, 35 (2016), 18–20. Stahl, “Ingots and the Venetian mint” A.M. Stahl, “Ingots and the Venetian mint in the middle ages. The accounts of Guglielmo Condulmer”, in M. Allen and N. Mayhew (eds.), Money and its use in medieval Europe – two decades on, London (2017), pp. 75–84. Stavridopoulos, “Dispilio” G. Stavridopoulos, “The coins of Dispilio”, NomChron, 30 (2012), pp. 71–122. Stavridou-Zafraka, “The Empire of Thessaloniki” A. Stavridou-Zafraka, “The Empire of Thessaloniki (1224–1242). Political Ideology and Reality”, Byzantiaka, 19 (1999), pp. 211–222. Stavridou-Zaphraka, “Βλαχία” A. Stavridou-Zaphraka, “Μεγάλη και Μικρή Βλαχία”, Trikalina, 20 (2000), pp. 171–179. Stavridou-Zaphraka, “Aξίωμα του ‘δεσπότη’” A. Stavridou-Zaphraka, “Tο αξίωμα του ‘δεσπότη’ και τα δεσποτικά έγγραφα της Ηπείρου”, in Μεσαιωνική Ήπειρος, Ioannina (2001), pp. 73–97. Stavridou-Zaphraka, “Political ideology of the State of Epiros” A. Stavridou-Zaphraka, “The political ideology of the State of Epiros”, A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences/La IVe Croisade et ses consequences, Paris (2005), pp. 311–323. Steen Jensen et al., Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund J. Steen Jensen et al., Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund c.1050–c.1550 Del 2. Fundkatalog fra c.1241–c.1550. Registre, Copenhagen (1992). Stewart, “English short-cross coins from the Aegean” I.H. Stewart, “A parcel of English short-cross coins from the Aegean”, Coins and Antiquities, 3 (1970), pp. 1–2. Stewartby, “The ‘Naxos’ hoard” Lord Stewartby, “The ‘Naxos’ hoard of thirteenth century sterlings”, NC, 154 (1994), pp. 147–166. Stewartby, “German Imitations” Lord Stewartby, “German Imitations of English Short-Cross Sterlings”, NC, 155 (1995), pp. 209–260. Stewartby, English Coins Lord Stewartby, English Coins 1180–1551, London (2009).

622

Bibliography

Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish period” T. Stillwell MacKay, “Pottery of the Frankish period. 13th and early 14th century”, in C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, the Centenary 1896–1996, Princeton (2003) (= Corinth Excavations, 20), pp. 401–422. Stockert, “Cattaro” K. Stockert, “Die Prägungen von Cattaro unter venezianischem Protektorat”, NZ, 49 (1917), pp. 1–76. Stöckly, Incanto des galées du marché à Venise D. Stöckly, Le système de l’incanto des galées du marché à Venise ( fin XIIIe–milieu XVe siècle), Leiden (1995). Stöckly, “Une autre fonction des capitaines de galées du marché vénitiennes” D. Stöckly, “Une autre fonction des capitaines de galées du marché vénitiennes : le contrôle des officiers d’outre-mer”, in Chemins d’outre mer. Etudes sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, 2, Paris (2004), pp. 791–799. Strässle, “Beitrag der sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Numismatik” P.M. Strässle, “Beitrag der sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Numismatik zum spätmittelalterlichen Schwarzmeerhandel”, Il Mar Nero, 3 (1997–1998), pp. 99–147. Strayer, “Crusades of Louix IX” J.R. Strayer, “The crusades of Louis IX”, in K.M. Setton and R.L. Wolff (eds.), The Later Crusades 1189–1311, Philadelphia (1962) [= Setton, History of the Crusades, 2], pp. 487–518. Strehlke, “Münzgeschichte des Königreiches Neapel II” Strehlke, “Urkundliches zur Münzgeschichte des Königreiches Neapel im XIII., XIV. Und XV. Jahrhunderte. Zweiter Artikel”, Berliner Blätter für Münz-, Sigel- und Wappenkunde, 1 (1863), pp. 194–202. Strehlke, “Münzgeschichte des Königreiches Neapel III” Strehlke, “Urkundliches zur Münzgeschichte des Königreiches Neapel im XIII., XIV. Und XV. Jahrhunderte. Dritter Artikel”, Berliner Blätter für Münz-, Sigel- und Wappenkunde, 1 (1863), pp. 308–327. Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων Ι. Svoronos, Εθνικόν Νομισματικόν Μουσείον. Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894– 1895 πεπραγμένων, Athens (1897). Symeonoglou, Thebes S. Symeonoglou, The topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to modern times, Princeton (1985). Synkellou, “Αιτωλοαρκανανία” E. Synkellou, “Αιτωλοαρκανανία: γεωγραφία και πόλεμος στο μεσαίωνα”, in Β΄ Διεθνές ιστορικό και αρχαιολογικό συνέδριο Αιτωλοαρκανανίας. Πρακτικά Β΄ τόμος, Agrinio (2004), pp. 559–569.

Bibliography

623

Synkellou, Πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο E. Synkellou, Ο πόλεμος στον δυτικό ελλαδικό χώρο κατά τον ύστερο μεσαίωνα (13ος–15ος αι.), Athens (2008). Σύνταγμα M. Galani-Krikou et al., Σύνταγμα Βυζαντινών “Θησαυρών” του Νομισματικού Μουσείου, Athens (2002). Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden G.L.F. Tafel and G.M. Thomas, Urkunden zur älteren Staats- und Handelsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, Vienna (1856–1857). Tanoulas, “Acciaiuoli palace in the Propylaea” T. Tanoulas, “Through the broken looking glass: the Acciaiuoli palace in the Propylaea reflected in the villa of Lorenzo il Magnifico at Poggio a Caiano”, Bollettino d’Arte, 100 (1997), pp. 1–32. Tanoulas, “Η Αθηναϊκή ακρόπολη υπό καταλανική κυριαρχία” T. Tanoulas, “‘Το πολυτιμότερο στολίδι του κόσμου’ στο στέμμα της Αραγωνίας: Η Αθηναϊκή ακρόπολη υπό καταλανική κυριαρχία”, in M. Dourou-Iliopoulou (ed.), Η καταλάνο-αραγωνική κυριαρχία στον ελληνικό χώρο, Athens (2012), pp. 23–65. Tchentsova, “Commerce vénitien en Grèce” V. Tchentsova, “Le commerce vénitien en Grèce du XIIIe à la première moitié du XVe siècle d’après les données prosopographiques”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Le partage du monde. Échanges et colonisation dans la Méditerranée médiévale, Paris (1998), pp. 287–295. Telbouli et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers” A. Teboulbi, M. Bompaire, J.-N. Barrandon, “Les monnayages d’Alphonse de Poitiers. Etude par analyses élémentaires”, RN 164 (2008), 65–127. Tekin, “Ainos” O. Tekin, “Excavation coins from Ainos – a preliminary report”, in Η Θράκη στον ελληνο-ρωμαϊκό κόσμο. Πρακτικά του 10ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Θρακολογίας. Κομοτηνή – Αλεξανδρούπολη 18–23 Οκτωβρίου 2005, Athens (2007), pp. 596–601. Tekin, “Küçükçekmece” O. Tekin, “Excavation Coins and A Byzantine Weight from Küçükçekmece Lake Basin”, Istanbul Araştırmaları Yıllığı / Annual Journal of Istanbul Researches Institute, 2 (2013), 57–66. Tenenti, “Venezia e la pirateria” A. Tenenti, “Venezia e la pirateria nel Levante: 1300 c.–1460 c.”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 2, Florence (1973), pp. 705–771. Testa, “Le type du gillat napolitain” G. Testa, “Le type du gillat napolitain et son message”, BCEN, 43.1 (2006), pp. 191–205.

624

Bibliography

Testa, “I gigliati napoletani” G. Testa, “I gigliati napoletani: il punto della ricerca”, RIN, 109 (2008), pp. 553–560. Testa, “Gigliati di Provenza” G. Testa, “I gigliati di Provenza”, in G. Colucci (ed.), 3o Congresso Nazionale di Numismatica. La monetazione angioina nel Regno di Napoli, Bari 12–13 novembre 2010, Bari (2011), pp. 555–588. Testa, “Trois monnaies médiévales” G. Testa, “Trois monnaies médiévales dans une étude récente de G. Libero Mangieri au sujet d’un dépot du XVème siècle en Italie du Sud. Notes de lecture”, Bulletin. Centre européen d’études numismatiques, 48.1 (2011), 332–341. Testa, “Trésor de monnaies médiévales” G. Testa, “Un trésor de monnaies médiévales comprenant notamment des gillats de Naples et Provence”, RBN 160 (2014), pp. 317–350. Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae L. Thallóczy, C. Jireček, E. de Sufflay, Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae Mediae Aetatis, Vienna, 2 vols (1913–1918). Themelis, “Αρχαία Μεσσήνη” P. Themelis, “Το πρόγραμμα της ανασκαφής στην Αρχαία Μεσσήνη και η δημοσίευσή της”, O Mentor, 14, 60 (2001), pp. 198–219. Theoklieva-Stoytcheva, Mesemvria E. Theoklieva-Stoytcheva, Medieval Coins from Mesemvria, Sofia (2001). Thiriet, Régestes F. Thiriet, Régestes des délibérations du sénat de Venise concernant la Romanie. Tome 1: 1329–1399. Tome 2: 1400–1430. Tome 3: 1431–1463, Paris – The Hague (1958–1961). Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne F. Thiriet, La Romanie vénitienne au moyen âge: le developpement et l’exploitation du domaine colonial vénitien (XIIe–XVe siècles), Paris (1959). Thiriet, Délibérations F. Thiriet, Délibérations des assemblées vénitiennes concernant la Romanie. Tome 1: 1160–1363. Tome 2: 1364–1463, Paris – The Hague (1966–1971). Thiriet, “Problemi dell’ammistrazione veneziana nella Romania, XIV–XV sec.” F. Thiriet, “Problemi dell’ammistrazione veneziana nella Romania, XIV–XV sec.”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 2, Florence (1973), pp. 773–782. Thomas, Diplomatarium G. Thomas, Diplomatarium veneto-levantinum, 2 vols, Venice (1880, 1899). Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period M. Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, Princeton (1954) (= The Athenian Agora, 2).

Bibliography

625

Tiepolo, “Public documents and notarial praxis” M.F. Tiepolo, “Public documents and notarial praxis: some examples from Venetian Greece of the early fourteenth century”, MHR, 10.1–2 (1995) (= Studies in Honour of David Jacoby: Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean), pp. 302–321. Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli F.P. Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli. Vita e politica in Italia alla metà del XIV secolo, Rome (2001). Tölle-Kastenbein, Kastro Tigani R. Tölle-Kastenbein, Das Kastro Tigani. Die Bauten und Funde Griechischer, Römischer und Byzantinischer Zeit, Bonn (1974) (= Samos, 14). Topping, “The formation of the Assizes of Romania” P. Topping, “The formation of the Assizes of Romania, the law code of Frankish Greece”, B, 17 (1944–1945), pp. 304–314 [= P. Topping, Studies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205–1715, London (1977), no. IΙ]. Topping, Feudal institutions as revealed in the Assizes of Romania P. Topping, Feudal institutions as revealed in the Assizes of Romania. The law code of Frankish Greece, Philadelphia (1949) [= P. Topping, Studies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205– 1715, London (1977), no. I]. Topping, “Régime agraire dans le Péloponnèse” P. Topping, “Le régime agraire dans le Péloponnèse latin au XIV e siècle”, Hellénisme contemporain, 2e série, 10 (1956), pp. 255–295 [= P. Topping, Studies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205–1715, London (1977), no. III]. Topping, “Estates of Niccolò Acciaiuoli” P. Topping, “Estates of Niccolò Acciaiuoli in Cephalonia”, B, 36 (1966), pp. 544–559 [= P. Topping, Studies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205–1715, London (1977), no. V]. Topping, “Morea, 1311–1364” P. Topping, “The Morea, 1311–1364”, in H.W. Hazard, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Madison (1975) [= Setton (ed.), History of the Crusades, 3], pp. 104–140. Topping, “Morea, 1364–1460” P. Topping, “The Morea, 1364–1460”, in H.W. Hazard, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Madison (1975) [= Setton, History of the Crusades, 3], pp. 141–166. Topping, “The Co-existence of Greeks and Latins” P. Topping, “The Co-existence of Greeks and Latins in Frankish Morea and Venetian Crete”, Actes du XVe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Athènes 1976, 1, Athens (1976), pp. 1–35 [= P. Topping, Studies on Latin Greece A.D. 1205–1715, London (1977), no. XI]. C. Tóth, “Der ‘Sarachenen Denar’” C. Tóth, “Der ‘Sarachenen Denar’”, Folia Archaeologica 49–50 (2001–2002), pp. 349–66.

626

Bibliography

Touloupa, “ʹΑγιος Ασώματος” E. Touloupa, “Ο ʹΑγιος Ασώματος στα Σκαλιά”, in Ευφρόσυνον. Αφιέρωμα στον Μανόλη Χατζιδάκη, 2 (Athens, 1992), pp. 593–600. Touratsoglou, “Lily-type issues” I. Touratsoglou, “A contribution to the lily-type issues of Michael VIII Palaiologus”, AD, 26 (1971), pp. 189–193. Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards” I. Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards of billon trachea from Greek Macedonia and Thrace”, Balkan Studies, 14 (1973), pp. 131–166. Touratsoglou, “Edessa” I. Touratsoglou, “The Edessa/1968 hoard of billon trachea”, AD, 28, (1973), A’, pp. 64–70. Touratsoglou, “Aiani” I. Touratsoglou, “The Aiani/1973 hoard of billon trachea”, AAA, 8 (1974), pp. 433–435. Touratsoglou, “Βραστά” Ι. Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ ασπρών τραχέων από τα Βραστά Χαλκιδικής”, AAA, 8 (1976), pp. 124–130. Touratsoglou, “Münzen” I. Touratsoglou, “Münzen”, in W. Hoepfner (ed.), Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgebauten, Berlin (1976) (= Kerameikos, 10), pp. 225–229. Touratsoglou, “Άρτα” I. Touratsoglou, “Θησαυρός άσπρων τραχέων 1983 από την Άρτα”, AD, 36 (1981), A’, pp. 209–226. Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’” I. Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’ άσπρων τραχέων”, AAA, 32–34 (1999–2001), pp. 237–250. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles” I. Touratsoglou, “La monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles et le témoignage des trouvailles de Grèce : à propos d’un ouvrage récent”, RN, 158 (2002), pp. 385–404 (= review of DOC IV). Touratsgolou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία” I. Touratsgolou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία των Παλαιολόγων. Νομισματική κυκλοφορία και νομισματική εικονογραφία”, in Η Μακεδονία κατά την εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Thessalonike (2002), pp. 269–287. Touratsgolou, “Ήλεκτρα τραχέα” I. Touratsgolou, “Ήλεκτρα τραχέα της Κομνήνειας και μετά- Κομνήνειας περιόδου (1092–1261): η μαρτυρία των θησαυρών και μερικές παρατηρήσεις”, in ΟΛΟΚΟΤΙΝΟΝ. Studies in Byzantine Numismatics and Sigillography in Memory of Petros Protonotarios, Athens (2013), pp. 81–98.

Bibliography

627

Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi” I. Touratsoglou and J. Baker, “Byzantium of the Venetians, Greece of the ‘grossi’ ”, in Ch.A. Maltezou – P. Schreiner (eds.), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo) (Venice, 2002), pp. 203–233. Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί” I. Touratsoglou and K. Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί από τον βορειοελλαδικό χώρο στην Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων Θεσσαλονίκης”, AD, 31 (1976), A’, pp. 23–49. Touratsoglou and Protonotarios, “Couronnement” I. Touratsoglou and P. Protonotarios, “Les émissions de couronnement dans le monnayage du XIIIeme siècle”, RN, 6, 19 (1977), pp. 68–76. Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής” I. Touratsoglou, I. Tsourti-Kouli, M. Krikou-Galani, “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής 1979. Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία των τεταρτηρών του ΙΒ΄ αι. μ. Χ”, BF, 14 (1989) [= Ch. Bakirtzis (ed.), First International Symposium for Thracia Studies. Byzantine Thrace. Image and Character], pp. 365–392. Tourneur, “Deux gros d’Henri II” V. Tourneur, “Deux gros d’Henri II de Chypre (1285–1306; 1310–1324)”, Gazette numismatique, 9, 1, October (1904). Travaglini, “Museo Civico ‘U. Granafei’ di Mesagne” A. Travaglini, “Museo Civico ‘U. Granafei’ di Mesagne”, AIIN, 23–24 (1976–1977), pp. 273–298. Travaglini, “Il Medagliere del Museo di Brindisi” A. Travaglini, “Il Medagliere del Museo di Brindisi”, AIIN, 20 (1973), pp. 235–244. Travaglini, “Museo Civico di Gallipoli” A. Travaglini, “Museo Civico di Gallipoli”, AIIN, 25 (1978), pp. 222–226. Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento A. Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento. Problemi di circolazione, Rome (1982) (= Archaeologia, 23). Travaglini, “Le monete” A. Travaglini, “Le monete”, in F. D’Andria and D. Whitehouse (eds.), Excavations at Otranto, II: The Finds, Lecce (1992), pp. 243–278. Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni” A. Travaglini, “Ripostiglio di denari medioevali dall’agro di S. Vito dei Normanni”, AIIN, 38–41 (1994), pp. 67–78. Travaini, “Le monete di Capaccio Vecchia” L. Travaini, “Le monete di Cappacio Vecchia: campagne di scavo 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978”, in A. Buko et al. (eds.), Caputaquis Medievale II. Ricerche 1974–1980, Salerno (1984) (= Pubblicazioni dell’ Università degli Studi di Salerno, Sezione di studi di filologia, letteratura, storia e archeologia del mondo classico, 1), pp. 357–374.

628

Bibliography

Travaini, “Mint organisation in Italy” L. Travaini, “Mint organisation in Italy between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries”, in P. Spufford and N.J. Mayhew (eds.), Later medieval mints: organisation, administration and techniques, Oxford (1988), pp. 39–60. Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’” L. Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’ nella circolazione monetaria dell’Italia meridionale tra XIII e XV secolo”, in Ermanno A. Arslan Studia Dicata Parte III, Milan (1991), pp. 711–726. Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari” L. Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari of Sicily and Southern Italy: Their Mint Attributions”, NC, 154 (1993), pp. 91–135. Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy” L. Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, in N.J. Mayhew (ed.), The gros tournois. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, London (1997), pp. 421–451. Travaini, “Provisini di Champagne” L. Travaini, “Provisini di Champagne nel Regno di Sicilia: problemi di datazione”, RN, 6, 154 (1999), pp. 211–229. Travaini, “Mano da quattro” L. Travaini, “Un sistema di conto poco conosciuto: la mano da quattro”, RN, 153 (1998), pp. 327–334. Travaini, “Sedi di zecca” L. Travaini, “Sedi di zecca nell’Italia medievale”, in L. Travaini (ed.), I luoghi della moneta, Milan (2001), pp. 69–83. Travaini, Luoghi della moneta L. Travaini (ed.), I luoghi della moneta, Milan (2001). Travaini, Monete, mercanti e matematica L. Travaini, Monete, mercanti e matematica, Rome (2003). Travaini, “Saints and Sinners” L. Travaini, “Saints and Sinners: Coins in Medieval Italian Graves”, NC 164 (2004), pp. 159–181. Travaini, “Quarta crociata” L. Travaini, “La quarta crociata e la monetazione nell’area mediterranea”, in G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, P. Schreiner (eds.), Quarta Crociata. Venezia – Bisanzio – Impero Latino, Venice (2006), pp. 525–553. Travaini, Monete e storia L. Travaini, Monete e storia nell’Italia medievale, Rome (2007). Travaini, “Monete di rame” L. Travaini, “Il ruolo di Ragusa-Dubrovnik nella creazione delle prime monete di rame a Napoli e Venezia nel quattrocento”, in E. Cuozzo et al. (eds.), Puer Apuliae. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Marie Martin, Paris (2008), 2, pp. 731–735.

Bibliography

629

Travlos, Πολεοδομική εξέλιξις I. Travlos, Πολεοδομική εξέλιξις της πόλεως των Αθηνών από των προϊστορικών χρόνων μέχρι των αρχών του ΙΘ’ αιώνος, Athens (1960). Tsafou, Σαγκρί Νάξου M. Tsafou, Ι. Ν. Παναγίας Ορφανής στο Σαγκρί Νάξου/Church of Panagia Orfani at Sagri, Naxos, leaflet produced by the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Cyclades, Athens (2015). Tsanana and Doukas, “Βρύα” A. Tsanana and K. Doukas, “Βυζαντινά νομίσματα από τη Βρύα της Χαλκιδικής”, in Κερμάτια φιλίας. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιωάννη Τουράτσογλου, 1, Athens (2009), pp. 517–539. Tsougarakis, “Byzantine Crete through numismatic evidence” D. Tsougarakis, “Economic and everyday life in Byzantine Crete through numismatic evidence”, JÖB, 32.3 (1982), pp. 457–466. Tsougarakis, “Venetian Crete and the myth of novel ideas” D. Tsougarakis, “Venetian Crete and the myth of novel ideas”, Thesaurismata, 31 (2001), pp. 43–64. Tsougarakis and Lock, Companion to Latin Greece N.I. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, A companion to Latin Greece, Leiden (2015). Tsougarakis, “The Latins in Greece” N.I. Tsougarakis, “The Latins in Greece: A Brief Introduction”, in N.I. Tsougarakis and P. Lock, A companion to Latin Greece, Leiden (2015), pp. 1–22. Tucci, “Navi e navigazioni” U. Tucci, “Navi e navigazioni all’epoca delle crociate”, in G. Ortalli and D. Puncuh (eds.), Genova, Venezia, il levante nei secoli XII–XIV, Venice (2001), pp. 273–294. Tucci, “Prestito ad presam nell’economia di Creta medievale” U. Tucci, “Il prestito ad presam nell’economia di Creta medievale”, Thesaurismata, 31 (2001), pp. 29–42. Turnator, “Coin circulation” E. Turnator, “Coin circulation in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Greece and Western Asia Minor”, Journal of Turkish Studies/Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları, 36 (2011), pp. 173–225. Tyerman, “Marino Sanudo Torsello and the lost crusade” C.J. Tyerman, “Marino Sanudo Torsello and the lost crusade: lobbying in the fourteenth century”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5, 32 (1982), pp. 57–73. Tzamalis, “Torneselli” A.P. Tzamalis, “An unusually large hoard of Torneselli del Levante”, NCirc, 87, 4 (1979), pp. 183–184. Tzamalis, “Gattilusii” A.P. Tzamalis, “Some new evidence of the Coinage of the Gattilusii, Lords of Lesbus”, NCirc, 88, 1 (1980), pp. 2–4.

630

Bibliography

Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας A.P. Tzamalis, Τα νομίσματα της Φραγκοκρατίας 1184–1566, Athens (1981). Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ” A.P. Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη περίοδος του τορνεζίου. Νέα στοιχεία από ένα παλαιό εύρημα, Aʹ”, NomChron 9 (1990), pp. 101–131. Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Bʹ” A.P. Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη περίοδος του τορνεζίου. Νέα στοιχεία από ένα παλαιό εύρημα, Bʹ”, NomChron 10 (1991), pp. 43–66. Tzamalis, “Addition” A.P. Tzamalis, “Addition to the tornesia of the 1st group of Guillaume de Villehardouin”, NomChron, 11 (1992), p. 41. Tzamalis, “Εlis” A.P. Tzamalis, “The Elis Hoard/ 1964”, NomChron, 13 (1994), pp. 75–84. Tzamalis, “Philip of Savoy” A.P. Tzamalis, “Some thoughts on the obol of Philip of Savoy”, NomChron, 14 (1995), pp. 89–98. Tzamalis, “Igoumenitsa” A.P. Tzamalis, “The confiscated ‘hoard’ of Igoumentisa/1992”, in A.P. Tzamalis (ed.), MNHMH Martin J. Price, Athens (1996), pp. 297–302. Tzamalis, “Princess Isabelle of Achaia” A.P. Tzamalis, “Princess Isabelle of Achaia and her husbands. A new look at an old numismatic mystery”, NomChron, 23 (2004), pp. 68–73. Tzamalis, Coins of the Frankish occupation Tzamalis, Coins of the Frankish occupation of Greece 1184–1566, Athens (2016). Tzannetatos, Πρακτικόν Th.S. Tzannetatos, Το πρακτικόν της λατινικής επίσκοπης Κεφαλλήνιας του 1264 και η επιτομή αυτού, Athens (1965). Tzavara, “Un homme d’affaires du XIV eme siècle en Morée franque” A. Tzavara, “Un homme d’affaires du XIVeme siècle en Morée franque: Filippo dalle Mazze”, Thesaurismata, 29 (1999), pp. 91–108. Tzavara, “Devozione, violenza e uva passa” A. Tzavara, “Devozione, violenza e uva passa. La famiglia di Mourmouris e Catello di Nauplion nel XV secolo”, in Ch. Maltezou, A. Tzavara, D. Vlassi (eds.), I greci durante la venetocrazia: uomini, spazio, idee (XIII–XVIII sec.), Venice (2009), pp. 597–611. Tzavara, “Un’ambasciata veneta a Clarenza presso Caterina di Valois nel 1341” A. Tzavara, “Un’ambasciata veneta a Clarenza presso Caterina di Valois nel 1341, da documenti inediti”, Anuario de estudios medievales, 33, 2 (2003), pp. 905–926. Tzavara, “Η οργάνωση της διοίκησης και της άμυνας του Άργους” A. Tzavara, “Η οργάνωση της διοίκησης και της άμυνας του Άργους κατά την πρώτη βενετοκρατία”, in Ch. Maltezou and A. Panopoulou, Βενετία-Άργος. Σημάδια της βενετικής παρουσίας στο Άργος και στην περιοχή του, Athens – Venice (2010), pp. 39–79.

Bibliography

631

Tzavara, Clarentza A. Tzavara, Clarentza: une ville de la Morée latine XIIIe–XIVe siècles, Venice (2008). Tzavara, “Italians in 13th-century Frankish Morea” A. Tzavara, “The Italians in 13th-century Frankish Morea: some reflections on old and new sources”, in G. Saint-Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos (eds.), Liquid and multiple: Individuals and identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean, Paris (2012), pp. 173–193. Tzavara, “Nicolò Ier Zorzi, marquis de Bondonitsa” A. Tzavara, “Nicolò Ier Zorzi, marquis de Bondonitsa, et son héritage, 1335–1414”, Thesaurismata, 44 (2014), pp. 51–76. Ugolini, Butrinto L.M. Ugolini, Butrinto, il Mito d’Enea. Gli Scavi, Rome (1937). Ünal, “Kyme” E. Ünal, “Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Medieval and Islamic Coins from the excavations at Kyme, Aiolis, 1951–1954”, NC, 169 (2009), pp. 407–423. Valakou, “Coins of the Zaccaria family (1304–1329)” P. Valakou, “Coins of the Zaccaria family (1304–1329) in the collection of the Byzantine Museum of Chios”, NomChron, 30 (2012), pp. 45–69. Valentini, “Manfredi” G. Valentini, “Vestigia di Manfredi di Hohenstaufen re di Sicilia e ‘Signore di Romania’ in Albania”, Numismatica, 5, 3 (1939), pp. 63–67. Valentini, “Albania” G. Valentini, “La numismatica in Albania. Esperienza d’un collezionista”, Numismatica, 5, 5–6 (1939), pp. 122–126. Vallone, “L’ultimo testamento del duca d’Atene” G. Vallone, “L’ultimo testamento del duca d’Atene”, Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo e archivio muratoriano, 99.2 (1994), pp. 253–296. Van Hengel, “Classification for gros tournois” C. Van Hengel, “A classification for gros tournois”, in N.J. Mayhew (ed.), The gros tournois. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, London (1997), pp. 9–49. Van Tricht, “Henri de Flandre” F. Van Tricht, “L’idée impériale de Henri de Flandre-Hainaut, deuxième empereur latin de Constantinople (1206–1216)”, B, 70 (2000), pp. 211–241. Van Tricht, Empire of Constantinople F. Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople (1204– 1228), Leiden (2011). Van Werveke, “Monnaie, lingots ou marchandises” H. Van Werveke, “Monnaie, lingots ou marchandises? Les instruments d’échange aux XIe et XIIe siècles”, Annales d’histoire économique et sociale, 4.17 (1932), pp. 452–468.

632

Bibliography

Vanni, “Le monete di Ripafratta” F.M. Vanni, “Le monete di Ripafratta rinvenute nella campagna di scavo 1987”, AM, 15 (1988), pp. 430–438. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, “Εύρημα βυζαντινών νομισμάτων Πάρου” I. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, “Εύρημα βυζαντινών νομισμάτων Πάρου”, AD, 14 (1931–1932), pp. 78–83. Varoucha, “Αγγλικά νομίσματα” I. Varoucha, “Aγγλικά νομίσματα από Πατσόν Αμαρίου Ρεθύμνου”, in Πεπραγμένα του Γ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, Athens (1974), pp. 9–15. Vassiliou, “Argos” A. Vassiliou, “Argos from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries”, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and earth. Cities and countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens (2013), pp. 216–223. Veikou, Byzantine Epirus M. Veikou, Byzantine Epirus. A topography of transformation. Settlements of the seventh–twelfth centuries in southern Epirus and Aetoloacarnania, Greece, Leiden (2012). Veglery and Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III/ 1” A. Veglery and A. Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III (1328–1341)”, NCirc, 81, 12 (1973), pp. 467–469. Veglery and Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III/ 2” A. Veglery and A. Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III (1328–1341)”, NCirc, 82, 1 (1974), pp. 4–7. Veglery and Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III/ 3” A. Veglery and A. Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III (1328–1341)”, NCirc, 82, 2 (1974), pp. 50–51. Veit, “Münze im Totenkult” L. Veit, “Die Münze im Totenkult”, in Münzen in Brauch und Aberglauben, Mainz (1982), pp. 94–105. Verlinden, L’esclavage C. Verlinden, L’esclavage dans l’Europe médiévale, Bruges (1955). Verlinden, “Venezia e il commercio degli schiavi” C. Verlinden, “Venezia e il commercio degli schiavi provenienti dalle coste orientali del Mediterraneo”, in A. Pertusi (ed.), Venezia e il Levante fino al secolo XV, Volume I, Storia – Diritto – Economia, 2, Florence (1973), pp. 911–929. Vetters, “Ephesos Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1975” H. Vetters, “Ephesos Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1975”, Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 113 (1981), pp. 493–505. Vincent, “Money and coinage in Venetian Crete” A. Vincent, “Money and coinage in Venetian Crete, c. 1400–1669: an introduction”, Thesaurismata, 37 (2007), pp. 267–326.

Bibliography

633

Vionis, “Kastro of Kephalos” A. Vionis, “The thirteenth-to-sixteenth-century kastro of Kephalos: a contribution to the archaeological study of medieval Paros and the Cyclades”, ABSA, 101 (2006), pp. 459–492. Vionis, “Archaeology of landscape and material culture” A. Vionis, “The archaeology of landscape and material culture in late Byzantine– Frankish Greece”, Pharos, 20 (2014), pp. 313–346. Vionis, Aegean archaeology A.K. Vionis, A crusader, Ottoman, and early modern Aegean archaeology, Leiden (2014). Vlachopoulou, Λέων Σγουρός F. Vlachopoulou, Λέων Σγουρός: ο βίος και η πολιτεία του βυζαντινού άρχοντα της βορειοανατολικής Πελοποννήσου στις αρχές του 13ου αιώνα, Thessalonike (1992). Vogel, Byzantinisches Rechenbuch K. Vogel, Ein byzantinisches Rechenbuch des frühen 14. Jahrhunderts, Vienna, Graz, Cologne (1968). Voegtli et al., Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon H. Voegtli, S. Bendall, L. Ilisch, C. Morrisson, Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon, Berlin (1993) (= Pergamische Forschungen, 8). De Vogüé, “Monnaies et sceaux” C.J.M. De Vogüé, “Monnaies et sceaux des Croisades”, Mélanges de numismatique, 2 (1877), pp. 168–196. Volckart and Wolf, “Financial integration” O. Volckart and N. Wolf, “Estimating financial integration in the middle ages: what can we learn from a TAR model?”, The Journal of Economic History, 66.1 (2006), pp. 1–18. Vranousi, “Présence des Albanais” E.L. Vranousi, “Deux documents byzantins inédits sur la présence des Albanais dans le Péloponnèse au XVe siècle”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), 293–303. Vroom, After antiquity J. Vroom, After antiquity. Ceramics and society from Boeotia, Central Greece, Leiden (2003). Vroom, Byzantine to modern pottery in the Aegean J. Vroom, Byzantine to modern pottery in the Aegean – 7th to 20th century, Utrecht (2005). Vroom, “Byzantine garbage and Ottoman waste” J. Vroom, “Byzantine garbage and Ottoman waste”, E. Andrikou et al. (ed.), Thèbes. Fouilles de la Cadmée, II.2. Les tablettes en linéaire B de la Odos Pelopidou: le contexte archéologique. La céramique de la Odos Pelopidou et la chronologie du linéaire B, Pisa – Rome (2006), pp. 181–233.

634

Bibliography

Vroom, “Butrint” J. Vroom, “Corfu’s right eye. Venetian pottery in Butrint (Albania)”, in M. Gustin, S. Gelichi, K. Spindler (eds.), The Heritage of the Serenissima. The presentation of the architectural and archaeological remains of the Venetian Republic. Proceedings of the international conference Izola-Venezia 4.–9.11. 2005, Koper (2006), pp. 229–236. Vroom, “Morea and its links with Southern Italy” J. Vroom, “The Morea and its links with Southern Italy after AD 1204: ceramics and identity”, AM, 38 (2011), pp. 409–430. Waage, Antioch on-the-Orontes D.B. Waage, Antioch on-the-Orontes IV, part two. Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins, Princeton (1952). Waksman et al., “Main ‘middle Byzantine production’ and pottery manufacture in Thebes and Chalcis” Y. Waksman, N. Kontogiannis, S. Skartsis, G. Vaxevanis, “The main ‘middle Byzantine production’ and pottery manufacture in Thebes and Chalcis”, ABSA, 109 (2014), pp. 379–422. A. Walker, “Worn and corroded coins: their importance for the archaeologist” A. Walker, “Worn and corroded coins: their importance for the archaeologist”, Journal of Field Archaeology, 3 (1976), pp. 329–334. Walker, “Four Coin Hoards” A. Walker, “Four Coin Hoards in the Collection of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens”, Hesperia, 47 (1978), pp. 40–48. Weber, “Elektrum-Skyphaten” K. Weber, “Erkenntinisse zur Herstellung byzantinischer Elektrum-Skyphaten”, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, 53–54 (2003–2004), pp. 25–71. Weissen, “Commercial site analysis in Italian merchant handbooks” K. Weissen, “Dove il Papa va, sempre è caro di danari. The commercial site analysis in Italian merchant handbooks and notebooks from the 14th and 15th centuries”, in M.A. Denzel, J.C. Hocquet, H. Witthöft (eds.), Kaufmannsbücher und Handelspraktiken vom Spätmittelalter bis zum beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart (2002), pp. 63–73. Wellas, Königreich Thessalonike M.B. Wellas, Das westliche Kaiserreich und das lateinische Königreich Thessalonike, Athens (1987). Weller, “Eighteen Byzantine scyphate coins” H. Weller, “Eighteen Byzantine scyphate coins of the late 1200’s”, NC, 7, 9 (1969), pp. 235–246. Welter, Troizen und Kalaureia G. Welter, Troizen und Kalaureia, Berlin (1941). Whitting, “Miliaresia of Andronikos II and Michael IX” P. Whitting, “Miliaresia of Andronikos II and Michael IX”, NCirc, 80.7–8 (1972), pp. 270–274 and NCirc, 80.9 (1972), pp. 324–326.

Bibliography

635

Wickham, Framing the early Middle Ages C. Wickham, Framing the early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800, Oxford (2005). Wilskman, “The battle of Prinitsa in 1263” J. Wilskman, “The battle of Prinitsa in 1263”, BZ, 105 (2012), pp. 167–198. Wilskman, “The conflict between the Angevins and the Byzantines in Morea in 1267–1289” J. Wilskman, “The conflict between the Angevins and the Byzantines in Morea in 1267–1289: A Late Byzantine endemic war”, Vyzantina Symmeikta, 22 (2012), pp. 31–70. Wilskman, “Campaigns on the Peloponnese in 1264” J. Wilskman, “Conflict and Cooperation: Campaigns on the Peloponnese in 1264”, Acta Byzantina Fennica, 4 (2015), pp. 85–122. Williams, “Frankish Corinth: an Overview” C.K. Williams II, “Frankish Corinth: an Overview”, in C.K. Williams II and N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, the Centenary 1896–1996, Princeton (2003) (= Corinth Excavations, 20), pp. 423–434. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997” C.K. Williams II, L.M. Snyder, E. Barnes, O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, Hesperia, 67 (1998), pp. 223–281. Williams and Fisher, “Corinth, 1970” C.K. Williams II and J. Fisher, “Corinth, 1970: Forum Area”, Hesperia, 40 (1971), pp. 1–51. Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1971” C.K. Williams II and J. Fisher, “Corinth 1971: The Forum Area”, Hesperia, 41 (1972), pp. 143–184. Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1972” C.K. Williams II and J. Fisher, “Corinth 1972: The Forum Area”, Hesperia, 42 (1973), pp. 1–44. Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1974” C.K. Williams II and J. Fisher, “Corinth 1974: Forum Southwest”, Hesperia, 44 (1975), pp. 1–50. Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1975” C.K. Williams II and J. Fisher, “Corinth 1975: Forum Southwest”, Hesperia, 45 (1976), pp. 99–162. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1981” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1981: East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 51 (1982), pp. 115–163. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1982” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1982: East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 52 (1983), pp. 1–47.

636

Bibliography

Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1983” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1983: The Route to Sikyon”, Hesperia, 53 (1984), pp. 83–122. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1984” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1984: East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 54 (1985), pp. 55–96. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1985” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1985: East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 55 (1986), pp. 129–163. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1986” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth, 1986: Temple E and East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 56 (1987), pp. 1–46. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1987” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1987: South of Temple E East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 57 (1988), pp. 95–146. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1988” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1988: East of the Theater”, Hesperia, 58 (1989), pp. 1–50. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Excavations at Corinth, 1989: The Temenos of Temple E”, Hesperia, 59 (1990), pp. 325–369. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Corinth 1990: Southeast Corner of Temenos E”, Hesperia, 60 (1991), pp. 1–58. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth 1991”, Hesperia, 61 (1992), pp. 133–191. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth 1992”, Hesperia, 62 (1993), pp. 1–52. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth 1993”, Hesperia, 63 (1994), pp. 1–56. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994” C.K. Williams and O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth 1994”, Hesperia, 64 (1995), pp. 1–60. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995” C.K. Williams II and O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, Hesperia, 65 (1996), pp. 1–55. Williams, “Mytilene” H. Williams, “Medieval and Ottoman Mytilene”, in J. Bintliff and H. Stöger (eds.), Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, Oxford (2009), pp. 107–114.

Bibliography

637

Wolff, “Latin Empire” R.L. Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261”, in K.M. Setton and R.L. Wolff (eds.), The Later Crusades 1189–1311, Philadelphia (1962) [= K.M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades, 2], pp. 186–233 [= R.L. Wolff, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, London (1976), no. I]. Wolff, “Mortgage and redemption of an emperor’s son” R.L. Wolff, “Mortgage and redemption of an emperor’s son: Castile and the Latin empire of Constantinople”, Speculum, 29 (1954), pp. 45–84 [= R.L. Wolff, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, London (1976), no. V]. Wolkow, Trésor balkanique C. Wolkow, Un trésor balkanique de monnaies byzantines et latines du XIIIème siècle, Brussels (2016). Woodhead and Wilson, “A Medieval Sicilian Group” P. Woodhead and A. Wilson, “A Medieval Sicilian Group”, NC, 156 (1996), pp. 306–312. Woodward, “Note on the Coins found in 1924–1925” A.M. Woodward, “Note on the Coins found in 1924–1925”, ABSA, 26 (1923–1924; 1924– 1925), pp. 157–158. Woodward, “The Theatre” A.M. Woodward, “The Theatre”, ABSA, 27 (1925–1926), pp. 175–209. Woodward, “The Coins” A.M. Woodward, “The Coins”, in R.M. Dawkins (ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, London (1929), pp. 392–398. Wren, Short-Cross Coinage C.R. Wren, The Short-Cross Coinage 1180–1247, Herne Bay (1992). Wren, Long-Cross Coinage C.R. Wren, The Voided Long-Cross Coinage 1247–1279, Herne Bay (1992). Xhufi, “Arbanon” P. Xhufi, “La ‘debizantinizzazione’ del’Arbanon”, in Ch. Gasparis (ed.), Οι Αλβανοί στο μεσαίωνα, Athens (1998), pp. 59–77. Yangaki, “Pottery from the Iberian peninsula” A. Yangaki, “A first overview of late medieval pottery from the Iberian peninsula in Greece”, Viator, 44 (2013), pp. 287–326. Yvon, “Deux trésors” J. Yvon, “Deux trésors médiévaux de Méditerranée orientale”, in Congresso di Numismatica, Roma 11–16 settembre 1961, Atti, 2, Rome (1965), p. 637–640. Yvon, “Monnaies et sceaux de l’Orient latin” J. Yvon, “Monnaies et sceaux de l’Orient latin”, RN6, 8 (1966), p. 89–107. Yvon, “Monnaies occidentales” J. Yvon, “Monnaies occidentales en Syrie au temps des Mamlouks”, in Collectionneurs et collections numismatiques, Paris (1968), pp. 151–157.

638

Bibliography

Yver, Commerce et les marchands dans l’Italie méridionale G. Yver, Le commerce et les marchands dans l’Italie méridionale au XIIIe et au XIVe siècle, Paris (1903). Zaccaria de Fredo A. Lombardo (ed.), Zaccaria de Fredo, notaio in Candia (1352–1357), Venice (1968). Zachariadou, “Prix et marchés” E. Zachariadou, “Prix et marchés des céréales en Romanie (1343–1405)”, NRS, 61 (1977), pp. 291–305. Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade E. Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade: Venetian Crete and the Emirates of Menteshe and Aydin (1300–1415), Venice (1983). Zachariadou, “Holy war in the Aegean during the fourteenth century” E. Zachariadou, “Holy war in the Aegean during the fourteenth century”, in B. Arbel, B. Hamilton, D. Jacoby (eds.), Latins and Greeks in the East Mediterranean after 1204, London (1989), pp. 212–225 [= MHR, 4 (1989)]. Zachariadou, “La part des Turcs dans les revenus des colonies latines de Romanie” E. Zachariadou, “La part des Turcs dans les revenus des colonies latines de Romanie”, in M. Balard and A. Ducellier (eds.), Coloniser au moyen âge, Paris (1995), pp. 348–350 and 352–353. Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, I D.A. Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, I: Histoire Politique, Paris (1932), augmented and reprinted, C. Maltezou (ed.), London (1975). Zakythinos, “Crise monétaire” Zakythinos, “Crise monétaire et crise économique à Byzance du XIIIe au XVe siècle”, L’Hellénisme contemporain (1948), pp. 1–160 [= D.A. Zakythinos, Byzance: EtatSociété-Economie, London (1973), no. XI]. Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II D.A. Zakythinos, Le Despotat Grec de Morée, II: Vie et Institutions, Paris (1956), augmented and reprinted, C. Maltezou (ed.), London (1975). Zečević, “Carlo I Tocco” N. Zečević, “The Genoese citizenship of Carlo I Tocco of December 2, 1389”, ZRVI, 41 (2004), pp. 361–375 and 42 (2005), pp. 61–75. Zečević, “Four towns” N. Zečević, “Nobiles, cives et popolari: four towns under the rule of Carlo I Tocco (c.1375–1429)”, in D. Keene et al. (eds.), Segregation – integration – assimilation. Religious and ethnic groups in the medieval towns of central and eastern Europe, Farnham (2009), pp. 153–167. Žekova, “Moneti na Paleolozite” Ž. Žekova, “Moneti na Paleolozite ot teritorija na srednovekovnija Šumen”, Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika, 1 (2004), pp. 143–158.

Bibliography

639

Žekova, Šumen Ž. Žekova, Moneti i monetno obrăštenie v srednovekovnija Šumen, Sofia (2006). Zervos, “Coins Excavated at Corinth, 1978–1980” O.H. Zervos, “Coins Excavated at Corinth, 1978–1980”, Hesperia, 55 (1986), pp. 183–205. Zervos, “Obols of Philip of Savoy” O.H. Zervos, “The little-known Obols of Philip of Savoy”, NomCron, 14 (1995), pp. 83–87. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins” O.H. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, Hesperia, 66 (1997), pp. 173–192. Zervos, “Three unusual counterfeit Deniers Tournois” O.H. Zervos, “A note on three unusual counterfeit Deniers Tournois from Corinth Excavations,” NomChron, 23 (2004), pp. 75–83. Zervos, “Rare and unpublished late Byzantine coppers” O.H. Zervos, “Rare and unpublished late Byzantine coppers from Corinth (c. 1000– c. 1300 A.D.)”, NCirc, 112 (2004), pp. 234–236. Zervos, “A little-known iconographic variant” O.H. Zervos, “A little known iconographic variant of a copper tetarteron of John II Komnenos”, NomChron, 24 (2005), pp. 61–66. Zervos, “Late Byzantine Copper” O.H. Zervos, “A Late Byzantine Copper overstruck on a coin of the Seljuqs of Syria”, NomCron, 25 (2006), pp. 25–29. Zervos, “John II Komnenos” O.H. Zervos, “Additional notes on the copper tetarteron issue of John II Komnenos”, NomCron, 25 (2006), pp. 17–23. Zervos, “Irregular copper coins of the early thirteenth century” O.H. Zervos, “An issue of irregular copper coins of the early thirteenth century from Corinth”, NomCron, 26 (2007), pp. 91–93. Zervos, “New Light” O.H. Zervos, “New Light on an Enigmatic Issue of Late Byzantine Coppers”, NCirc, 117 (2009), pp. 163–164. Zervos, “New variant” O.H. Zervos, “New variant of the copper tetarteron with ‘Jeweled Cross’ of Alexius I Comnenus”, in Κερμάτια φιλίας. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Ιωάννη Τουράτσογλου, 1, Athens (2009), pp. 483–489. Zervos, “Corinth 1928” O.H. Zervos, “Notes on the ‘Oriental’/Seljuq Hoard found at Corinth 1928”, NCirc, 120 (2012), pp. 68–70. Zibaldone da Canal A. Stussi (ed.), Zibaldone da Canal, manoscritto mercantile del secolo XIV, Venice (1967).

640

Bibliography

Zikos, “Μακεδονία και Θράκη” N. Zikos, “Η κυκλοφορία των παλαιολόγειων νομισμάτων στη ανατολική Μακεδονία και Θράκη”, in Το νόμισμα στο Μακεδονικό χώρο, Thessalonike (2000), pp. 233–241. Zimmermann, “Muntaner” M. Zimmermann, “Orient et occident dans la chronique de Ramon Muntaner. A propos de l’expédition de Romanie”, Le Moyen Age, 94 (1988), pp. 203–235. Živojinović, “La frontière serbo-byzantine” M. Živojinović, “La frontière serbo-byzantine dans les premières décennies du XIVe siècle”, in E. Papadopoulou and D. Dialeti (eds.), Βυζάντιο και Σερβία κατά τον ΙΔ΄ αιώνα, Athens (1996), pp. 57–66. Zupko, Italian weights and measures R. Zupko, Italian weights and measures, Philadelphia (1981).

Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 Volume 2

The Medieval Mediterranean peoples, economies and cultures, 400–1500

Managing Editor Frances Andrews (St. Andrews) Editors Tamar Herzig (Tel Aviv) Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews) Larry J. Simon (Western Michigan University) Daniel Lord Smail (Harvard University) Jo Van Steenbergen (Ghent University) Advisory Board David Abulafia (Cambridge) Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv) Hugh Kennedy (SOAS, London)

volume 124/2

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mmed

Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 Volume 2

By

Julian Baker

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Reverse of denier tournois, principality of Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford HCR47615, #529. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Baker, Julian, 1971- author. Title: Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200–1430 / by Julian Baker. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: The Medieval  Mediterranean: peoples, economies and cultures, 400–1500, 0928–5520 ;  volume 124 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Contents:  v. 1. — v. 2. Identifiers: LCCN 2020026824 (print) | LCCN 2020026825 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004434622 (v. 1 ; hardback) | ISBN 9789004434639 (v. 2 ; hardback) |  ISBN 9789004434349 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004434646 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Coins, Greek. | Coins, Medieval—Greece. |  Greece—History—323–1453. | Greece—History—1453–1821. Classification: LCC CJ1289.G8 B34 2020 (print) | LCC CJ1289.G8 (ebook) |  DDC 737.4938—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026824 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026825

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. The ‘Inscription Numismatic’ font was developed by the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge to allow for the accurate rendering of medieval coin legends. ISSN 0928-5520 ISBN 978-90-04-43434-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-43462-2 (hardback, volume 1) ISBN 978-90-04-43463-9 (hardback, volume 2) ISBN 978-90-04-43464-6 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Volume 1 Preface xi 1 Geographical and Chronological Scope xii 2 Subject Matter, Primary Material, Methodology, Structure xx 3 Acknowledgments xxv 4 Languages and Transliterations xxvii 5 Figures, Tables, Maps, Coin Finds and Illustrations xxviii Abbreviations xxix 1 Historical and Monetary Context 1 1 Middle Byzantium and the Transition to the Late Period 1 2 The Medieval West during the Commercial Revolution and the Late Medieval Crises 57 3 The Numismatics of Medieval Greece 72 2 Coin Production and Circulation in Medieval Greece according to the Material Evidence 86 1 Overview 86 2 Site and Single Finds 105 3 Hoarding and Non-retrieval of Hoards 124 4 Abandoned Coins: Graves and Dumps 149 5 Monetary Functions Performed by Uncoined Fine and Base Metals: Ingots and Jewellery, Jettons and Tokens 153 6 Control Over and Manipulation of the Monetary Stock: Official Minting and Counterfeiting, Injection and Culling, Cancellation and Other Alterations 161 7 The Quantity and Quality of the Monetary Stock 176 3 Storing Wealth, Paying Taxes, Services and Goods: the Issuers and Users of Coinage in Medieval Greece 185 1 The Geographical and Demographic Context 186 2 The Geographical and Demographic Context: Monetary Implications 200 3 The Money Market in Medieval Greece 217 4 1200–1259/1268: Political and Military History 224

vi

Contents

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1200–1259/1268: Socio-Economic Trends 234 1200–1259/1268: Money 251 1259/1268–1347/1348: Political and Military History 266 1259/1268–1347/1348: Socio-Economic Trends 287 1259/1268–1347/1348: Money 326 1347/1348–1430: Political and Military History 359 1347/1348–1430: Socio-Economic Trends 382 1347/1348–1430: Money 402

4 Coins in the Regions and Towns of Medieval Greece 425 1 Peloponnese, with Special Reference to Corinth, Argos, Sparta, and Clarentza 425 2 Eastern Mainland Greece, with Special Reference to Athens and Thebes 446 3 Thessaly 468 4 Epiros, Aitoloakarnania, and the Ionian Islands, with Special Reference to Arta 471 5 Cycladic Islands 479 Conclusions: Medieval Greek Money in Context 484 Bibliography 499

Volume 2 Appendix I: Coin Finds 647 1 Hoards in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Chronological Order) 647 2 Hoards in Greece, 1430–1500 (in Chronological Order) 891 3 Coins in Graves in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Alphabetical Order) 897 4 Excavation and Single Finds in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Alphabetical Order) 916 5 Deniers Tournois in Hoards in Italy (in Chronological Order) 1058 6 Deniers Tournois in Graves in Italy (in Alphabetical Order) 1083 7 Deniers Tournois and Greek Petty Denomination Issues as Excavation and Single Finds in Italy (in Alphabetical Order) 1085 8 Deniers Tournois, Sterling Pennies, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli in Hoards in the Eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, and Crete (in Chronological Order) (For Crete, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli Have Not Been Listed) 1109

Contents

9

10 11 12 13 14 15

vii

Deniers Tournois, Greek Petty Denomination Issues, Sterling Pennies, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli as Excavation and Single Finds in the Eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, and Crete (in Alphabetical Order) (For Crete, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli Have Not Been Listed) 1118 Deniers Tournois, Medieval Greek Coins, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli in Hoards in the Balkans (in Chronological Order) 1130 Deniers Tournois, Medieval Greek Coins, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli as Excavation and Single Finds in the Balkans (in Alphabetical Order) 1142 Greek Deniers Tournois in Hoards in Western and Northern Europe (in Chronological Order) 1157 Medieval Coins in Stratigraphical Fills at Ancient Corinth 1164 Medieval Coins in Stratigraphical Fills in the Athenian Agora 1183 Alphabetical List of Hoards Contained in Appendix I.1, 2, 5, 8, 10 1189

Appendix ii: Coinages 1197 Byzantine and Byzantine-Style Coinages 1197 1 1.A Tetartera 1197 1.B Billon Trachea 1207 1.C Electrum and Silver Trachea 1246 1.D Hyperpyra 1252 1.E Tornesi 1268 1.F Late Byzantine Silver 1274 2 English and Related Sterling Pennies 1277 3 French Deniers Tournois 1283 3.A Deniers Tournois of the Abbey of Tours 1285 3.B Deniers Tournois of the Kingdom of France 1286 3.C Deniers Tournois of Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1289 3.D Deniers Tournois of Charles of Anjou, Count of Provence (1246–1285) 1291 3.E French Denier Tournois Counterfeits 1293 4 Venetian and Related Coinages 1294 4.A Pennies and their Multiples 1294 4.B Grossi 1296 4.C Serbian Grossi 1302 4.D Ducats and Florins 1306 4.E Soldini 1317 4.F Torneselli 1325

viii 5

6

7 8

9

10 11

Contents

Western European Pennies 1332 5.A France 1335 5.B Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1337 5.C Ancona 1340 5.D Northern and Central Italy 1341 5.E Iberia 1342 5.F Hungary 1343 Miscellaneous Eastern Coins 1343 6.A Crusader States in Palestine and Cyprus 1343 6.B Armenia 1344 6.C Golden Horde 1346 6.D Rhodes 1346 6.E Chios 1347 6.F Lesbos 1349 6.G Islamic States 1350 Billon Trachea of Manfred of Hohenstaufen 1353 Petty Denomination Issues of Athens and Achaïa 1357 8.A Athens 1359 8.B Achaïa 1365 8.C Counterfeits 1374 Deniers Tournois of Greece and Related Issues 1374 9.A Achaïa 1376 9.B Athens 1427 9.C Karytaina 1440 9.D Corfu 1441 9.E Salona 1443 9.F Naupaktos 1445 9.G Neopatra 1453 9.H Tinos 1462 9.I Chios and Damala 1464 9.J Arta 1466 9.K Italian Tournois 1477 9.L Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia 1481 9.M Counterfeits 1484 9.N Late Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Tournois of the Aegean 1490 Tornesi of Naxos 1492 Western Large Silver Coinages 1494 11.A Gros Tournois of France 1500 11.B Saluti and Gigliati of Sicily (Naples) 1502

Contents

12

ix

11.C Gigliati of the Counts of Provence 1504 11.D Gigliati of the Popes at Avignon 1506 11.E Pierreali of Sicily 1507 Fifteenth-Century Latin Copper Coinages 1508

Appendix Iii: Monies of Account 1510 1 Hyperpyron of Constantinople 1511 1.1 Early Evolution after 1204 1512 1.2 Values of Metropolitan Hyperpyra 1514 1.3 Gold Hyperpyra in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Greece 1515 1.4 Gold Hyperpyra and Related Currencies in Late Byzantium 1516 2 Byzantine Electrum Trachy 1522 3 Hyperpyra of South Greece and Associated Units: Grosso, Sterling, Manus, Tournois, Soldo 1522 3.1 Development of Local Greek Hyperpyra in the Early Years of the Thirteenth Century 1523 3.2 Early Link Coins and Relative Values of the Different Hyperpyra 1524 3.3 Hyperpyra and their Divisions to ca. 1300: Sterling, Manus, Tournois, Grosso 1525 3.4 Greek Hyperpyra, Gros and Deniers Tournois, in the Angevin System of Ounces, Tarì, Grains 1527 3.5 Value Relations of the Greek Currencies, Sterlings, Grossi, Tournois, Petty Denomination Issues 1531 3.6 Greek Hyperpyra, Their Link Coins and Weights, in the Early 1300s 1532 3.7 Accounting in Catalan Territories 1536 3.8 Moreote Accounting from the 1330s to the 1350s 1540 3.9 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Spreads 1544 3.10 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: General Features 1545 3.11 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Angevin Land Regime 1547 3.12 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Venetian Colonies 1549 4 Hyperpyra of Sclavonia and “De Cruce” 1554 4.1 Early Local Hyperpyron Changes 1554 4.2 Coming of Venetian Grossi 1555

x

Contents

5

6

7

8

4.3 Tornesi and Piccoli 1556 4.4 Hyperpyron Rates at the Height of Angevin Power 1556 4.5 Fourteenth-Century Hyperpyra: Tornesi and Venetian Grossi 1558 4.6 Fourteenth-Century Hyperpyra “de cruce” 1559 4.7 Towards the Late Medieval Period: Hyperpyra, Grossi, Tornesi, Ducats, Soldini 1560 Other Regional Hyperpyra: Crete, Chios, and Macedonia 1564 5.1 Crete 1564 5.2 Chios 1568 5.3 Thessalonike 1570 Venetian Systems of Account 1573 6.1 Venetian Coins in the Accounting Systems of Romania 1573 6.2 Pounds and Shillings of Piccoli and Grossi in the Thirteenth Century 1574 6.3 Fourteenth-Century Metallic Separations 1574 6.4 Venetian Systems of Account in the Greek Context 1576 Units of Silver and Gold 1581 7.1 Byzantine Pound and Its Units 1582 7.2 Italian and Greek Weight Units 1582 7.3 Gold Ounce of the Regno 1583 7.4 Marks 1583 7.5 Pounds, Marks, and Ounces in Greece 1584 Summary of Value Relations 1585

Maps 1599 Map 1 General overview 1600 Map 2 Corinth 1602 Map 3 Athens 1603 Map 4 Thebes 1604 Coin Illustrations 1606 Indices 1774 1 Geographical, Political, and Ethnic Index (General, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern) 1774 2 Prosopographical Index (Medieval) 1787 3 Prosopographical Index (Modern) 1792 4 General Index 1795

appendix i

Coin Finds 1

Hoards in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Chronological Order)

Kaparelli 1927 1.1 Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis. The hoard is named after the village of Kaparelli (to the west of Argos, on the border with Arkadia), though the findspot is given alternatively as the site of Ancient Tegea, just to the south of Tripoli (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 150 tetartera and one later silver Turkish coin (intrusive and not listed below). Byzantine Empire to Isaac II. Note: Varoucha, followed by Metcalf, refer to this hoard erroneously as Kasarelli. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195). Concealment probably occurred in ca. 1200, though a post-conquest dating (1204) cannot be excluded entirely, particularly in view of the used state of some of the specimens. Bibliography: Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, “Εύρημα βυζαντινών νομισμάτων Πάρου”, p. 82; Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards, p. 16; Metcalf, “Brauron”, p. 256; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 405–6, no. 70; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 236, no. 18; Σύνταγμα, pp. 98–99, no. 86. Discussed further pp.: 17, 76n453, 127, 139, 144n225, 216, 425, 442, 1201 Content Tetartera 150 Byzantine Empire before 1204 6 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 6 DOC IV, type 14, ‘Bust of Emperor’ 100 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 20 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 56 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 15 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’ 5 DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ 4 Uncertain types/mules 6 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) 6 DOC IV, type 8, ‘Bust of Virgin’ 15 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 15 DOC IV, types 5–6, ‘St. Michael’ 23 Uncertain emperor © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_007

648

appendix i

1.2 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 1783 tetartera (the Σύνταγμα states 1791). Byzantine Empire to Isaac II. Note: Touratsoglou et al. and the Σύνταγμα reconstruct this hoard from two parcels in the NM. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195). Concealment probably occurred in ca. 1200, though a post-conquest dating (1204) cannot be excluded entirely. Bibliography: Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 406–408; Σύνταγμα, pp. 99–101, no. 87. Discussed further pp.: 139, 1201 Content Tetartera 1783 Byzantine Empire before 1204 2 Alexios I Komnenos (1082–1118) 1 DOC IV, type 38, ‘Bust of Christ’ 1 DOC IV, type 45, ‘Cross on Steps’ 17 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 17 DOC IV, type 14, ‘Bust of Emperor’ 1519 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 217 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 772 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 91 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’ 131 DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ 308 Uncertain type 60 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) 60 DOC IV, type 8, ‘Bust of Virgin’ 173 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 173 DOC IV, types 5–6, ‘St. Michael’ 12 Uncertain emperor 1.3 Mapsos 1991 Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. The hoard was discovered in the floor of the church of Agios Nikolaos, in the village of Mapsos, near Koutalas, a few km south of Acrocorinth (Map 1).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

649

Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two hyperpyra. Byzantine Empire to Isaac II. Note: Information on this find comes from the various sources cited. I presume that the two coins can be termed a hoard, though this is not stated explicitly, and in fact the find is not listed in the Σύνταγμα. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195). Concealment probably occurred in ca. 1200, though a post-conquest dating (1204) cannot be excluded either. Bibliography: AD, 46 (1991), Β’1, p. 179, pl. 80a–b; AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 11; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 239. Discussed further pp.: 17, 88, 127, 131, 137, 144n225, 254n342, 425, 430, 1253, 1255 Content Hyperpyra 2 Byzantine Empire before 1204 2 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) Ithomi 1900 1.4 Findspot: Thessaly, Magoula. The hoard was in the possession of inhabitants of this village, in the demos of Ithomi, south of Trikala. This hoard has occasionally been ascribed to the area of Mount Ithomi in Messenia, Peloponnese, although Touratsoglou and Metcalf, and finally the Σύνταγμα, clarify the Thessalian origin (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Four electrum trachea. Byzantine Empire to Isaac II. Note: Apart from providing unclear information on the findspot, the older literature referred to this as a hoard of hyperpyra of John II Komnenos or John III Vatatzes. Penna re-attributed the coins. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195). Concealment probably occurred in ca. 1200, though a post-conquest dating (1204) cannot be excluded either in view of the generally more prolonged circulation of such issues. Bibliography: Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards, p. 43; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 131, n. 4; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 217; AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 13; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 339, no. 149; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 237, no. 19; Σύνταγμα, pp. 101–102, no. 88; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 581, n. 55. Discussed further pp.: 17, 76n456, 131, 138, 144, 203, 468, 470, 1189, 1249, 1250

650

appendix i

Content Electrum trachea 4 Byzantine Empire before 1204 4 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 1.5 Naxos 1967 Findspot: Cyclades, island of Naxos, uncertain location (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One electrum trachy and 20 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Manuel I and Isaac II respectively. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195). The presence of an electrum trachy, of earlier date though generally of more extended circulation, and perhaps the events relative to the conquest of the islands, might suggest a somewhat later date for the hoard. Concealment in ca. 1204 seems likely. Bibliography: AD, 23 (1968), NM, p. 13; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Σύνταγμα, p. 98, no. 85; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 131, 132, 138, 203, 254n343, 479, 480, 1209n87, 1210, 1212, 1249, 1250 Content Electrum trachy 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) Billon trachea 20 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 3 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 15 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 1 Uncertain emperor 1.6 Paros 1999 Findspot: Cyclades, Paros, Paroikia, baptistery of Panagia Katopoliani (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Six billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Alexios III. Faithful Copy. Note: Since my own article on the circulation in the medieval Cyclades, where I assumed that this hoard contained only regular imperial issues, Penna has been able to establish that one of the coins was in fact a Faithful Copy. This does not necessarily change the proposed date of concealment (ca. 1204),

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

651

although technically speaking this hoard should be placed somewhere further down the list, between the present «18» and «19». Date of concealment: Last issue: Alexios III (1195–1203) or Faithful Copy. Concealment some time before or after 1204 is likely. Bibliography: AD, 54 (1999), B’2, p. 839; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”; Penna, “‘Θησαυρός’ Πάρου/1999”. Discussed further pp.: 126, 127, 203, 254n343, 479, 480, 1210, 1212, 1218, 1229 Content Billon trachea 5 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 1 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 1

Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B

1.7 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 12 electrum trachea. Byzantine Empire to Alexios III. Date of concealment: Last issue: Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203). Concealment some time before or after 1204 is likely. Bibliography: AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 12; Σύνταγμα, p. 102, no. 89. Discussed further pp.: 131, 132, 138, 1246n274, 1249, 1250 Content Electrum trachea 12 Byzantine Empire before 1204 11 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 1 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 1.8 Philippiada 1929 Findspot: Epiros, village of Philippiada, 43km northwest of Preveza (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (?). Summary of content: 20 medieval silver coins. Note: The identity of these coins cannot presently be defined with greater precision.

652

appendix i

Date of concealment: Uncertain, though presumably after 1204. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 141, n. 82. Discussed further p.: 471 1.9 Thebes 1993A Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The hoard was excavated in Agios Nikolaos Street, in the plot of the law courts in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Probably billon trachea, probably Latin Empire. Note: The only information given about this hoard is its early thirteenth century dating. Date of concealment: Sometime after 1204. Bibliography: AD, 48 (1993), B’1, p. 77; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 254, 446, 447, 457, 1050, 1221, 1229 Thebes 1993B 1.10 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The hoard was excavated in Agios Nikolaos Street, in the plot of the law courts in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Probably billon trachea, probably Latin Empire. Note: The only information given about this hoard is its early thirteenth century dating. Date of concealment: Sometime after 1204. Bibliography: AD, 48 (1993), B’1, p. 77; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 446, 447, 1221, 1229 1.11 Thebes 1993C Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The hoard was excavated in Agios Nikolaos Street, in the plot of the law courts in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Probably billon trachea, probably Latin Empire. Note: The only information given about this hoard is its early thirteenth century dating. Date of concealment: Sometime after 1204.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

653

Bibliography: AD, 48 (1993), B’1, p. 77; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 446, 447, 457, 1050, 1221, 1229 1.12 Thebes 1997A Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The hoard was excavated at Giannakos Street, 10 (formerly 8), in the southeastern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Six billon trachea. Latin Empire. Note: No other information has been provided by the excavator. It is even possible that one or the other of these coins was Byzantine or perhaps a Faithful Copy. Date of concealment: Sometime after 1204. Bibliography: AD, 52 (1997), B’1, p. 115. Discussed further pp.: 446, 447, 457, 1221, 1229 Thebes 1997B 1.13 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The hoard was excavated at the plot of the Stamides family, in the Tabouri Rouki area of town, to the east of the walled area (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Uncertain billon trachea. Byzantine and Latin Empires. Note: No other information has been provided by the excavator. It is even possible that one or the other of these coins was perhaps a Faithful Copy. Date of concealment: Sometime after 1204. Bibliography: AD, 52 (1997), B’1, p. 118. Discussed further pp.: 254, 446, 447, 457, 1210, 1221, 1229 1.14 Thessaly 1973 Findspot: Thessaly (Map /). Present status: Undisclosed, the information came from the ANK. Summary of content: Probably billon trachea, probably Latin Empire and others. Note: The only information given about this hoard is its thirteenth century dating. Date of concealment: Sometime after 1204. Bibliography: Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 583, n. 70. Discussed further pp.: 203, 468, 470, 1221

654

appendix i

1.15 Oreos 1935 Findspot: Mainland Greece, island of Euboia. The village of Oreos is situated on the northern coast of the island, close to Istiaia. The hoard was excavated by archaeologists during construction work, near the beach. It was contained in a vase (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 1688 tetartera. Byzantine Empire to Manuel I Komnenos; Counterfeits. Note: This hoard was first reported in BCH. Metcalf believed that this hoard included Faithful Copies / ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives and early Latin issues. Touratsoglou et al. identified it as a tetarteron hoard. Orestes Zervos (unpublished) inspected the hoard and concluded that it contained counterfeit tetarteron issues. The relative proportions of genuine twelfth-century pieces and their counterfeits are not known to me. Date of concealment: Last issue: Counterfeits, suggesting a terminus post quem of 1204. Bibliography: BCH, 60 (1936), NM, p. 454; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 240, n. 5 and p. 254; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 400–401, no. 52; Σύνταγμα, p. 92, no. 76. Discussed further pp.: 126, 139, 216, 254, 446, 466, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204n45 Content Tetartera 1688 Byzantine Empire before 1204 and counterfeit tetartera after 1204 22 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 22 DOC IV, type 14, ‘Bust of Emperor’ 1453 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) and Counterfeits thereof 192 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 1116 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 145 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’ 213 Uncertain Emperor 1.16 Kastri 1952 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was found in a fortified position northeast of Kastri, a village to the north of Ekali, in the northern suburbs of Athens (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 966 tetartera, one follis (Nikephoros III), one follaro (William I of Sicily), the latter two not listed below. Byzantine Empire to Isaac II; Counterfeits.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

655

Note: The hoard was found heaped between some stones in a wall. Of the Manuel Monogram specimens, six “were on the very thin flans (…) that are characteristic in the Brauron hoard”: Metcalf, pp. 255–256. Metcalf continues with other interesting observations: “Nine of the coins of the standard issue of John II included two broken halves. Since there are similar halves in the Brauron hoard, it seems likely that they were broken deliberately for use as folles (NB: i.e. tetartera) of the lower, provincial weight-standard.” Touratsoglou et al. and the Σύνταγμα do not acknowledge the existence of counterfeit tetartera which date after 1204. The list below is based on the latter and most recent analysis of the hoard, combined with Metcalf’s observations. Date of concealment: Last issue: Counterfeits. The apparent preponderance of genuine twelfth-century tetartera suggests concealment just after 1204, although the precise dating of the counterfeit issues remains elusive. Bibliography: BCH, 77 (1953), NM, p. 194; Metcalf, “Brauron”, p. 252ff; DOS XII, p. 352; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 240; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 402–403, no. 54; Σύνταγμα, pp. 96–98, no. 84; Papadopoulou, ‘Tétartèra d’imitation’, p. 153, n. 34; Baker, “Argos”, p. 226, n. 12. Discussed further pp.: 76n453, 139, 216, 446, 451, 462, 1201, 1203 Content Tetartera 960 Byzantine Empire before 1204 and counterfeit tetartera after 1204 10 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 10 DOC IV, type 14, ‘Bust of Emperor’ 784 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 87 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 538 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 69 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’ 83 DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ 7 Uncertain types/mules 57 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) 57 DOC IV, type 8, ‘Bust of Virgin’ 23 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 23 DOC IV, types 5–6, ‘St. Michael’ 86 Uncertain emperor 6

Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 6 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’

656

appendix i

1.17 Athenian Agora 1933 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was excavated at the Athenian Agora, in Section H’ of the site (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: In excess of 100 tetartera, all apparently counterfeits. Note: These are all coins which feature in Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, as genuine pieces of Manuel I Komnenos. The hoard is mentioned by MacIsaac, the only printed source for the existence of this hoard, although Orestes Zervos has also examined it and concluded that the types are those encountered also at Ancient Corinth and Argos. I thank him for sharing these observations with me. The classification given here below is that of MacIsaac, who does however not list the precise prototypes (e.g. ‘Monogram’, ‘St. George’, etc.). Date of concealment: Last issue: Counterfeits. Concealment some time after 1204 can be proposed. Bibliography: Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III, p. 188, n. 388. Discussed further pp.: 74n442, 139, 255, 446, 447, 450, 451, 934, 935, 1201, 1203, 1204 Content Tetartera 100+ Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 100+ Imitative class I (second provincial series), thin flans, regular shape, neatly clipped 1.18 Antikereia ca. 1922 Findspot: Cyclades. Antikereia (alternatively: Antikeros) belongs to the Small Cyclades, lying between Naxos and Amorgos, opposite the larger Keros (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain number of billon trachea, of which only one is extant. Faithful Copy. Date of concealment: Last issue: Faithful Copy, or perhaps Latin Imitatives. Concealment probably took place shortly after 1204. Bibliography: Σύνταγμα, p. 126, no. 121; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 203, 254n343, 479, 480, 1212, 1221 Content Billon trachy 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

657

1.19 Peiraias 1926 Findspot: Attica, Peiraias. Peiraias is the place of purchase of these coins and not the findspot, which was possibly Attica, elsewhere in Greece, or even in Asia Minor (see below) (Map 3). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: 11 or more billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I Laskaris. Faithful Copies. Note: Bellinger illustrates three coins and two further reverses which provide the basis for the identifications which are given below. It is possible that some of the Faithful Copies were in fact genuine issues of Manuel I, Isaac II, and Alexios III. This hoard has not been referred to in the relevant literature for a number of decades, no doubt because of its uncertain status and composition. The heavy presence of Nicaean, and lack of Latin issues, might point to an Anatolian provenance, a distinct possibility given also the large number of refugees who arrived from that area in the Greek capital at the time of the hoard’s purchase. Date of concealment: Last issue: the Nicaean issues, suggesting concealment in ca. 1205–1206. Bibliography: Bellinger, “Three hoards of Byzantine bronze coins”, pp. 163–164; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, p. 132; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 446, 447, 450, 1212, 1233 Content Billon trachea 5 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 2 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 2 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 6

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 6 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 6 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10

1.20 Naxos 1947 Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, village of Tripodes, to the southeast of Chora (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Three billon trachea. Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives.

658

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitative. Concealment probably took place in 1205–1206. Bibliography: Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Σύνταγμα, p. 107, no. 96; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 203, 254n343, 479, 480, 1212, 1221, 1229 Content Billon trachea 2 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 1

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

1.21 Kephallonia 1932 Findspot: Ionian Islands, island of Kephallonia. The hoard was excavated by Goekoop in the area of Lakktithra, a few km due south of the island capital Argostoli (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 12 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Isaac II; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitative. Note: The appropriate excavation report (Marinatos, “Ανασκαφαί Goekoop”) does not mention the discovery of this and the precise findspot cannot be determined. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitative, hence concealment can be dated to 1205–1206. Bibliography: Σύνταγμα, p. 106, no. 94. Content Billon trachea 3 Byzantine Empire before 1204 3 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 8

Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 8 DOC IV, no. 2, type B

1

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

659

1.22 Mikro Eleutherochori 1971 Findspot: Thessaly, village of Mikro Eleutherochori, north of Elassona (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 411 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I. Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Note: The hoard was found in a vase. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitatives or Nicaean issues. Concealment probably took place in 1205–1206. Bibliography: AD, 29 (1973–74), NM, pp. 11–12; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Oikonomidou, “Τρείς θησαυροί”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 334, no. 120; Σύνταγμα, pp. 118–119, no. 108; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, pp. 582–583, n. 67. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 203, 468, 470, 1212, 1221, 1224, 1225, 1229, 1233 Content Billon trachea 130 Byzantine Empire before 1204 10 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 3 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) 56 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 61 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 224

55

2

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 148 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 44 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 32 DOC IV, no. 3, type C Latin Empire 1204–1261 45 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 10 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 2 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 2 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10

1.23 Livadi 1974 Findspot: Thessaly, village of Livadi, north of Elassona (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum.

660

appendix i

Summary of content: 128 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Isaac II. Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitatives. Concealment probably took place in 1205–1206. Bibliography: AD, 29 (1973–74), NM, pp. 13–14; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Oikonomidou, “Τρείς θησαυροί”, pp. 985–6; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 333, no. 116; Σύνταγμα, pp. 106–107, no. 95; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 582, n. 64. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 468, 1211, 1212, 1229 Content Billon trachea 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 5

122

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 4 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type C Latin Empire 1204–1261 122 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

1.24 Livadi 1976 Findspot: Thessaly, village of Livadi, north of Elassona (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 716 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. The hoard contained additionally a supposed copper issue of Trebizond under Alexios I Komnenos (1181–1118), not listed below. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitatives or Nicaean issues. Concealment probably took place in the period 1205–1206. Bibliography: AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 13; Σύνταγμα, pp. 112–113, no. 102; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 582, n. 56. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 203, 468, 470, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1224, 1225, 1229, 1233 Content Billon trachea 147 Byzantine Empire before 1204 13 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 53 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 81 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

395

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 270 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 64 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 61 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

168

Latin Empire 1204–1261 96 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 71 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D

6

661

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 6 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 6 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10

1.25 Brauron 1956 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard is traditionally known by the name of this ancient sanctuary, though the Σύνταγμα puts this name in inverted commas and the eastern Attic town of Markopoulo is given as the findspot (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 204 tetartera and two billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Isaac II; Counterfeits; Latin Imitatives. Note: Most of the issues contained in this hoard were post-1204 counterfeit tetartera. The authors of the Σύνταγμα evidently deny the existence of this category of coinage: they re-attribute two very shoddy specimens (Metcalf, “Brauron”, pl. XIX.17–18) to Alexios II, and combine genuine issues of Emperor Manuel with counterfeit issues bearing his main ‘Monogram’ and ‘St. George’ types. They even date the hoard to ca. 1203 despite the presence of two Latin Imitative billon trachea. The listing below combines the information given by Metcalf and the Σύνταγμα, while undoing some of these doubtful attributions. A re-publication with illustrations of this hoard is highly desirable. Date of concealment: Last issue: possibly the Latin Imitative issues, which would provide a terminus post quem of 1205–1206. However, the counterfeit tetartera might very well have been produced later and a secure dating for this hoard remains elusive.

662

appendix i

Bibliography: BCH, 81 (1957), NM, p. 498; Metcalf, “Brauron”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 239ff; Σύνταγμα, p. 103, no. 90; Papadopoulou, ‘Tétartèra d’imitation’, p. 153, n. 34; Baker, “Argos”, p. 226, n. 8, and p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 76n453, 132, 139, 216, 446, 451, 462, 1201, 1203, 1222, 1229 Content Tetartera 20 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 1 DOC IV, type 14, ‘Bust of Emperor’ 15 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 8 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 5 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 1 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’ 1 DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ 4 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 4 DOC IV, types 5–6, ‘St. Michael’ 184

Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 88 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 15 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 81 Of uncertain or undefined prototype

Billon trachea 2 Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1.26 Athens 1933 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens? The hoard first became available in Athens, though it is not certain whether it was actually found in or even near the town (Map /). Present status: Dispersed and uncertain. Summary of content: Several hundred billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I Laskaris; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives; Counterfeits (?). Note: Bellinger notes the appearance of this hoard on p. 167: “In 1933 a hoard of several hundred scyphate bronzes turned up in Athens. Unfortunately it was dispersed without accurate record of its whole contents so that I can only present specimens known to have belonged to it without any attempt at

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

663

completeness.” My rudimentary listing is based on Bellinger’s illustrations. The small module Latin Imitatives seem to be represented in the largest quantities, and type A apparently prevails amongst the Faithful Copies. Date of concealment: Last issue: either the coins of the Latin or of the Byzantine (Nicaean) Empires. Concealment probably took place in 1205–1206. Bibliography: Bellinger, “Three hoards of Byzantine bronze coins”, pp. 167–169; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, p. 132; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 335, no. 130; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 446, 447, 450, 1212, 1222, 1233 Content Billon trachea yes Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives yes DOC IV, no. 1, type A yes DOC IV, no. 2, type B yes DOC IV, no. 3, type C yes

Latin Empire 1204–1261 yes DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

yes

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 yes Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) yes DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10

yes?

Contemporary counterfeit billon trachea?

1.27 Volos 1907 Findspot: Thessaly, Volos. This hoard is said to be from the area of the Pagasetic Gulf (Metcalf: near Demetrias). Its name reflects its present location (Map 1). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Volos. Content: 3489 billon trachea. Faithful Copies and Latin Imitatives. Note: The Blätter relate that the coins were found in an earthenware pot. No precise indications regarding the hoard’s composition are currently available. Date of concealment: Last issue: one of the Latin issues. Ca. 1205–1210 is the general chronological range for this kind of hoard in the area. Bibliography: Blätter für Münzfreunde, 9 (1907), Münzfunde, p. 3767; A. Blanchet in RN, 4, 12 (1908), Chronique, p. 126; Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards,

664

appendix i

p. 96; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 240, n. 5; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 220; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 583, n. 68. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 130, 203, 468, 470, 1212, 1222, 1230 1.28 Metsovo 1979 Findspot: Epiros, perhaps from the area of Metsovo (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 105 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I Laskaris; Latin and ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives. Note: The hoard has also been referred to as Epiros 1979. Date of concealment: Last issue: the large module issue of ‘Thessalonike’ or the Nicaean issue, dating the hoard to ca. 1207 or shortly thereafter. The midthirteenth century dating given in Σύνταγμα is inexplicable. Bibliography: AD, 34 (1979), NM, pp. 1–2; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 224; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, p. 117ff; E. Georgantelis in NC, 155 (1995), p. 347 (= CH); Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 335, no. 129; Σύνταγμα, pp. 123–124, no. 117. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 203, 254, 255, 471, 476, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225, 1229, 1233 Content Billon trachea 8 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 7 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 89

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 66 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 17 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 6 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

7

Latin Empire 1204–1261 3 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

1

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

665

1.29 Naousa 1927 Findspot: Cyclades, island of Paros, village of Naousa, locality of Agia Eirene (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 50 billon trachea (the Σύνταγμα states 51). Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I Laskaris; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Note: Prior to its complete publication in the Σύνταγμα, the exact composition of this hoard could only be pieced together by using a number of the indicated bibliographical items. Touratsoglou’s re-reading of the hoard supersedes Hendy’s list which is based on Varoucha’s original article, whereas Metcalf commented on other details of this hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: the issues of ‘Thessalonike’ or Nicaea, dating the hoard to ca. 1207 or very shortly thereafter. Bibliography: Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, “Εύρημα βυζαντινών νομισμάτων Πάρου”; Metcalf, “Byzantine scyphate bronze coinage”, pp. 56–57; DOS XII, p. 370; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, p. 132, n. 2; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 242; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Σύνταγμα, pp. 111–112, no. 101; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 76n453, 203, 254n343, 479, 480, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225, 1230, 1233 Content Billon trachea 21 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 7 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 13 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 25

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 22 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 2 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

3

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

1

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10

666

appendix i

1.30 Amorgos 1909 Findspot: Cyclades, island of Amorgos. The hoard was found during private excavations conducted near the church of Agia Barbara, on the slopes of Mount Krikelo, in the northeastern part of the island (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 91 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I Laskaris; Faithful Copies and Latin Imitatives. Note: Until the appearance of the Σύνταγμα it had not been possible to ascertain the precise composition of this hoard, despite the fact that it had been so frequently referred to in the literature. Date of concealment: Last issue: the issues of ‘Thessalonike’ or Nicaea, dating the hoard to ca. 1207 or very shortly thereafter. Bibliography: JIAN, 13 (1911), NM, p. 71; Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards, p. 5; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, p. 132; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 242; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Metcalf, “Amorgos and Thira hoards”, p. 57; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 337, no. 139; Σύνταγμα, pp. 105–106, no. 93; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 126, 138, 203, 254n343, 479, 480, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225, 1226, 1228, 1230, 1233, 1422 Content Billon trachea 36 Byzantine Empire before 1204 3 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 19 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 14 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 41

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 33 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 2 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 6 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

11

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 8 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type B; DOS XII, second coinage, pl. 31.1–5

2

Uncertain billon trachea

667

1.31 Thira 1910 Findspot: Cyclades, island of Thira, village of Gonia (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 450 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore I Laskaris; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Note: The hoard was, in the words of Svoronos, a “gift” of Hiller von Gaertringen, the early excavator of Ancient Thira. Despite the frequent treatment of this hoard in the existing literature, an up-to-date list of all the issues contained therein only became available with the Σύνταγμα. Date of concealment: Last issue: the issues of ‘Thessalonike’ or Nicaea, dating the hoard to ca. 1207 or very shortly thereafter. Bibliography: JIAN, 15 (1913), NM, pp. 71–72; Metcalf, “Byzantine scyphate bronze coinage”, p. 45; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, p. 132; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 242; Metcalf, “Amorgos and Thira hoards”, p. 57; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 337, no. 140; Σύνταγμα, pp. 116–118, no. 107; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 76n453, 126, 138, 203, 254n343, 479, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1226, 1228, 1230, 1233, 1422 Content Billon trachea 173 Byzantine Empire before 1204 7 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 65 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 101 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 160

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 137 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 14 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 9 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

668

appendix i

91

Latin Empire 1204–1261 14 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 2, Constantinople large module type B 45 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 23 DOC IV, no. 25, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type B 4 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G

26

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 26 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 22 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10 4 DOC IV, no. 6, type B; DOS XII, second coinage, pl. 31.1–5

1.32 Thessaly 1957 Findspot: Thessaly. The hoard is said to be somewhere from this region (Map /). Present status: Uncertain. The 123 coins in the Athens Numismatic Museum [initially 50 (AD), then 123 (Metcalf, Touratsoglou) specimens] which had originally been considered part of this larger hoard are now said to be of different origin and are termed Western Macedonia 1958: Nikolaou; Σύνταγμα, pp. 104–105, no. 92. Summary of content: Ca. 500 billon trachea of uncertain description, though quite possibly Byzantine Empire to Alexios III. Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Note: Metcalf initially described 123 coins in the Athens cabinet, together with a brief synopsis of some 500 specimens in the hands of a dealer, as Thessaly 1957. Hendy converted this information into his system of classification (erroneously stating a quantity of 143 coins). Touratsoglou was the first to separate these two parcels, and described the 123 coins as Macedonia ca. 1958. Metcalf’s brief description of 1961 is therefore the only information we currently possess on the hoard’s content, though it appears to be quite close to the content described now fully for the Macedonian hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: perhaps Latin Imitative small module type D, dating concealment to ca. 1207 or shortly thereafter. Bibliography: AD, 18 (1963), NM, p. 7; Metcalf, “Byzantine scyphate bronze coinage”, pp. 57–60; DOS XII, pp. 387–8; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, passim and pp. 151–152; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 240; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 334, no. 122; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 583, n. 69. Discussed further pp.: 76n453, 203, 468, 470, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1230, 1422

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

669

1.33 Arkadia 1958 Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia (Map 1). Present status: Dispersed. Summary of content: 204 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Alexios III. Faithful Copies and Latin Imitatives. Note: The complete absence of Faithful Copies type B appears somewhat anomalous, although Metcalf has recently stated that some of the coins ascribed to Isaac II were presumably of that description. Date of concealment: Last issue: the large module issue of ‘Thessalonike’, and its small module equivalent, which date the hoard to ca. 1207 or later. Bibliography: Bellinger and Metcalf, “Arcadia”; DOS XII, p. 325; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 240; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 337, no. 137; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 76n453, 138, 254, 425, 443, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225, 1230, 1422 Content Billon trachea 118? Byzantine Empire before 1204 5 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) 70? Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 42 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 44?

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 37 DOC IV, no. 1, type A ? DOC IV, no. 2, type B 7 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

42

Latin Empire 1204–1261 4 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 25, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type B 35 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D

1.34 Karatsol 1888 Findspot: Thessaly, nomos of Larisa. The locality of Karatsol has been known since 1927 as Argyropouli. The hoard was excavated in the ‘ancient fort’ (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum.

670

appendix i

Summary of content: 776 billon trachea (though the original report speaks of 808 or 810 coins); two modern French coins treated as intruders and not listed below; Byzantine Empire to Alexios III; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Note: This hoard was discovered during private excavations, carried out as a result of a religious vision. Some details on the hoard’s composition had become available through Touratsoglou’s tables, before being published in 2002. Date of concealment: Last issue: the small module issue type D, and which dates the hoard to ca. 1207 or a little bit later. Bibliography: AD (1888), pp. 37 and 42; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Σύνταγμα, pp. 115–116, no. 106; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, pp. 582–583, n. 66. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 203, 468, 470, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1230, 1422 Content Billon trachea 20 Byzantine Empire before 1204 2 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 6 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 12 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 70

686

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 17 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 9 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 44 DOC IV, no. 3, type C Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 10 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 563 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 17 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 71 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 24 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G

1.35 Sparta 1957 Findspot: Peloponnese, Sparta. While the BCH suggested a findspot within the modern town, the Σύνταγμα states that the hoard was found in Sparta or its vicinity (Map 1, F). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (five specimens). Summary of content: A large number of billon trachea, of which five were available for inspection. Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

671

Note: Before its publication in the Σύνταγμα, the hoard’s composition had to be pieced together from imprecise pieces of information. Metcalf had even assumed that it contained local post-1261 issues. Date of concealment: Last issue: probably small module type E, suggesting concealment after 1207, perhaps as late as the Latin conquest in 1212. Bibliography: BCH, 82 (1958), NM, p. 654; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 292; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Σύνταγμα, p. 114, no. 104; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 254, 425, 426, 439, 1212, 1222, 1230 Content Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 4 1

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G

1.36 Corinth 15 July 1929 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated in the North Market, classified here as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 43 copper/billon pieces, of which 34 survived cleaning. Seven pre-1092 folles, four twelfth-century tetartera (not listed below), two counterfeit tetartera, 21 billon trachea. Counterfeits; Faithful Copies; Latin Empire. Note: A connection between these coins, not classified as a hoard by Edwards, was established by Metcalf on the basis of the excavation notebooks. He is rather schematic in his descriptions of the content. My list is based on information I received from Orestes Zervos, for which I am very grateful (26 September 2008). It should be noted that the three counterfeit billon trachea small module type A are not of the variety described recently in Zervos, “Irregular copper coins of the early thirteenth century”. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitative small module type D. Numismatically, concealment may be placed from 1207, though, as in the case of the next hoard, perhaps it occurred on the occasion of the conquest of the town by the Franks in ca. 1209–1210.

672

appendix i

Bibliography: Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, p. 145ff; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 239ff, n. 2; Papadopoulou, ‘Tétartèra d’imitation’, p. 153, n. 34; Baker, “Argos”, p. 226, n. 13, and p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 132, 254, 425, 426, 432, 1203, 1212, 1222, 1230, 1233 Content Tetartera 2 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 2 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 17

Latin Empire 1204–1261 5 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 5 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 6 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 1 Uncertain small module type

3

Counterfeit Billon Trachea 3 Of Latin Empire 1204–1261, DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

1.37 Corinth 15–16 June 1960 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated in the Agora SW, classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 24 billon trachea and one anonymous copper follis. Byzantine Empire to the eleventh century (not reproduced below). Faithful Copy; Latin Imitatives. Note: Robinson: “No actual hoards were found in the Agora area, but 23 bronze coins, all discovered in a shallow, uniform fill, should be considered together.” The inclusion of a much earlier specimen betrays the fact that we might not be dealing with a hoard in the strictest sense. The overall quantity of coins contained in this fill has been revised upwards to 25 by Zervos. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitative small module types F or G, dating the hoard to ca. 1209–1210. Perhaps concealment took place on the occasion of the final fall of the town to the Latins.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

673

Bibliography: Robinson, “Corinth 1960”, p. 131; DOS XII, p. 335; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 142; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 254, 425, 426, 432, 978, 1212, 1222, 1230 Content Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 23

Latin Empire 1204–1261 13 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, nos. 30 or 34, small module types A or E 3 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 3 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G

1.38 Argos 1984 Findspot: Peloponnese, Argos, Argolis. The hoard was excavated in the Sellis plot, in the southern part of the town (Map 1, E). Present status: 25th EBA, at a storage facility in Argos. Summary of content: Originally 67 tetartera and billon trachea, of which 55 (36 + 19) were eventually read. Byzantine Empire; Counterfeits; Latin Imitatives; Faithful Copies. Note: I was able to study this hoard thanks to the kindness of Dr Oiko­nomou-Laniado. A more detailed description of the hoard is given in my publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Imitative small module type F or counterfeit. As argued in the publication, the hoard was concealed at one point between ca. 1211 and the 1250s. Bibliography: Baker, “Argos”, pp. 212–214. Discussed further pp.: 79n482, 80n503, 127, 132, 138, 139, 144, 425, 426, 437, 438, 1201, 1203, 1212, 1222, 1230, 1608, 1610, 1616, 1622, 1624 Content Tetartera 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’

674 35

appendix i

Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 8 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 27 Of uncertain or undefined prototype

Billon trachea 2 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 2 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 15

Latin Empire 1204–1261 12 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C 1 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 1 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F

2

Uncertain billon trachea

1.39 Methana Findspot: Peloponnese, Methana peninsula in the Argolis, though now in the nomos of Peiraias (Map 1). Present status: Formerly in the collection of G. Finlay, and perhaps of the British School at Athens, now uncertain. Summary of content: Five or more short cross pennies. England. Note: Metcalf refers to a manuscript in the British School at Athens in which Finlay lists antiquities in his possession. I was unable to find this manuscript, nor any trace of the coins in the BSA museum. However, in his earliest reference to the hoard Metcalf had already listed the rev. legends, which allows us to infer mints, moneyers and to some extent classes. Date of concealment: Last issue: John (1199–1216) or Henry III (1216–1272), dating between ca. 1214 and ca. 1236. Concealment in the 1220s or 1230s is likely. Bibliography: Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans, p. 230, n. 15; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 264, n. 3; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 341, no. 163; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 150. Discussed further pp.: 127, 131, 139, 425, 443, 1277, 1280 Content Pennies 5 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II (1154–1189) 1 Short Cross class 1a–b, 1180–ca. 1185, London/Pieres M North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 962–963

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1

2

1

675

Richard (1189–1199) or John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 3–5c, 1189–ca. 1210, Canterbury/ Goldwine North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 967–971 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5a2–5b3, 1205–ca. 1206, Exeter/John North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Short Cross class 5b–c, 1205–ca. 1210, London/Beneit North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 970–971 John (1199–1216) or Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 6b2–7b4, ca. 1214–ca. 1236, Canterbury/Roger North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 975/2–979

1.40 Athens 1928 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was found in Athinas Street in central Athens and handed over to the NM by the Ministry of Education (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (six of the original 10 specimens, the remainder having been returned to the finder). Summary of content: 10 hyperpyra. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III. Note: The first publication to mention this hoard is Mosser’s, who received his information from the NM. Metcalf re-attributed these coins from John II to John III. Lianta inspected the coins and confirmed that they were all of the regular type of Vatatzes, and not Latin imitations thereof. Date of concealment: Last issue: John III Vatatzes (1221–1254). The absence of hyperpyra in the name of John III issued by the Latin Empire provides a clear terminus ante quem of 1241–1242, since such hyperpyra are otherwise rather common in southern Greece. Concealment during the 1220s or 1230s is likely. Bibliography: Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards, p. 8; Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 131; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 339, no. 150; Σύνταγμα, p. 121, no. 113; Lianta, “John II Comnenus”, pp. 273 and 275. Discussed further pp.: 76n454, 130, 446, 447, 452, 1258, 1259 Content Hyperpyra 10 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 10 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 10 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, pp. 504–505, first to third (?) phases

676

appendix i

1.41 Agrinio 1978/1979 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Akarnania, said to be from the area of Agrinio (Map 1). Present status: Dispersed, four specimens are now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Summary of content: 310 hyperpyra, of which 295 were examined. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III. Note: This hoard is seminal to the understanding of the gold coinage in the name of John III Vatatzes in its earlier phases (see the comments of Metcalf and latterly of Oberländer-Târnoveanu). Lianta re-attributed the early type DOC IV, 1–3 issues of Vatatzes to John II, and observed furthermore that some of the coins in the name of John III from this hoard were issues of the Latin Empire as defined by Oberländer-Târnoveanu. The latter, in a personal letter (26 November 2008), has informed me that he considers both of these views as doubtful. The first, because he believes that the Vrasta 1974 hoard, which was so crucial to Lianta’s arguments, is itself a thirteenth-century hoard. The second, because the overall profile of the Agrinio hoard is undoubtedly early, and because the important typological details on the coins in question are not clearly visible in Metcalf’s plates. The listing below retains the original attribution of the 242 coins to John III. Date of concealment: Last issue: John III Vatatzes (1221–1254). The absence of hyperpyra in the name of John III issued by the Latin Empire provides a clear terminus ante quem of 1241–1242, since such hyperpyra are otherwise rather common in southern and western Greece. A relatively early dating is confirmed by the apparent absence of Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s third phase hyperpyra of John III himself. Concealment would in all likelihood have taken place in the 1230s. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Agrinion hoard”; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, p. 177ff; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 144; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, pp. 504–506; Lianta, “John II Comnenus”, pp. 273 and 281, n. 29. Discussed further pp.: 76n454, 88, 126, 129, 131, 135, 137, 144, 165, 203, 256, 471, 478, 1254, 1255, 1258, 1259, 1261, 1262, 1263 Content Hyperpyra 53 Byzantine Empire before 1204 3 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 7 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 2 Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) 18 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 23 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

242

677

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 242 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, type 2a 1 DOC IV, type 3 240 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, pp. 504–505, first and second phases

1.42 Albania Findspot: Albania. The hoard was confiscated by the authorities in Athens from two Albanian nationals, which led the Numismatic Museum to surmise that it was probably found in Albania (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 26 hyperpyra. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III or Latin Empire. Note: No other information is presently available. Date of concealment: Last issue: John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) or Latin Empire. The possible termini post quem are therefore 1221 and 1241–1242. Bibliography: AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 88; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 247, n. 36. Discussed further pp.: 92, 130, 471, 478, 1258, 1260, 1263 Content Hyperpyra 26 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea or Latin Empire 1204–1261 26 In the name of John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 26 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, uncertain phase; DOC IV, types 4–5ff, ‘second’, ‘second transitional’, or ‘second late’ coinages 1.43 Corinth 1898 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated in Lechaion Road or the adjacent Peirene, classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two grossi. Venice to Jacopo Tiepolo. Note: Metcalf: “Two grossi were found in 1898, presumably a tiny hoard.” Edwards had not classified these coins as a hoard and her catalogue of ‘stray finds’ needs to be amended accordingly. Date of concealment: Last issue: Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249). Concealment took place between 1229 and 1249, or perhaps shortly thereafter.

678

appendix i

Bibliography: Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, p. 158; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 265; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 151; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 208–209 and 228. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 132, 139, 425, 426, 433, 961, 965, 1296, 1298 Content Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 2 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1.44 Thebes 1967 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Thebes, Pyri area of town, Rousi plot. This is an extra-mural area to the northwest of the Kadmeia (Map 4). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 624 billon trachea and three tetartera. Byzantine Empires at Nicaea and Thessalonike to John III and Manuel or John (?) respectively; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives. Byzantine Empire to Manuel I Komnenos; Counterfeits. Note: Oikonomidou, who describes the hoard in some detail, illustrates one of the three tetartera. This is a genuine specimen of Manuel I’s Monogram type, and not one of the counterfeit issues which became relatively common in southern Greece after 1204. However, as noted, this coin has been knocked into the shape of a trachy. Orestes Zervos, whom I thank, informs me further that counterfeit tetartera were present in this hoard. The editors of the Σύνταγμα have reviewed Oikonomidou’s attribution of the thirteenth-century Thessalonican type known through Metcalf’s “Peter and Paul” hoard. They have excluded John Komnenos Doukas as a potential issuer, even though to my mind this coin is most likely to be a series III coin of that ruler. This has an obvious implication for the dating of the hoard (see below). Date of concealment: Last issue: John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) or Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237)/ John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244). The later Latin Imitative large module issues (D, O, R) are too early to influence the dating of this hoard. The absence of the plentiful Thessalonican issues of John III provides a terminus ante quem of 1246. Type H of that same ruler at Nicaea, included in the hoard, cannot be dated independently, though the general reluctance of this hoard to develop within the Nicaean series would suggest a relatively early date within the issues of John III. The uncertainties surrounding the last Thessalonican issue in this hoard notwithstanding (see

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

679

above), 1237 is the most plausible numismatic terminus post quem. It should nevertheless be noted that Michael II of Epiros attacked Thebes in 1235–1236: Nicol, Epiros I, p. 131. Concealment probably took place rather early in the period after 1235–1236 or 1237. Bibliography: AD, 29 (1973–74), NM, p. 14; CH, 5 (1979), p. 225; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 222; Oikonomidou, “Τρείς θησαυροί”, pp. 989–995; Symeonoglou, Thebes, site 128; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 143; Σύνταγμα, pp. 119–120, no. 109. Discussed further pp.: 76n456, 138, 256, 446, 447, 457, 458, 1201, 1203n39, 1211n99, 1212, 1219, 1222, 1230, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1239 Content Tetartera 3 Byzantine Empire before 1204 3 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 3 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ Billon trachea 16 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 4 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 12 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 594

Latin Empire 1204–1261 3 DOC IV, no. 2, Constantinople large module type B 3 DOC IV, no. 3, Constantinople large module type C 1 DOC IV, no. 4, Constantinople large module type D 1 DOC IV, no. 15, Constantinople large module type O 1 DOC IV, no. 18, Constantinople large module type R 4 DOC IV, no. 25, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 366 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 38 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 11 DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C 60 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 41 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 20 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F 21 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 23 Uncertain small module

680

appendix i

3

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 2 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 2 DOC IV, no. 6, type B; DOS XII, second coinage, pl. 31.1–5 1 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 42, type H; DOS XII, type H, pl. 33.9

11

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 9 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 9 DOC IV, no. 4, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 37.7–9 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) or Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 Uncertain type 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) or John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) 1 Metcalf, “Peter and Paul”, p. 172, nos. 1111–1112, pl. 11, nos. 121–122

1.45 Erymantheia 1955 Findspot: Peloponnese, Erymantheia, 39km to the south of Patra (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (nine specimens). Summary of content: 17 hyperpyra (of which nine are listed here below). Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III; Latin Empire. Note: All nine specimens which are now in Athens were originally illustrated by Metcalf, and Oberländer-Târnoveanu based his re-attributions on these images. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Empire, leading to a terminus post quem of 1241–1242. Concealment even a decade or two later is possible. Bibliography: BCH, 80 (1956), NM, p. 228; Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus”, pl. 10; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 131, n. 4; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 145; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 508, n. 65; Σύνταγμα, p. 121, no. 112; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 246, n. 32. Discussed further pp.: 76n454, 92, 130, 263, 425, 443, 681, 1258, 1260, 1263 Content Hyperpyra 5 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 5 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 5 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, pp. 504–505, first and second phases

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

4

681

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 1 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 2 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 7?

1.46 Patra before 1940 Findspot: Peloponnese, probably nomos of Achaïa, somewhere to the south of Patra (Map 1, G). Present status: Dispersed (?). Summary of content: Ca. 30 hyperpyra. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III and/or Latin Empire. Note: Metcalf establishes the existence of two hoards (the previous entry «45. Erymantheia 1955» and the present one) on the basis of the BCH entry: “9 pièces d’or de Jean III (…) provenant d’un trésor de 17 pièces pareilles découvert à Erymanteia-Tritaea (Achaïe, éparchie de Patras) (…). Il paraît qu’une trouvaille semblable de 30 pièces a été faite peu avant la guerre dans la même région.” This begs the question of whether reference is in fact being made in this passage from the BCH to the «47. Seltsi 1938» hoard, listed below, which is from the same general area and was found shortly before the 1940–1944 war. However, the vagueness of this information, and the quantity of ca. 30 specimens, appear somewhat strange in view of the fact that the 1938 Seltsi hoard with four hyperpyra had already been mentioned by the NM in the BCH for 1938, and Seltsi lies actually at quite a distance from Patra. It is therefore most likely that we are dealing with three separate thirteenth-century hyperpyron hoards from the area of southern Achaïa and northern Arkadia. Date of concealment: Last issue: John III or Latin Empire. This establishes termini post quem of 1221 and 1241–1242. Although no precise information on the composition of this hoard is available, I list this hoard here since our experience with the other two gold hoards from the area allows us to expect a later rather than an earlier date of concealment. Bibliography: BCH, 80 (1956), NM, p. 228; Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus”, pl. 10; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 131, n. 4; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 148. Discussed further pp.: 76n454, 92, 130, 263, 425, 443, 1258, 1260, 1263

682

appendix i

Content Hyperpyra ca. 30 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea or Latin Empire 1204–1261 ca. 30 In the name of John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1.47 Seltsi 1938 Findspot: Peloponnese, nomos of Arkadia, eparchia of Mantineia. The hoard was privately excavated in the locality of Seltsi, close to the small town of Levidi (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Four hyperpyra. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III Vatatzes; Latin Empire. Note: I was able to inspect the hoard. The genuine Nicaean specimen is illustrated in the Σύνταγμα. Date of concealment: Last issue: Latin Empire, leading to a terminus post quem of 1241–1242. Concealment even a decade or two later is possible. Bibliography: BCH, 62 (1938), NM, p. 446; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 147; Σύνταγμα, pp. 120–121, no. 110; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 247, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 92, 263, 425, 443, 681, 1258, 1260, 1263 Content Hyperpyra 1 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 504, first phase, no. 3 3 Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 12 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, / 1.48 Ioannina 1983 Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. The findspot is given as the ‘kastro’ (Oikonomidou et al.), which must denote the entire walled area of the old town (Map 1, A). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Six billon trachea. Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike to John III. Note: No detailed description of the hoard is available, although it seems that the information given below describes it in its entirety.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

683

Date of concealment: Last issue: John III Vatatzes (1246–1254). Type A is considered John’s first issue at Thessalonike, with a provisional dating of 1246–1248/9 (DOC IV, p. 605). The later Epirote hoards prove that John’s later issues of the city were readily available, and concealment of this hoard must therefore have occurred within the indicated period or very shortly thereafter. There are no known contemporary historical developments affecting Ioannina which might shed further light on the hoard’s precise dating. Bibliography: Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 225; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, p. 119. Discussed further pp.: 138, 144, 256, 354, 471, 476, 1236, 1239 Content Billon trachea 6 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 6 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 6 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 42.1–2 1.49 Eretria 1962A Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia, Eretria. The hoard was acquired in this location. It might have been found locally, or in the wider area (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 121 deniers tournois. Tours; France to Louis VIII and/or IX. Date of concealment: Last issue: Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226– 1270). It is unlikely that concealment took place much beyond 1250, because of the absence of French feudal issues. Bibliography: AD, 17 (1961–62), NM, p. 6; BCH, 86 (1962), NM, p. 425; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 341, no. 164. Discussed further pp.: 126, 132, 140, 446, 466, 1285, 1286, 1289 Content Deniers tournois 8? Abbey of Tours 106 Kingdom of France 106 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 106 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A 7

Uncertain deniers tournois

684

appendix i

1.50 Sparta 1926C Findspot: Peloponnese, Sparta. The hoard was excavated in the position ‘E Parodos above stairs’ of the theatre, on the Spartan akropolis (Map 1, F). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, Spartan coins nos. 1356–1364. Summary of content: Nine deniers tournois. France to Louis VIII and/or IX. Note: These nine coins were found in a single envelope amongst the Sparta excavation material. They were presumably a hoard. The coins are yet to be conserved and all that can presently be said about them is that they are all French royal issues in the name of Louis. Date of concealment: Last issue: Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226– 1270). It is unlikely that concealment took place much beyond 1250, because of the absence of French feudal issues. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 264, 425, 426, 439, 1037, 1286 Content Deniers tournois 9 Kingdom of France 9 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 9 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A 1.51 Athens 1963B Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was excavated on the Areopagos hill, off the Ancient Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: Eight deniers tournois. France to Louis IX; Provence. Note: Two further royal French deniers tournois found very close to the hoard may have formed part of the hoard: one Louis VIII and/or IX: TVRONV(I)S CIVI (Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188), and one Louis IX, TVRONVS CIVIS (no. 193). Date of concealment: Last issue: Louis IX (1226–1270) or Alphonse de France (1249–1271). The bias towards royal issues and the absence of issues of Charles of Anjou for Provence date concealment to the 1250s. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Areopagus”, pp. 203–23; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 340, no. 159. Discussed further pp.: 75n450, 446, 447, 450, 452, 934, 1286, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1358

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

685

Content Deniers tournois 7 Kingdom of France 5 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 5 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188 +TVRONV(I)S CIVI 2 Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

1.52 Xirochori 2001 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The village of Xirochori lies 4.5km northeast of the town of Zacharo. The hoard was apparently found outside the castle (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA. Storage facility at Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One grosso, three hyperpyra. Venice to Raniero Zeno; Latin Empire. Note: The hoard is more thoroughly presented and discussed in the cited publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Zeno (1253–1268). The hoard has a terminus post quem of 1253, and was probably concealed in the further course of the 1250s, or the 1260s. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 286–287. Discussed further pp.: 92, 425, 443, 1260, 1263, 1296, 1297n567, 1299, 1642, 1654 Content Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) Hyperpyra 3 Latin Empire 1204–1261 3 cf. for the overall style, though not the marks: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, pp. 506–509

686

appendix i

1.53 Corinth 15 June 1925 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated at Temple Hill South, classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Three hyperpyra. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to Theodore II Laskaris. Note: Edwards did not classify this find as a hoard, despite the fact that Bellinger states quite clearly that the coins were found together. Bellinger illustrates the three coins on pl. II.4–6. Date of concealment: Last issue: Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258). Concealment will have occurred in the mid to late 1250s, or maybe thereafter. Bibliography: Bellinger, Corinth, p. 74, n. 1; Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, pp. 149– 150; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 340, no. 157; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 247, n. 34. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 92, 138, 425, 426, 433, 965, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1263, 1640 Content Hyperpyra 1 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 1 DOC IV, no. 1 2

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 2

1.54 Berbati 1953 Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis. The hoard was found in the settlement of Prosimna, formerly Berbati, near Limnes (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, or a local museum or store room. Summary of content: 11 deniers tournois, two short cross pennies. France to Louis IX; Provence; Poitou; Tours; England. Note: The find emanates from controlled excavations. Date of concealment: Last issue: Louis IX (1226–1270) or Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) or Alphonse of France (1241–1271). According to Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 203, no. 20, the single piece of Charles dates rather early. For this reason, and because of the dominance of French royal over

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

687

feudal issues, and of early issues in the name of Louis over later ones, the date of concealment is the 1250s rather than the 1260s. Bibliography: BCH, 78 (1954), “Chronique des fouilles en 1953”, p. 117; Metcalf, “Berbati”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 341, no. 162; Hahn, “The early Byzantine to modern periods”, pp. 445–446; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 156; Baker, “Argos”, p. 231, n. 45. Discussed further pp.: 75n450, 126, 139, 335, 425, 438, 443, 1277, 1285, 1286, 1289, 1291 Content Deniers tournois 2 Abbey of Tours 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 7

Kingdom of France 5 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

2

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

2

Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

1

County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

688

appendix i

Pennies 2 Kingdom of England 2 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, London/Ledulf North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 1 Short Cross class 8b or c, ca. 1242–1247, Canterbury/ Nicole North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 981 1.55 Athens 1963A Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was excavated on the Areopagos hill, off the Ancient Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: 202 petty denomination coins of Frankish Greece. One tetarteron. Achaïa; Athens; Byzantine Empire. Date of concealment: Last issue: the Achaïan and Athenian issues date very close to one another, although the latter might have been produced for a little bit longer. The Achaïan issue itself establishes a terminus post quem of 1255. As I have argued elsewhere, the absence of later Achaïan petty denomination issues does not provide water-tight evidence for an early dating of this hoard, and it can be imagined that concealment took place in the later 1250s or even, though less likely, the early 1260s. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Areopagus”, pp. 203–223; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 340, no. 158; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 35. Discussed further pp.: 75n448, 132, 140, 204, 446, 447, 450, 451, 452, 689, 934, 1201, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1365, 1366, 1371 Content Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 200

Lordship of Athens 200 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate

Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

689

1.56 Corinth 16 April 1929 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated north of Peribolos (Cistern 1929–3), classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 19 petty denomination coins of Achaïa. There were also other coins (not listed below) in the same fill, though none of them post-date the CORIHTVä issues. Note: Metcalf: “The coins, all of the CORINTVM type, were excavated in an area North of the Peribolos, in Cistern A, on 16 April 1929.” Edwards had not classified this as a hoard, presumably because the primary characteristics of a hoard (receptacle etc.) were lacking. Date of concealment: Early- to mid-1250s, possibly earlier than «55. Athens 1963A». Bibliography: Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, pp. 12 and 152; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 245, n. 4; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 339, no. 152; Baker, “Argos”, p. 230, n. 37. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 132, 140, 425, 426, 433, 965, 1365, 1368 Content Petty denomination issues 19 Principality of Achaïa 19 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 19 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1.57 Corinth 1938 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated at the Valerian Wall, sometimes called the Justinianic Wall, halfway between the modern village and the Kraneion basilica («271» ) (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Eight petty denomination coins of Achaïa. Note: Metcalf was the first to identify these coins as a hoard-like assemblage, though they were not classified as such by Harris. Date of concealment: Early- to mid-1250s, possibly earlier than «55. Athens 1963A». Bibliography: Harris, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939”, pp. 146 and 154; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 339, no. 153; Baker, “Argos”, p. 230, n. 37. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 132, 140, 425, 426, 430, 433, 971, 1365, 1368

690

appendix i

Content Petty denomination issues 8 Principality of Achaïa 8 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1.58 Naxos ca. 1969 Findspot: Cyclades, island of Naxos, in a location called Panormos, a small landing place used by the inhabitants of the village of Apeiranthos (see Varoucha), in the southeastern part of the island (Map 1). Present status: The hoard appeared almost in its entirety in London. Now largely dispersed (?). Summary of content: 1423 long and short cross pennies (1413 listed by Stewartby, to which ten reported by Varoucha should be added); one denier tournois; six grossi. The hoard might originally have contained more coins. England, Scotland, Ireland under English rule, German issuers; France to Louis VIII and/ or IX; Venice to Jacopo Tiepolo. Note: The coins listed by Stewartby include four lots that reached London in the later 1960s and early 1970s, one of which had been published by him previously (as Stewart). His entry in CH offers a preliminary summary of the information which would later appear in Stewartby. The short and long cross issues from Patsos in Crete, formerly held to be from the same hoard as the specimens said to be from Naxos, are treated in this appendix as a separate hoard for reasons which I give under that specific entry (see «467»). The parcel of ten English, Scottish and Irish pennies from Naxos which Varoucha published (pp. 14–15) must however be considered as part of the present hoard. Varoucha provides a very precise findspot for the Naxos hoard, and it is therefore unnecessary to continue placing the name of the hoard in inverted commas, as Stewartby and Allen do. In the listing here I have heavily rationalised Stewartby’s detailed catalogue of mints, moneyers and classes. I have not included the ten coins first published by Varoucha, since their attributions are not entirely secure (see Stewartby, “The ‘Naxos’ hoard”, p. 166). Date of concealment: Last issue: Henry III (1216–1272), the last class 5 coin of his long cross coinage being a specimen of 5f, dated ca. 1256–ca. 1258. Concealment shortly thereafter is, numismatically speaking, very likely. It should be noted that following his conquest of Constantinople in 1261, although it is not certain precisely when, Michael VIII Palaiologos took the island of Naxos (Pachymeres III.15). Concealment and abandonment of this substantial hoard might well be considered in the light of this event.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

691

Bibliography: Stewart, “English short-cross coins from the Aegean”; Varoucha, “Αγγλικά νομίσματα”, pp. 14–15; CH, 5 (1979), p. 141f; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 264, n. 5; Stewartby, “The ‘Naxos’ hoard”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 340, no. 160; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 154; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 209 and 229; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 79n487, 129, 139, 140, 144, 203, 205, 232, 257, 344, 479, 481, 1114, 1265, 1277, 1279, 1280, 1286, 1287, 1296, 1299 Content Pennies 1360 Kingdom of England 24 Henry II (1154–1189) 24 Short Cross class 1, 1180–ca. 1189 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 962–964 3 Richard (1189–1199) 3 Short Cross class 3, 1189–ca. 1190 North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 967 30 Richard (1189–1199) or John (1199–1216) 30 Short Cross class 4, 1194–1204 North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 968 178 John (1199–1216) 178 Short Cross class 5, 1204–ca. 1210 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 968/4–973 112 John (1199–1216) or Henry III (1216–1272) 112 Short Cross class 6, ca. 1210–ca. 1217 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 974–975 1013 Henry III (1216–1272) 672 Short Cross class 7, 1217–1242 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 978–980 274 Short Cross class 8, ca. 1242–1247 North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 981 6 Long Cross class 1, 1247–1248 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 983–984 11 Long Cross class 2, 1248 North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 985 39 Long Cross class 3, 1248–1250 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 986–988 11 Long Cross class 5, 1250–ca. 1275 North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 991–999

692

appendix i

13

Kingdom of Scotland 1 William I (1165–1214) 1 Short Cross and Stars phase a, 1199–1205, Roxburgh/ Paul Coins of Scotland, nos. 5027–5028 7 William I (1165–1214) or Alexander II (1214–1249) in the name of William I 5 Short Cross and Stars phase b, 1205–1230, Hue Walter Coins of Scotland, nos. 5029–5033 2 Short Cross and Stars phase b, 1205–1230, Henri le Rus Coins of Scotland, nos. 5029–5033 1 Alexander II (1214–1249) in the name of William I (1165–1214) 1 Short Cross and Stars phase c, 1230–1235, Roxburgh/ Adam Coins of Scotland, nos. 5034 3 Alexander II (1214–1249) 1 Short Cross and Stars phase d, 1235–1249, Roxburgh/ Alain Coins of Scotland, nos. 5035–5038 1 Short Cross and Stars phase d, 1235–1249, Roxburgh/ Alain Andrev Coins of Scotland, nos. 5035–5038 1 Short Cross and Stars phase d, 1235–1249, Roxburgh/ Pieres Coins of Scotland, nos. 5035–5038 1 Alexander III (1249–1286) 1 Long Cross and Stars, first coinage, type III, 1250– ca. 1280, Perth/Ion Cokin Coins of Scotland, nos. 5043

15

Lordship of Ireland under English Kings 15 John (1199–1216) 13 Third coinage, 1207–1211, Dublin/Roberd Coins of Scotland, no. 6228 1 Third coinage, 1207–1211, Dublin/Wilelm P Coins of Scotland, no. 6228A 1 Third coinage, 1207–1211, Limerick/Willem Coins of Scotland, no. 6229

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

13

693

Imitative Short Cross pennies, probably German

1

Imitative Long Cross penny, probably German

11

German signed Sterling types

Denier tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

Grossi 6 Republic of Venice 2 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 4 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1.59 Argos 1988 Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis, Argos. The hoard was excavated on the Agricultural Bank (A.T.E.) plot, in the southern part of the town (Map 1, E). Present status: 25th EBA, at a storage facility in Argos. Summary of content: Originally 275 coins, of which 177 tetartera, 12 billon trachea, and 47 petty denomination issues were available for study. Byzantine Empire; Counterfeits. Latin Empire at Constantinople; Achaïa. Note: I was able to study this hoard thanks to the kindness of Dr Oikonomou-Laniado. A more detailed description of the hoard is given in the publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: petty denomination issue type 10, making concealment from the early 1260s most likely. Bibliography: Baker, “Argos”, pp. 214–220. Discussed further pp.: 79n482, 80n503, 132, 139, 140, 255, 328, 425, 426, 437, 438, 1201, 1203, 1222, 1230, 1231, 1365, 1369, 1370, 1608, 1610, 1612, 1618, 1622, 1694 Content Tetartera 2 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 1 DOC IV, type 14, ‘Bust of Emperor’ 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’

694 175

appendix i

Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 37 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 9 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 129 Of uncertain or undefined prototype

Billon trachea 10 Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 2, Constantinople large module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 5, Constantinople large module type E 1 DOC IV, no. 15, Constantinople large module type O 2 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 2

Uncertain billon trachea

Petty denomination issues 47 Principality of Achaïa 47 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 44 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 3 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 1 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 2 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, nos. 1–2 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, nos. 1–3 30 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 5 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. / 1.60 Nemea 1936 Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. The hoard was found in the stadium of Ancient Nemea in the summer of 1936 (Map 1). Present status: Nemea Archaeological Museum.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

695

Summary of content: 13 French royal and feudal deniers tournois. France to Louis VIII or IX; Tours; Provence; Poitou. Date of concealment: Last issue: Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285). The type in question is dated by Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 204, no. 22d–e, to post-1262. Because of the preponderance of royal French issues concealment probably occurred rather close to that date. Bibliography: Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III, pp. 233–234; Baker, “Argos”, p. 231, n. 45. Discussed further pp.: 80n500, 126, 335, 425, 443, 1285, 1286, 1289, 1291 Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 6

Kingdom of France 6 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 6 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A

2

County of Provence 2 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947.

1

County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

3

Uncertain French deniers tournois

1.61 Attica 1971 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard originates from somewhere in this region (Map /). Present status: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford and dispersed (?).

696

appendix i

Summary of content: 34 deniers tournois. France to Louis IX; Provence; Poitou; Riom. Note: Not all the French royal issues in the name of Louis could be properly read, hence the parentheses in the listing below. Date of concealment: Last issue: Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285). The single piece of Charles contained in the hoard is dated by Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 204, no. 22d–e, to after 1262. Ca. 1267, that is to say the beginning of tournois issues at Clarentza, provides the terminus ante quem. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 339, no. 155. Discussed further pp.: 446, 462, 1285, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1293 Content Deniers tournois 6 Abbey of Tours 6 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 21

Kingdom of France 7 Philip II (1180–1223) 7 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

14

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) (4) Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188 +TVRONV(I)S CIVI (4) Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS

4

Marquisat of Provence 4 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 4 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

697

1

County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

1

County of Riom 1 Alphonse of France (1230–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 2267

1.62 Trikala 1949 Findspot: Thessaly, Trikala (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 40 grossi, one denier tournois, one hyperpyron. Venice to Raniero Zeno; France to Louis IX; Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III. Note: This hoard is entitled Thessaly 1949 in some of the older publications. It is not entirely certain whether the hyperpyron should be considered part of the hoard (Galani-Krikou). Its system of marking is not quite clear, though stylistically it is best assigned to the third phase of Vatatzes according to the classification of Oberländer-Târnoveanu. Date of concealment: Last issue: Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) or Louis IX (1226– 1270). An early- to mid-1260s dating looks likely on account of the proportions of the last two doges, but an earlier dating is also possible, and a date of 1258 is suggested on p. 145. Bibliography: Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus”, pl. 11, no. 21; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 221; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 142, no. 3; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 340, no. 156; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 209 and 228; Stahl, Zecca, p. 443, nos. 56 and 59; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 73. Discussed further pp.: 76n454, 92, 132, 145, 205, 257, 334, 468, 469, 1258, 1259, 1286, 1287, 1296, 1299 Content Grossi 40 Republic of Venice 9 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 18 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 4 Marino Morosini (1249–1253) 9 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268)

698

appendix i

Denier tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

Hyperpyron 1 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 505, third phase, no. 2?; DOC IV, type 16 1.63 Kordokopi 1972 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The hoard was found in the locality of Kordokopi, part of the settlement of Palouki which belongs the municipality of Amaliada (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA. Storage facility at Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: 488 deniers tournois, two grossi, six short cross pennies, three hyperpyra. Tours; France to Louis IX; Provence; Poitou; Riom; Toulouse; Venice to R. Zeno; England; Latin Empire; Byzantine Empire at Nicaea to John III. Note: More details regarding this hoard are contained in the most recent publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) or Charles of Anjou (1246–1285). The latter (see Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 204) provides a terminus post quem of 1262 for concealment, while the absence of tournois of Clarentza date it before ca. 1267. A 1264 concealment on historical grounds has been argued. Bibliography: AD, 28 (1973), B’1, p. 198; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 209, n. 29 and p. 229; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 285–287. Discussed further pp.: 92, 130, 132, 139, 145, 205, 336, 425, 443, 1258, 1260, 1263, 1277, 1281, 1285, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1296, 1299, 1485, 1640, 1646, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1654 Content Deniers tournois 30 Abbey of Tours 30 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

339

699

Kingdom of France 14 Philip II (1180–1223) 12 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

2

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 177 +TVRONVS CIVI

164

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 86 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

75

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

3

161

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A Louis IX (1226–1270) 161 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

25

County of Provence 25 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 21 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3954 +K.FI.Rñ.F.COMESP. / +PROVINCIALIS 1 mule of Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 and 3954

58

Marquisat of Provence 58 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 58 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

20

County of Poitou 20 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 20 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

700

appendix i

8

County of Riom 8 Alphonse of France (1230–1271) 8 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 2267

8

County of Toulouse 8 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 8 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3706

Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) Pennies 6 Kingdom of England 4 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, York/Davi North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Short Cross class 5b–c, 1205–ca. 1210, London/ Rener North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 970–971 1 Short Cross class 6a2, ca. 1210–ca. 1213, London/ Rauf North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 974/2 1 Short Cross class 6c1, ca. 1215–ca. 1216, London/ Walter North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 976/1 2 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 6c3, ca. 1217, London/Rauf North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 976/3 1 Short Cross class 7c2, ca. 1240–ca. 1242, Bury St. Edmunds/Sigmund North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 980

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

701

Hyperpyra 1 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 505, second phase, no. 12; DOC IV, type 10b 2

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 2; DOC IV, type 6b 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 7? DOC IV, type ?

1.64 Ioannina 1821 Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina (Map 1, A). Present status: Library of the Romanian Academy, Numismatic Department. Summary of content: 441 grossi to Raniero Zeno. Date of concealment: Last issue: Raniero Zeno (1253–1268). The issues of this doge are mature, which suggests concealment in the course of the 1260s. It is likely that the five to six Epirote hoards of similar date in this appendix were all buried in 1264 during the imperial offensive in Epiros: see «66. Arta 1923». Bibliography: Iliescu, “Cabinetul Numismatic”, p. 320; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 203 and 221; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 141, no. 2; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 228; Stahl, Zecca, p. 443, no. 57. Discussed further pp.: 130, 145, 343, 471, 477, 702, 703, 1296, 1299 Content Grossi 441 Republic of Venice 27 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 98 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 41 Marino Morosini (1249–1253) 275 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 1.65 Kirkizates Artas 1915 Findspot: Epiros, Kirkizates, 7km west of Arta (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 182 grossi and one hyperpyron. Venice to R. Zeno; Byzantine Empire at Nicaea or Latin Empire. Note: The single hyperpyron has yet to be more fully described.

702

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Raniero Zeno (1253–1268). The issues of this doge are mature. The comments made with regard to the previous entry, «64. Ioannina 1821», apply in equal measure to the present hoard, and concealment was very probably in 1264. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 141, no. 1; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 209 and 228; Stahl, Zecca, p. 443, no. 58. Discussed further pp.: 92, 130, 257, 332, 343, 471, 472, 473, 703, 1258, 1260, 1263, 1296, 1298n575, 1299 Content Grossi 182 Republic of Venice 3 Enrico Dandolo (1192–1205) 20 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 43 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 12 Marino Morosini (1249–1253) 104 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) Hyperpyron 1 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea or Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 In the name of John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, uncertain phase; DOC IV, types 4–5ff, ‘second’, ‘second transitional’, or ‘second late’ coinages 1.66 Arta 1923 Findspot: Epiros, Arta. The hoard was said to have been found in this town (Map 1, B). Present status: The British Museum. The Athens Numismatic Museum holds casts of the hoard. Summary of content: 74 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Michael VIII; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitative; Bulgaria. Note: Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, provides a re-reading of the issues contained in the hoard made on the basis of plaster casts. I list the hoard here below accordingly, though transcribed into the more recent references contained in DOC IV and V. I have made one amendment to Touratsoglou’s list, with Type F (formerly Type E) of John III Vatatzes (Thessalonike) being given nine and not one specimen (cf. Bendall and Donald). There has been much speculation, by Protonotarios and Touratsoglou, about the single unattributed piece bearing

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

703

the two ruler (?) figures on the reverse. DOC IV, pp. 625–626, and 698, compares it directly to the Arta issue depicting the town walls and attributes it tentatively to Michael II, with the second figure being that of a saint. The coin listed under John III for Nicaea as DOC IV, ‘Uncertain attribution and addenda’, no. 1, type V, had been ascribed by Touratsoglou to Theodore II Laskaris. It should be noted that Bendall, “John III Vatatzes and Theodore II Ducas-Lascaris”, had postulated with good reason that successive issues of this same type existed for these two emperors. The attribution of the single piece from the present hoard remains unresolved and the reference to DOC IV has been chosen for reasons of uniformity and convenience (see also my comments on the «67. Arta 1983» hoard). The earliest coins of Michael VIII, C1, are ascribed in DOC V, nos. 46–51, to the Philadelphia mint. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261–1282). The absence of joint issues of Michael VIII and his son and co-emperor Andronikos II provides a possible terminus ante quem of 1272. The issues of Michael VIII contained in the hoard are amongst his earliest (an opinion expressed in DOC and most recently, on iconographic grounds, by Touratsoglou). Further, if the idea of a yearly rotation of types is adhered to, this would take us to ca. 1262–64, depending on when in the period 1259–1261 Michael’s minting might have commenced in Philadelphia(?) and Constantinople, and Thessalonike respectively. Touratsoglou’s attempt at dating the three to four Epirote billon trachy hoards (“Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”, p. 243) according to the Union of the Churches achieved at Lyons in 1274, ignores his own dating of the types (see here above), and the existence of two further hoards from the mid-1260s containing mainly grossi (see «64. Ioannina 1821» and «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915»), and is also implausible on historical grounds. It is in fact likely that the five to six Epirote hoards of similar date in this appendix were all buried in 1264 during the imperial offensive in Epiros (see generally Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 8–10): Arta and Ioannina were first taken in 1259 following the Epirote defeat at Pelagonia (Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologos, p. 72; TIB 6, pp. 113 and 166). The passage in Michael VIII’s autobiography narrating his conquests relates to these events (Grégoire, “Imperatoris Michaelis”, p. 457). Between the latter and the final treaty in 1264 imperial pressure was constant (Pachymeres II.26, III.16, III.20), and the hoards are probably testimonies to further imperial attacks on these towns in 1264, which are not referred to in any of the extant sources. Bibliography: Mattingly, “Arta”; Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards, pp. 6–7; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, pp. XII–XIV; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 137, n. 24; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 209, n. 1 and pp. 213–214, n. 10; Oikonomidou

704

appendix i

et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, p. 117ff; DOC V, pp. 13 and 116–117; Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”, pp. 248–249. Discussed further pp.: 74, 138, 205, 330, 471, 473, 706, 709, 1212, 1222, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1243, 1244, 1245 Content Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 1

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 25, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type B

2

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, ‘Uncertain attribution and addenda’, no. 1, type V; see also DOC IV, ‘Theodore II’, no. 12, type D; DOS XII, p. 407 1 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 1 DOC IV, no. 10, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 35.7–8

35

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 2 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 38.6–7 1 Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, “type [H]”, pp. 211–212 pl. 88, nos. 1–4; cf. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390; Mattingly “Arta”, p. 41, class XVIII 2 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 39.3 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 39.10–11 1 John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) 1 DOC IV, no. 2, series I, type B; DOS XII, series I, type B, pl. 40.2 22 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 42.3–4 6 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type C, pl. 42.5–6 9 DOC IV, no. 8, type F; DOS XII, type E, pl. 42.9–10

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

705

1 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type F, pl. 42.11–12 1 DOC IV, no. 10, type H; DOS XII, type G, pl. 43.1–2 4 DOC IV, no. 11, type I; DOS XII, type H, pl. 43.3–4 8 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 8 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, type 1, pl. 43.10 1

Uncertain attribution, Thessalonike/Arta? 1 Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 14; DOC IV, p. 703, no. 9, type B

32

Byzantine Empire after 1261 32 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 3 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 46–51; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C1 13 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 136–143; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T2 3 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 144–146; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T3 6 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4 7 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 186–190; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T16

2

Bulgarian Empire 2 Ivan II Asen (1218–1241) 2 DOC IV, no. 2; DOS XII, pl. 46.10–11

1.67 Arta 1983 Findspot: Epiros, Arta. The hoard was found in 1983 at the Christogiorgos plot, situated at the junction of Arachthou Street and the national road leading from Ioannina to Antirio, in the eastern part of town, during controlled excavations conducted by B. Papadopoulou: Papadopoulou, “Arta”, p. 58, top left (Map 1, B). Present status: 8th EBA. Exhibited in the Byzantine Museum of Ioannina. Summary of content: 142 billon trachea (Touratsoglou’s publication erroneously states 132). Byzantine Empire to Michael VIII; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives; Bulgaria.

706

appendix i

Note: The hoard contains four issues, apparently of Nicaea and Thessalonike, which DOC IV has failed to incorporate: see Types [M] (John III Vatatzes, Nicaea), [F] (Theodore II Laskaris, Nicaea), and [H] and [I] (Theodore Komnenos Doukas, Thessalonike, though the latter issue is regarded potentially, but rather doubtfully, as Artan); see also generally on these omissions Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390. The two types ascribed in Bendall, “John III Vatatzes and Theodore II Ducas-Lascaris”, to these respective rulers at Nicaea are represented in the hoard with one specimen each. These were treated by Touratsoglou as Thessalonican, but are united in DOC IV as a single type of John III Vatatzes in Nicaea: DOC IV, ‘Uncertain attribution and addenda’, no. 1, type V. This identification has been used here in the list below without necessarily endorsing it, since the rev. reading of íñOåwPOC, first reconstructed by Bendall, but repeated even in DOC IV, p. 525, would seem to point to successive issues for the two emperors (see also my comments on the «66. Arta 1923» hoard). The earliest coins of Michael VIII, C1 and C2, are ascribed in DOC V, nos. 46–51 and nos. 52–56, to the Philadelphia mint. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261–1282). The present hoard is of very similar composition to the previous one, «66. Arta 1923», and even the additional presence of types C20 and C23 of Michael do not change one’s impression of the dating. They were probably concealed concurrently in 1264. See the comments made under «66. Arta 1923». Bibliography: Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”; B. Papadopoulou in AD, 38 (1983), B’2, p. 249; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, p. 117ff; E. Georgantelis in NC, 155 (1995), p. 347 (=CH); Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”, pp. 248–249. Discussed further pp.: 138, 205, 257, 330, 471, 473, 703, 709, 1212, 1222, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1239, 1243, 1244, 1245 Content Billon trachea 2 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 2

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

4

70

707

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 3 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 2 DOC IV, ‘Uncertain attribution and addenda’, no. 1, type V; see also DOC IV, ‘Theodore II’, no. 12, type D; DOS XII, p. 407 1 Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, “type [M]”, p. 212 pl. 88, no. 5; cf. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390. 1 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 1 Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, “type [F]”, p. 212, pl. 88, no. 6; cf. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390. Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 12 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 37.7–9 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type C; DOS XII, type C, pl. 38.1–2 1 DOC IV, no. 7, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 38.3–4 1 DOC IV, no. 8, type E; DOS XII, type E, pl. 38.5 2 DOC IV, no. 10, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 38.8–9 5 Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, “type [H]”, pp. 211–212, pl. 88, nos. 1–4; cf. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390; Mattingly “Arta”, p. 41, class XVIII 1 Type [I], Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 212, pl. 88, no. 7; cf. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe– XIIIe siècles”, p. 390 3 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 2 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 39.3 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 39.10–11 1 John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) 1 DOC IV, no. 2, series I, type B; DOS XII, series I, type B, pl. 40.2 36 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 4 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 42.3–4 12 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type C, pl. 42.5–6 8 DOC IV, no. 8, type F; DOS XII, type E, pl. 42.9–10 2 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type F, pl. 42.11–12

708

appendix i

18 58

6 DOC IV, no. 11, type I; DOS XII, type H, pl. 43.3–4 4 DOC IV, no. 12, type J; DOS XII, type I, pl. 43.5–6 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 18 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, type 1, pl. 43.10

Byzantine Empire after 1261 58 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 3 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 46–51; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C1 2 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 52–56; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C2 1 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 106; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C20 18 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 114–122; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C23 17 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 136–143; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T2 2 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 144–146; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T3 13 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4 2 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 186–190; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T16

4

Bulgarian Empire 4 Ivan II Asen (1218–1241) 4 DOC IV, no. 2; DOS XII, pl. 46.10–11

2

Uncertain billon trachea

1.68 Ioannina Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. The hoard was evidently from the area of this town, though this cannot be taken as certain (Map 1, A). Present status: 8th EBA, on display at the Byzantine Museum, Ioannina. The Athens Numismatic Museum holds casts of the hoard. Summary of content: 135 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Michael VIII; Faithful Copies. Bulgarian Empire to Ivan II Asen. Note: The publication of this hoard was initially given to the late Tony Hackens, and announced over a period of many years. Information about its content became available sporadically, either through the writings of Oikonomidou

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

709

and Touratsoglou, or via Bendall’s autopsy of the coins on display at Ioannina Byzantine Museum, which was drawn on in DOC V. The hoard was finally published in 2003. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261–1282). All the comments made in relation to the previous two entries («66. Arta 1923» and «67. Arta 1983»), apply also here, and concealment will have taken place in 1264. Bibliography: Oikonomidou, “La circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle”, p. 126; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, pp. 210, n. 3, 214ff, 219, 225; DOC V, pp. 13 and 116–117; Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”. Discussed further pp.: 138, 145, 203, 205, 471, 477, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1239, 1243, 1244, 1245 Content Billon trachea 109 Byzantine Empire before 1204 2 John II Komnenos (1118–1143) 7 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 48 Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) 52 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 2

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 2 DOC IV, no. 3, type C

2

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 2 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, ‘Theodore I’ no. 9, type E; DOS XII, Magnesia type C, pl. 31.10 1 DOC IV, no. 41, type G and no. 46, type L, DOS XII, 33.7–8 and 33.13

7

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 7, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 38.3–4 4 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 42.3–4 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type C, pl. 42.5–6 1 DOC IV, no. 7, type E; DOS XII, type D, pl. 42.7–8 1 DOC IV, no. 8, type F; DOS XII, type E, pl. 42.9–10 2 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 2 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, type 1, pl. 43.10

710

appendix i

13

Byzantine Empire after 1261 13 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 4 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 114–122; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C23 2 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 136–143; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T2 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 144–146; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T3 3 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4 3 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 186–190; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T16

2

Bulgarian Empire 2 Ivan II Asen (1218–1241) 2 DOC IV, no. 2; DOS XII, pl. 46.10–11

1.69 Capstan Navy Cut Findspot: Greece, possibly from the Peloponnese or Epiros (Map /). Present status: American School of Classical Studies, Athens. Summary of content: 15 billon trachea. Byzantine Empire to Michael VIII Palaiologos. Note: The hoard has also been known as Peloponnese, 1920–1935 (?) [CH (1), Metcalf] and Greece, 1920–1935 [CH (2)]. Its present name is derived from the container it was kept in at the ASCSA, and it is used here in preference to the others since none of the publications make it plain why a certain area of discovery is assumed. Touratsoglou supposes an Epirote provenance for this hoard, though fails to substantiate this statement. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261–1282). This hoard is of similar composition to the three Epirote hoards (see the last three entries), which is presumably the reason Touratsoglou postulates a similar provenance, though it is also substantially smaller. Without making any assumptions about provenance, this hoard dates to the early to mid-1260s. If it were to be Epirote, its concealment would presumably have been 1264, in line with the other hoards. Bibliography: CH, 3 (1977), p. 86, no. 252; Walker, “Four coin hoards”; CH, 5 (1980), p. 65, no. 226; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 291–292; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 215, n. 14, p. 222; DOC V, pp. 13 and 116–117; Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”, pp. 237 and 248–249. Discussed further pp.: 138, 145, 205, 425, 471, 1236, 1239, 1243, 1244

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

711

Content Billon trachea 1 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 12, type J; DOS XII, type I, pl. 43.5–6 14

Byzantine Empire after 1261 14 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 8 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 114–122; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C23 2 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 144–146; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T3 4 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4

1.70 Corinth 8 May 1934 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated at the West Shops, classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 369 deniers tournois, one penny, seven grossi, ten short cross pennies; one hyperpyron. Tours; France to Louis IX; Provence; Poitou; Riom; Champagne; Venice to Raniero Zeno; England and Counterfeits; Latin Empire. Note: I was able to verify most of the coins contained in the hoard, and am able to provide more precise information with regard to the French royal and English issues, and the single gold coin. Edwards describes the condition of the find thus (p. 250, so-called Crusader’s Hoard): “… found in the Agora May 8, 1934 and left there about the middle of the thirteenth century (…) The coins were found ‘all stuck together in a crowded cluster as if they had been in a bag’…”. Despite identifying these coins as a hoard, Edwards also includes them in her ‘Summary of Coins from the Excavations..’, p. 251ff, which creates a distorted picture of stray finds from the site. Date of concealment: Last issue: Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) or Louis IX (1226– 1270), or any of the French feudal issues. The hoard has a terminus ante quem of ca. 1267 because of the absence of Greek deniers tournois, and probably dates merely a short while earlier. Bibliography: Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”, pp. 250 and 255–256; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 54, no. A; Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans, pp. 228–230; Berman, “Thirteenth-century coin hoard”, p. 122, n. 75; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 339,

712

appendix i

no. 154; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 153; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 209 and 228–229; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 245, nn. 16 and 25, p. 247. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 92, 132, 137, 139, 145, 261, 332, 336, 425, 426, 433, 1260, 1263, 1277, 1280, 1285, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1296, 1299, 1335, 1336, 1485, 1640, 1648 Content Deniers tournois 66 Abbey of Tours 264

Kingdom of France 30 Philip II (1180–1223) 89 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 47 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

42

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

145

Louis IX (1226–1270) 145 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

9

County of Provence 9 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

21

Marquisat of Provence 21 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 21 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

2

County of Poitou 2 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

5

County of Riom 5 Alphonse of France (1230–1271) 5 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 2267 County of Toulouse 2 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3706

2

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

713

Penny 1 County of Champagne 1 Thibaut II (1125–1152) 1 Travaini, “Provisini di Champagne”, p. 226 Grossi 7 Republic of Venice 3 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1 Marino Morosini (1249–1253) 3 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) Pennies 8 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II (1154–1189) 1 Short Cross class 1b, 1180–ca. 1185, Winchester/ Reinier North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 963 2 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5b1, 1205, London/Richard B North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Short Cross class 5b1, 1205, London/Ricard North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 5 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, London/Ilger North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 2 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, London/Elis North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 1 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, London/Adam North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 1 Short Cross class 7b3, 1232–1234, Canterbury/Henri North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 2

Counterfeit Short Cross Pennies 1 Of John (1199–1216) 1 Of Short Cross class 5, Canterbury/Iohan See North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 968–971 1 Of Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Of Short Cross class 8, London/Nichole See North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 981

714

appendix i

Hyperpyron 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 3; DOC IV, type 6c? 1.71 Chasani ca. 1860 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Greater Athens. The hoard was found in Chasani (Χασάνι), known since 1928 as Komnina, part of the demos of Elliniko, in the southeast part of the town (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois of Greece. Date of concealment: Anytime after ca. 1267. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 446, 447, 455, 1376 1.72 Bular Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, district of Delvinë, village of Mesopotam (Mesopotami), a few km south of Delvinë. The settlement of Bular is in the immediate vicinity of Mesopotam (Map 1). Present status: Numismatic Collection, Archaeological Institute, Tirana. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, of uncertain attribution. Note: The hoard remains unstudied. The existence of this hoard was communicated to me by Prof. Dr Shpresa Gjongecaj and Dr Kosta Lakko. It is possible that this and the next entry refer in fact to the same hoard. Date of concealment: Any time after ca. 1267. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 471, 476, 1376 1.73 Mesopotam Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, district of Delvinë, village of Mesopotam (Mesopotami), a few km south of Delvinë (Map 1). Present status: Numismatic Collection, Archaeological Institute, Tirana. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, of uncertain attribution. Note: The hoard remains unstudied. The existence of this hoard was communicated to me by Prof. Dr Shpresa Gjongecaj and Dr Kosta Lakko. It is possible that this and the previous entry refer in fact to the same hoard.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

715

Date of concealment: Any time after ca. 1267. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 471, 476, 1376 1.74 Thebes 1998 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Thebes. The hoard was found during controlled excavations in 1998 at the Karabitsakos plot in Katsina Street, to the east of the walled medieval town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA in Athens. Summary of content: Eight Venetian grossi. Venice to Lorenzo Tiepolo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275). The issues of this doge present in the hoard are not entirely mature, and a concealment date of around 1270 or shortly thereafter it likely. Bibliography: AD, 53 (1998), B’1, p. 102, and pl. 57. Discussed further pp.: 133, 446, 447, 459, 460, 1296, 1297, 1299 Content Grossi 8 Republic of Venice 6 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 2 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 1.75 Salamina Findspot: Mainland Greece, island of Salamina. The hoard was found at a place called Hagios Gregorios, in the settlement of Vasilika, in the northwest part of the island (on the church of this name see also Aslanidis and Pinatsi, “Σαλαμίνα”, pp. 180–182) (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 15 deniers tournois. Tours; France to Philip III; Provence. Note: The hoard emanates from excavations conducted by Prof. D. Pallas. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip III (1270–1285). Concealment in 1270 or shortly thereafter is likely, since the hoard does not contain Frankish Greek tournois issues, which date from ca. 1267. Bibliography: AD, 42 (1987), NM, p. 1; Galani-Κrikou, “Σαλαμίνα”. Discussed further pp.: 126, 140, 141, 145, 261, 446, 452, 462, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289, 1291, 1389

716

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 2 Abbey of Tours 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 10

Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

8 1

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 8 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A Philip III (1270–1285) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 204 +PhILIPVS REX

2

County of Provence 2 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

1.76 Corinth 20–21 August 1928 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was excavated in the Odeion, classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Six deniers tournois. Achaïa to William. Note: I thank Orestes Zervos for pointing me to this hoard-like assemblage. Edwards had not classified these coins as such. Date of concealment: Last issue: William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278), who minted tournois from ca. 1267. Concealment might have taken place in the mid-1270s.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

717

Bibliography: Edwards, Coins 1896–1929. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 94, 425, 426, 434, 965, 1376, 1385, 1389, 1390 Content Deniers tournois 6 Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 Corinth 1992 1.77 Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinth. The hoard is generally reported as being from the area of the modern town (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 12 deniers tournois, two grossi. Provence to Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285); Venice to Jacopo Contarini (1275–80). Note: This hoard is yet to receive an adequate publication. Touratsoglou and Baker first clarified that these were Provençal and not Achaïan issues of Charles. Date of concealment: Last issue: Jacopo Contarini (1275–80). The hoard is therefore dated to the very late 1270s or the 1280s. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, pp. 170–173; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 229; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 296, n. 17; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 248, n. 47. Discussed further pp.: 127, 132, 425, 426, 430, 434, 1291, 1296, 1299, 1385, 1389 1.78 Sphaka Findspot: Mainland Greece, Elateia (Phthiotida), settlement of Sphaka (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 22 ducats. Venice. Note: The content of this hoard remains uncertain. It might even post-date the medieval period. Date of concealment: Any time after 1284. Bibliography: BCH, 95 (1971), NM, p. 810. Discussed further pp.: 127, 130, 132, 446, 464, 1307

718

appendix i

1.79 Athens 1982 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, 117 Adrianou, in the Plaka area of the town, outside of the medieval walls (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 11 tetartera, possibly one petty denomination issue and a lead coin-like object. Byzantine Empire to Manuel I Komnenos; Duchy of Athens. Note: The Frankish Greek coin is classified by Touratsoglou et al. and in the Σύνταγμα as a contamination. It can nevertheless still not be excluded that this is a thirteenth rather than a twelfth century hoard of petty cash, particularly in view of the urban location of this find and the long circulation of imperial tetartera in contexts such as this. Date of concealment: Last issue: Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308). Given that the coin is of Guy’s minority, concealment would have taken place in 1287 or very soon thereafter. Bibliography: AD, 37 (1982), NM, p. 1; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 403–404, no. 56; E. Georgantelis in NC, 155 (1995), p. 346 (= CH); Σύνταγμα, p. 89, no. 73. Discussed further pp.: 139, 446, 447, 451, 454, 1201, 1359, 1363 Content Tetartera 11 Byzantine Empire before 1204 7 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 4 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 1 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 2 DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ 4 Uncertain emperor Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 5, GVIOT 1.80 Athens/Agios Andreas 1937 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was found in the church of Agios Andreas, America Square, Nicosia Street, ca. 2.5km north of Omonia Square (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

719

Summary of content: 20 grossi. Venice to Giovanni. Dandolo. Note: The hoard was handed over to the Numismatic Collection by Prof. A. Orlandos, who discovered it during excavations in the church. Date of concealment: Last issue: Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289). The issues of this doge are relatively well represented in this hoard and concealment in the late 1280s is likely. Bibliography: BCH, 62 (1938), NM, p. 447; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 209 and 230; Stahl, Zecca, p. 444, no. 64. Discussed further pp.: 132, 133, 343, 446, 447, 454, 1296, 1299 Content Grossi 20 Republic of Venice 3 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 4 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 6 Jacopo Contarini (1275–1280) 6 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 1 Uncertain doge 1.81 Troizina 1899 Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis, Troizina, though now in the nomos of Peiraias. The hoard was found at the medieval settlement of Damala or Damalas, renamed Troizina in modern times, more precisely in the area between the fortified upper and lower towns (see here below) (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 765 deniers tournois; one penny; one grosso. Achaïa to Charles I or II of Anjou; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; France to Louis IX; Provence; Turenne; Venice (?). Note: The hoard, studied in its entirety by the author, was found during French excavations at the site of Troizen/ Damala in 1899. It only entered the Numismatic Museum in 1982. The exact findspot and condition is indicated by Legrand, the excavator: “Au moyen-âge, la tour (NB the single Hellenistic tower of the upper wall of the ancient city: see Welter’s publication) a servi de réduit fortifié; sur ce qui subsiste des murs antiques s’élèvent d’autres parties, d’époque très postérieure. En dehors, près de l’angle sud-est, a été déterré un vase grossier contenant un assez grand nombre de menues monnaies”. Legrand also mentions a single grosso coin as pertaining to this hoard, which is now not present in the trays of the NM. The hoard displays rather curious proportions of the Achaïan issues of William and Charles I and II, and within the latter

720

appendix i

of the earlier KA101 and KA2. There are also disproportionately few Athenian coins, even though with a specimen of A3 this particular series is chronologically speaking relatively advanced. Date of concealment: Last issue: Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289), or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) (or even the grosso). Some of the uncertainties notwithstanding (see above), the relative immaturity of KA2 (that is to say the near complete dominance of KA202 over the other sub-varieties) of Charles I or II seems to make concealment in the late 1280s likely. On the other hand, the presence of an A3 issue of Athens might push this date just beyond 1290. Bibliography: Legrand, “Antiquités de Trézène”, p. 278, n. 1; Welter, Troizen und Kalaureia, p. 66; AD, 37 (1982), NM, p. 1; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 228–229, n. 101 and ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 230; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 296, n. 17; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 267. Discussed further pp.: 126, 141, 202, 207, 425, 443, 444, 1286, 1289, 1291, 1296, 1299, 1335, 1336, 1376, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1394, 1427, 1429, 1433, 1435 Content Deniers tournois 677 Principality of Achaïa 591 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV101 81 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 53 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 66 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 16 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV122 61 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 40 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 12 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV134 20 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV142 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 92 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV212 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV21 uncertain 43 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 39 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 47 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 51 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 51 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

35

74

3

721

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 31 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203

Duchy of Athens 69 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 11 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 58 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 Kingdom of France 3 Louis IX (1226–1270) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

10

1

County of Provence 10 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 7 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3954 +K.FI.Rñ.F.COMESP. / +PROVINCIALIS Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

722 Penny 1

appendix i

Viscounty of Turenne 1 Raymond I–V (1091–1245) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 2331; Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 219

Grosso 1 Republic of Venice (?) 1 Uncertain doge 1.82 Larisa ca. 2001A Findspot: Thessaly, Larisa. The three coins, presumably a hoard or part of a hoard, were confiscated by the authorities from an inhabitant of this town (Map 1). Present status: 7th EBA in Larisa. Summary of content: Two Venetian grossi, one Serbian grosso. Date of Concealment: Last issue: Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311). A concealment date between 1289 and 1311, and probably towards the end of this period is likely, given the usual chronologies for hoards of Greece containing Serbian grossi. Bibliography: AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 85. Discussed further pp.: 126, 133, 140, 334, 468, 470, 1296, 1297n567, 1299, 1302, 1303 Content Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 2 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 1 Kingdom of Serbia 1 Stefan Dragutin (1276–1282/1316) 1 “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 238, 2.1 1.83 Xirochori 1957 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The hoard was found in the settlement of Xirochori, near the church of Analipseos (Panagitsa), off the country road which leads from Zacharo to Kaïapha (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

723

Summary of content: 2452 deniers tournois and two grossi. Achaïa to Charles I or II of Anjou; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; Karytaina; France; Tours; Provence; Riom; Poitou; Venice to Raniero Zeno. Note: This hoard forms the basis of Tzamalis’ typological investigations into the earlier Achaïan and Athenian series. Date of concealment: Last issue: Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later). The second of these issues establishes a terminus post quem of 1291, while the absence of Achaïan issues of Florent demonstrates that concealment took place in that year or very soon thereafter. Bibliography: BCH, 82 (1958), p. 654; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 54, no. B; Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”; Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Bʹ”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 341– 342, no. 165; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 228, n. 100, and ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 230; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 267; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 288. Discussed further pp.: 78n467, 130, 139, 141, 207, 425, 444, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289, 1291, 1296, 1299, 1376, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1394, 1398, 1427, 1429, 1431, 1433, 1435, 1438, 1440, 1441, 1485 Content Deniers tournois 1754 Principality of Achaïa 799 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV101 57 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 78 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 134 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV121 23 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV122 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV123 48 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV132 19 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV134 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV142 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 8 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV202 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 80 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV212 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV221 63 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222

724

appendix i

711 244

631

119 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 131 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV2 uncertain 6 Uncertain William of Villehardouin Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 711 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 45 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 141 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 58 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203

Duchy of Athens 626 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 15 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101, obv. G.DVX. DATENES 147 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR102–103 464 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104

2

Lordship of Karytaina 2 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

3

Abbey of Tours

12

Kingdom of France 8 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 4 Philip III (1270–1285)

37

County of Provence 37 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 31 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 5 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1

725

Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3954 +K.FI.Rñ.F.COMESP. / +PROVINCIALIS

9

Marquisat of Provence 9 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 9 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

3

County of Poitou 3 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 3 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

1

County of Riom 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 2267

Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Marino Morosini (1249–1253) 1 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 1.84 Agrinio 1973 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Agrinio (Aitolia and Akarnania). The hoard originated in the vicinity of this town (Map 1). Present status: Dispersed? Summary of content: 199 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Isabelle of Villehardouin; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; France to Louis VIII and/ or IX; Provence; Poitou. Note: This hoard was in the possession of a collector. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301), who minted only in the period 1299–1301. Since her coins are weighted towards her earlier issues, a concealment date of ca. 1300 can be proposed. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 342, no. 167. Discussed further pp.: 126, 141, 471, 478, 1286, 1287, 1289, 1376, 1391, 1397, 1398, 1400, 1427, 1429, 1433, 1435, 1450, 1457

726

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 152 Principality of Achaïa 39 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV123 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV134 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV212(?) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 16 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV221–4 33 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 33 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 9 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 52 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 37 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5 19 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 17 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 44

Duchy of Athens 43 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 8 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 35 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

727

1

Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6.

1

County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

1.85 Unknown Provenance June 1975 Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Private collection. Summary of content: 471 (Metcalf states 461) deniers tournois. Achaïa to Isabelle of Villehardouin; Athens to William or Guy II de la Roche; France to Philip III; Tours; Provence; Counterfeits. Note: Not all the specimens of Florent and Isabelle could be assigned to specific varieties, hence the brackets. Date of concealment: Last issue: Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301), who only minted from 1299. Concealment in ca. 1300 is likely. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 342, no. 168; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 313, no. 3 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 141, 1195, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289, 1291, 1376, 1397, 1400, 1406, 1427, 1427, 1429, 1433, 1435, 1450, 1457, 1484, 1485 Content Deniers tournois 379 Principality of Achaïa 120 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 68 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 52 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 81 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 81 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 23 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 23 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203

728

appendix i

80

75

83

Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) (33) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 (19) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB (21) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ (4/5) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 or Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) (29) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 (40) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1

Duchy of Athens 83 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101, obv. G.DVX. DATENES 8 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR102–103 74 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105

1

Abbey of Tours

1

Kingdom of France 1 Philip III (1270–1285)

1

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

3

Marquisat of Provence 3 Alphonse of France (1249–1271)

3?

Counterfeit deniers tournois

1.86 Birmingham Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: Barber Institute, University of Birmingham. Summary of content: Seven deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Savoy; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; Naupaktos. Note: Two parcels of Frankish Greek deniers tournois (identifiable from the acquisition nos.), formerly in the possession of Philip Whitting, are now in the collection of the Barber Institute (see also entry «133. Birmingham»). Both should be treated, however, with an obvious amount of caution. This parcel bears the acquisition number 69, the year in which it entered Whitting’s collection. It was studied by the author.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

729

Date of concealment: Last issue: presumably Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6), less likely the Naupaktos issue of Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314). Some time after 1301 is a likely date of concealment. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 796, 1376, 1404, 1406, 1427, 1429, 1435n1238, 1445, 1446, 1450 Content Deniers tournois 4 Principality of Achaïa 1 William of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 2

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a

1.87 Vourvoura Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia. The village of Vourvoura lies between Tripoli and Sparta, on the border of Arkadia and Lakonia (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, uncertain other denominations, if any. Note: Nothing is known about the composition of this hoard other than the fact that it contained one specimen of John II Angelos (1303–1318), Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 422, type 1, group L.

730

appendix i

Date of concealment: The single known coin of this hoard provides a terminus post quem of 1303. The more recent listing by Baker and Galani-Krikou could not be considered in this book. Bibliography: Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 4; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, p. 88, no. 3. Discussed further pp.: 80n489, 425, 444, 1376, 1453 1.88 Delphi 1933 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The hoard was found at nearby Chrisso (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 36 deniers tournois and 19 grossi. Achaïa to Philip of Savoy; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; Naupaktos; Venice to Pietro Gradenigo; Serbia. Note: The hoard was studied in its entirety by the author. A previous figure of 38 deniers tournois for this hoard proved incorrect. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Philip of Taranto for Naupaktos (1296/8–1314). Given particularly the relative immaturity in the coins of the latter two issuers, a concealment of ca. 1305 or shortly thereafter can be proposed. Bibliography: BCH, 58 (1934), NM, p. 236; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 54, no. C; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 221; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, pp. 170–173; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 343, no. 169; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 210 and 231; Stahl, Zecca, p. 445, no. 66; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 313, no. 1 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 132, 446, 465, 732, 1296, 1299, 1302, 1304, 1376, 1404, 1406, 1427, 1429, 1435, 1436, 1445, 1446, 1450, 1457 Content Deniers tournois 14 Principality of Achaïa 4 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

731

2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Duchy of Athens 3 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 11 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 4 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 3

18

4

Grossi 18 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1 Marino Morosini (1249–1253) 3 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 2 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 2 Jacopo Contarini (1275–1280) 8 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 1 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 1

Kingdom of Serbia 1 Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321) 1 “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 240, 3.1

732

appendix i

1.89 Epidauros 1904 Findspot: Peloponnese, Epidauros (Argolis). The hoard was excavated in Building E at the archaeological site of the sanctuary of Asklepios (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 22 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra (Baker and Galani-Krikou, type 1, group P). Note: The hoard was found in 1904 and merely reached the NM via the National Museum in 1986. It is sometimes called Epidauros 1986. The recent listing of the content of this hoard by Baker and Galani-Krikou could not be completely incorporated into this book. Date of concealment: Last issue: any one of the cited issues. A 1308/1309 dating is argued by Baker and Tsekes. Bibliography: Kavvadias, “Περί των εν Επιδαύρω ανασκαφών”, p. 52; AD, 41 (1986), NM, p. 1; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 10; Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, pp. 86–87, no. 1. Discussed further pp.: 80n489, 126, 145, 207, 425, 443, 1376, 1406, 1408, 1427, 1435n1239, 1445, 1446, 1450, 1453 1.90 Limnes 2006 Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis. The hoard was found in the settlement of Limnes, in a locality known as Mygio (Μυγιό) (Map 1). Present status: 25th EBA, at a storage facility in Argos. Summary of content: 54 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Savoy; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: Thanks to the kindness of G. Tsekes (25th EBA) I was able to examine this hoard – albeit only briefly. This explains the lack of detail in some of the attributions. The recent publication could not be considered here. Date of concealment: Last issue: Probably Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne (1287–1311). In the absence of more detailed information on the issues of Naupaktos (though it is certain that the later Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b is not present), the hoard is dated by the coins of the Duchy of Athens: note that the quantity of GR20Z is immature with respect to the other two issues of Athens bearing the GVI.DVX legend, yet their presence dates this hoard later than «88. Delphi 1933». The profile of this hoard, and the absence of Achaïan coins of Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) in particular, might be due to the geographical and political proximity of the Argolis to Athenian territories, and the relative distance to the mint of Clarentza. A dating of ca. 1308 might therefore be proposed, as argued in the publication (1308/1309).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

733

Bibliography: Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. Discussed further pp.: 79n483, 141, 145, 207, 425, 428, 438, 443, 1376, 1404, 1406, 1427, 1429, 1435n1239, 1445, 1446, 1450 Content Deniers tournois 22 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 3 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 9 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA-Γ 21

Duchy of Athens 14 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

11

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 11 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain

1.91 Thebes 1987 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Thebes (Boiotia). The hoard was found in the Agia Triada area of town, to the west of the walled medieval town (Map 4). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 15 deniers tournois and one tetarteron. Achaïa to Philip of Savoy; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Byzantine Empire.

734

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1287–1311), or Philip of Taranto (1296/8– 1314). The hoard, and particularly its dating, would have been of immense interest and importance were it not for the fact that it is so small and statistically unviable. As it stands, this hoard seems to be quite close to the previous hoard in terms of composition, and a concealment date of ca. 1308 might also be proposed in this case. Bibliography: AD, 47 (1992), NM, p. 6; Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Αγία Τριάδα”, pp. 138–139; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 313, no. 2 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 13. Discussed further pp.: 79n475, 446, 447, 457, 459, 1201, 1376, 1404, 1407, 1427, 1429, 1436, 1438, 1445, 1446, 1450, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 8 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1–2 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 4

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

2

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 2 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1

735

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P

Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 1.92 Pylia 1968/1969 Findspot: Peloponnese, Messenia. The hoard originates in Pylia, the region around the town of Pylos, in the southwest extremity of the Peloponnese (Map 1). Present status: Initially dispersed. A part of the hoard re-appeared on the market through Jean Elsen in Brussels. Some representative coins were subsequently acquired by the 26th EBA, for the new permanent exhibition at Kalamata Museum, others by the NM. Summary of content: Ca. 3300 deniers tournois of which 3157 were initially available and ca. 1000 were examined by Metcalf himself. Graff claims that the 924 coins which he studied in Brussels had previously not been examined. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Karytaina; France to Philip III. Note: Graff assumes that the parcel he saw was originally part of the hoard described by Metcalf. This is supported not least by its patination. Graff’s study is of interest from a metrological point of view, since he has listed the mean weights of the larger issues. He has also been conscientious in providing in as detailed a fashion as possible the typologies of the specimens he examined. His study provides a useful addition to Metcalf’s original publication because of the advances that have been made more recently in the classification of the series, and because Graff gives concrete numbers where Metcalf provides percentages. The two lots are listed separately here. The figures given for Metcalf are calculated approximations of his percentages. Occasionally they do not entirely add up to the given totals. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos (1296/8–1314), or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1309–1311). On account of certain immaturities in the Achaïan series, concealment in the period 1309–1311 seems most likely.

736

appendix i

Bibliography: Metcalf, “Pylia”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 343, no. 171; Graff, “Pylia”; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 25; AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 112. Discussed further pp.: 75n449, 130, 141, 178, 425, 444, 1286, 1288, 1290, 1291, 1293, 1376, 1391, 1398n1104, 1401, 1406, 1408, 1412n1157, 1427, 1429, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1440, 1445, 1447, 1453, 1457, 1484 Content Metcalf Deniers tournois 2295 Principality of Achaïa 490 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 16 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 67 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 and GV141–142 56 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 93 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 and GV211 13 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 21 Other Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 and GV21 47 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 54 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 58 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 65 Other Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 409 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 409 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 129 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 23 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 85 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 21 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 432 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 207 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 73 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 95 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 35 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5 463 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 236 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 19 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 125 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 56 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB2 19 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 9 Other Isabelle of Villehardouin

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

239

133

737

Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 110 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 79 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 50 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 27 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 106 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

624

Duchy of Athens 480 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 77 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 403 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 10 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 72 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 70 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 and A8 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 ca. 54 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX yes Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B yes Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ yes Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ ? Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 5 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 5 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 yes Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX yes Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

202

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 202 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 180 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–2a uncertain 21 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

738

appendix i

6

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 6 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 3 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P 2 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group L 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, unc. group

6

Lordship of Karytaina 6 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 6 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

3

Kingdom of France 1 Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1 1

Philip III (1270–1285) Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 204 +PhILIPVS REX

1

Philip IV (1285–1314) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 223 +PhILIPPVS REX

14

County of Provence 14 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 10 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 4 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1

County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

8

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Philip of Savoy 1 Of Philip of Taranto/ Achaïa 1 Of William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), (G.DVX)/ Athens 2 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos 2 Of John II Angelos / Neopatra 1 Of Charles I of Anjou / Provence

Graff Deniers tournois 654 Principality of Achaïa 36 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV102 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 11 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 176 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 176 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 16 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 11 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 119 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 54 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 20 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 33 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ

739

740

appendix i

188

85

34

195

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 72 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 20 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 33 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB2 43 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 16 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA or Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 36 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 32 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB-Γ uncertain 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 25 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

Duchy of Athens 143 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 23 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 120 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 33 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 20 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 10 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

6

1

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

64

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 64 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 15 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 21? Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi–ii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

1

Lordship of Karytaina 1 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

10

741

Counterfeit deniers tournois 8? Of Florent of Hainaut 1 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin 2 Of John II Angelos / Neopatra

1.93 Apollonia Findspot: Albania, Fier county and district. The archaeological site is a few km to the west of the town of Fier (Map 1). Present status: Perhaps in the Numismatic Collection, Archaeological Institute, Tirana. Summary of content: 14 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. Note: I owe this reference to the kindness of Prof. Muçaj. The publication does not disclose whether these coins are to be considered a hoard or not, though they have the typical appearance of a hoard.

742

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa (1304/6–1313) or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1287–1311). Concealment a couple of years either side of 1311 is likely. Bibliography: Mano and Dautaj, “Teatri i Apollonisë”, p. 196. Discussed further pp.: 126, 338, 471, 475, 922, 1376, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1447 Content Deniers tournois 10 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 3 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 4 Duchy of Athens 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1.94 Naupaktos 1977 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Naupaktos (Aitolia and Akarnania). The hoard was apparently found in the vicinity (Map 1). Present status: 50 coins in a private Athenian collection; the remainder undisclosed. Summary of content: 1584 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne or Interregnum; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Karytaina; France. Note: This hoard is of the greatest importance as it was concealed prior to the full maturity of the Achaïan issues of Philip of Taranto and the GVI.DVX issues of Athens. A re-study of the hoard and of these issues in particular would be most desirable. The information provided by Metcalf and Galani-Krikou differs. Metcalf received his information from the person who first handled this find, whereas Galani’s source may have been different. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos (1296/8–1314), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne or Interregnum for Athens (1287–1311). 1311 is the most likely single concealment date that may be proposed on historical grounds, though the rather immature character of the Achaïan and Athenian issues makes an earlier concealment possible, and should be noted.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

743

Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 147, no. 16; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 344, no. 172; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 315, no. 12 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 21. Discussed further pp.: 126, 130, 141, 145, 207, 471, 478, 1286, 1287, 1364, 1376, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1435, 1437, 1440, 1445, 1447, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 1142 Principality of Achaïa 256 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 155 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 101 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 180 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 180 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 59 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 59 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 205 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 322 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 66 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 54 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 333

Duchy of Athens 271 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX (9) Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103, obv. G.DVX. DATENES

1 2

57 1

1

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 1 G.DVX. ATENAR, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274

744

appendix i

83

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 83 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

3

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 3 John II Angelos (1303–1318)

3

Lordship of Karytaina 3 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 3 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

20

Royal or feudal France

1.95 Kapandriti 1924 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Kapandriti (Attica). The hoard was found in the vicinity (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 749 deniers tournois; one tornesello (?). Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne or Interregnum; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Tinos; Venice to after 1353. Note: This hoard was studied by me. Judging from the composition of the denier tournois element, it can be reasonably argued that the tornesello is a contamination. The inclusion of the coin from Tinos confirms Metcalf’s opinion that these coins need to be attributed to George I Ghisi (1303–1311). Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos (1296/8–1314), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne or Interregnum for Athens (1287–1311), or George I Ghisi (1303–1311). None of the former is entirely mature, suggesting concealment not later than 1311. Bibliography: BCH, 48 (1924), NM, p. 451; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 58; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 314, no. 7 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 15. Discussed further pp.: 145, 207, 446, 462, 1376, 1391, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1434, 1435, 1437, 1445, 1447, 1453, 1457, 1462, 1463 Content Deniers tournois 299 Principality of Achaïa 52 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

53 24

37

73

49

11

8 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV212 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 53 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 17 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 18 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA uncertain 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 18 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 25 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 17 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

745

746 388

55

appendix i

Duchy of Athens 42 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 37 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 147 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 53 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 15 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 79 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 6 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 145 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 38 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 41 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 28 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 29 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 46 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 45 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX 2 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 2 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 55 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 22 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 3 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1 uncertain 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

6

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 6 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 3 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group L 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P or L 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, gr. VARIA

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

747

Tornesello (?) 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge 1.96 Kapandriti 1978 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Kapandriti (Attica). The hoard was found in the vicinity (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 20 grossi. Venice to Pietro Gradenigo. Serbia. Note: The single Serbian grosso was originally attributed to Stefan Uroš III Dečanski (1321–1331). This attribution has been tentatively reviewed in the listing below on the grounds of the date-structure of the remainder of the hoard, the usual pattern of appearance of Serbian coins in the area, and the fact that another hoard from Kapandriti has already been dated to ca. 1311 (see the previous entry). Date of concealment: Last issue: Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) or the Serbian coin. Concealment of ca. 1311 is proposed because the issues of Gradenigo are relatively mature in this hoard, and because another hoard from the vicinity has been given the same dating. Bibliography: AD, 33 (1978), NM, p. 2; CH, 5 (1979), p. 127, no. 342; Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Θησαυρός γροσσίων”, p. 171; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 342, no. 166; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 210 and 230; Stahl, Zecca, pp. 448–449, no. 80; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 314, no. 8 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 133, 145, 207, 446, 462, 1296, 1299, 1302, 1304, 1376

748

appendix i

Content Grossi 19 Republic of Venice 1 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 2 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 2 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 1 Jacopo Contarini (1275–1280) 5 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 8 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 1

Kingdom of Serbia 1 Stefan Dragutin (1276–1282/1316) or Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321)? 1 “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 238, 2.1 or p. 240, 3.1?

1.97 ANS Zara Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. According to the information provided by its seller, the hoard originated in the vicinity of Athens (Map /). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York and uncertain. A full photographic record and transcript of the hoard is kept at this institution. Summary of content: 157 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeit. Note: This hoard was studied by me. Its name is taken from its former owner. Date of concealment: Last issue: Achaïa of Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) or Athens of Walter of Brienne (1309–1311). The former issues have not reached complete maturity, and there are also historical reasons for dating the concealment to ca. 1311. Bibliography: Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 314, no. 4 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 145, 207, 446, 463, 1376, 1403, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447, 1453, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 61 Principality of Achaïa 8 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

4 6

16

15

12

79

1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV212 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Mule of Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 and IVA1 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

Duchy of Athens 10 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, GR101–103 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, GR105 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 31 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f

749

750

appendix i

25

1 16

1

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 24 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 16 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 1 Uncertain Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2biii Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Philip of Taranto/ Achaïa

1.98 Athens ca. 1999 Findspot: Mainland Greece, nomos of Athens. The hoard was found in the northern suburb and demos of Marousi, during work carried out on the new motorway, Attiki Odos, in the area where Phrankokklesia Street meets Penteli Avenue (Map 3). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: 14 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: The publication does not reveal that these coins constitute a hoard, though this is the most likely explanation for such an assemblage. Date of concealment: Last issue: All three of the above might be the last issue. The hoard probably dates to 1311 in the context of the Catalan invasion of Attica. Bibliography: AD, 54 (1999), B’1, p. 30. Discussed further pp.: 145, 207, 446, 447, 454, 1376, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

751

Content Deniers tournois 9 Principality of Achaïa 3 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 4 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 4

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1.99 Delphi 1927 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The hoard was found at nearby Chrisso (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum Summary of content: 560 deniers tournois and 100 grossi. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Counterfeits; Venice to Pietro Gradenigo; Serbia. Note: This hoard was studied by me. It is known traditionally as Delphi 1929, although the information regarding this hoard contained in the NM suggests 1927 as the date of discovery. Date of concealment: Last issue: Achaïa of Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) or Athens of Walter of Brienne (1309–1311). The former issues have not reached complete maturity, and there are also historical reasons for dating the concealment to ca. 1311. Bibliography: BCH, 53 (1929), NM, p. 492; BCH, 54 (1930), NM, p. 456; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 55, hoard D; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, pp. 170–173; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 344, no. 174; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 210 and 231; Stahl, Zecca, p. 448, no. 77; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 314, no. 5 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 29. Discussed further pp.: 130, 133, 140, 145, 207, 343, 446, 465, 1296, 1299, 1302, 1304, 1376, 1394, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1435, 1437, 1445, 1447, 1453, 1484

752

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 229 Principality of Achaïa 20 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV142 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 18 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 18 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 19 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5 45 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA or Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 2 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 58 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 28 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 20 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΒ or PSΓ 1 Uncertain Philip of Savoy

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

66

Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 44 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

241

Duchy of Athens 18 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 14 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 42 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 22 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 17 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 95 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 17 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 29 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 26 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Mule of Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A and GR20Γ 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 84 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 76 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 8 Uncertain GVI.DVX 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

85

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 85 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 31 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 5 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f

753

754

appendix i

10 13 1 2 5

Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2a uncertain Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

3

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 3 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group L 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, gr. VARIA

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Philip of Savoy/ Achaïa 1 Of uncertain Achaïa

Grossi 82 Republic of Venice 2 Raniero Zeno (1253–68) 6 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 6 Jacopo Contarini (1275–1280) 10 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 58 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 18

Kingdom of Serbia 3 Stefan Dragutin (1276–1282/1316) 3 “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 238, 2.1 15 Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321) 15 “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 240, 3.1

1.100 Lamia 1983 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Lamia (Phthiotida). The hoard was found in the general area of this town (Map 1). Present status: 7th EBA, Larisa and Archaeological Museum, Amphissa.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

755

Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois (though in excess of 550). Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: 232 deniers tournois entered Lamia Museum from a nearby hoard in 1983, and were inventoried as N2526, 2527 and 2528. In 1986 more deniers tournois were received by the same museum, again with an alleged local provenance. These were put into the inventory as N3144 and were said to comprise 402 coins. In fact I found the 1986 coins at the Lamia Museum in tray N2525, and was able to count a mere 318 coins. At Lamia these coins were presented to me as two separate finds. Working on the trays for one day I was able to ascertain total numbers for each of the political entities (principality, duchy etc.), but managed to break these down further to individual rulers only for a fraction of the coins (though the sample which was taken was random). It occurred to me that the two ‘hoards’ had very similar compositions, but it was only upon speaking to Mina Galani-Krikou that I became sure that they originated from the same find. She informed me that one single, relatively large hoard from the Lamia area had been broken up into different components, some of which had entered the local museum while others had been acquired by D. Kravartogiannos. The latter’s collection is now preserved in the Amphissa Museum, while the Byzantine Ephorate for Thessaly houses the specimens formerly at Lamia. The different nuclei will receive a combined publication by Galani-Krikou and me. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos (1296/8–1314), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1287–1311). The Achaïan and Athenian coins do not appear to be included in this hoard at an entirely mature level. A concealment of 1311 is also likely on historical grounds. Bibliography: Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 315, nos. 9 and 10 and passim; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, pp. 585–586, n. 79; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 470, n. 47. Discussed further pp.: 126, 145, 207, 446, 465, 1376, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447 Content Lamia 1983 = N2526, 2527, 2528 Deniers tournois 97 Principality of Achaïa (4) Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) (1) Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) (5) Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301)

756

appendix i

(15) (9)

Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313)

113

Duchy of Athens (9) William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX (23) Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

22

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 22 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

Lamia 1986 = N3144 or 2525 Deniers tournois 40 Principality of Achaïa (5) William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) (2) Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) (2) Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) (9) Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) (10) Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) (9) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 64

Duchy of Athens (29) William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX (35) Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

14

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 14 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1.101 Megara Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica, Megara. The hoard was apparently found in the vicinity of the modern town (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Apparently a number of deniers tournois of Frankish Greece, including two of Tinos (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29). Note: Metcalf refers to this hoard in the context of his introduction to the coinage of Tinos. No other reference to it is known to me.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

757

Date of concealment: Last issue: George I Ghisi (1303–1311) or a contemporary. Concealment might have taken place ca. 1311 given the string of hoards deposited in that year in the area. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 289. Discussed further pp.: 145, 207, 446, 462, 1376, 1408, 1429, 1447, 1462 1.102 Naupaktos 1970 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Naupaktos (Aitolia and Akarnania). The hoard was apparently found in the vicinity (Map 1). Present status: 6th EPKA, Patra. Summary of content: 474 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos (1296/8–1314), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1287–1311). On historical grounds concealment in 1311 is likely, even though the break-down for the Naupaktos issues is somewhat anomalous, as pointed out by Metcalf. Bibliography: I. Tsourti-Kouli, AD, 26 (1971), B’2, pp. 327–328; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 142–143, no. 5; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 343, no. 170; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 315, no. 11 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 126, 141, 145, 207, 471, 478, 1376, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447 Content Deniers tournois 276 Principality of Achaïa 17 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 12 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 11 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 11 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 6 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 20 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) (5) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 38 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 67 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 108 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) (90) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 9 Uncertain Achaïa

758

appendix i

74

Duchy of Athens 31 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 10 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 33 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

116

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 116 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 105 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

8

Uncertain or counterfeit deniers tournois

1.103 Spata Findspot: Mainland Greece, nomos of East Attica. The hoard was found during excavations in preparation for the construction of Athens International Airport, in its easternmost area, in the now relocated church of St. Peter’s (Map 3). Present status: 1st EBA, on display at Athens International Airport. Summary of content: 42 deniers tournois. No further details are known, though the coins are said to date from the period 1267–1311. One may surmise that the hoard contains the usual issues of Achaïa, Athens and Naupaktos. Date of concealment: Last issue: the last issues are probably of Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos, or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. The hoard probably dates to 1311 in the context of the Catalan invasion of Attica. Bibliography: Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 470, n. 47. Discussed further pp.: 127, 145, 207, 446, 447, 454, 1377,1408, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447 1.104 Tatoï 1860 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was found in the area of Tatoï and Dekeleia (Lenormant: “Tatoy, l’antique Décélie”), north of Athens (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Ca. 400 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. Uncertain other coins. Note: Lenormant does not provide any information in addition to that given above. Date of concealment: Ca. 1311, on historical grounds.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

759

Bibliography: Lenormant, “Monnaies”, p. 51; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 55, no. F; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 346, no. 176; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 315, no. 13 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 145, 207, 446, 462, 1377, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1447 1.105 Thessaly 1992 Findspot: Thessaly. The hoard was allegedly found in this region (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 3266 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Tinos; France to Louis VIII or IX; Provence. Note: This hoard was confiscated in Igoumenitsa. The original area of concealment is established on the basis of another hoard of Hellenistic coins which was discovered in the same vehicle, and the large percentage of coins from the Neopatra mint. Its publication neglects to state the exact sub-varieties for the issues of Athens, William of Villahardouin (Achaïa), and to some extent of Naupaktos. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa (1304/6–1313), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1287–1311). Concealment in 1311 is possible, though 1313 or later is even more likely. Bibliography: Tzamalis, “Igoumenitsa”; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 316, no. 14 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 12. Discussed further pp.: 78n467, 130, 141, 145, 207, 334, 468, 470, 1286, 1287, 1291, 1377, 1408, 1410, 1411, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447, 1453, 1458, 1462, 1463, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 1365 Principality of Achaïa 103 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 93 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 93 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 25 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 25 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 126 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 25 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1–2 uncertain 31 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 63 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 7 Uncertain Florent of Hainaut

760

appendix i

300

318

400

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 158 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1–2 uncertain 115 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1–2 uncertain 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 16 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 158 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 102 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 58 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 174 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 182 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 44 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ

1401

Duchy of Athens 428 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 967 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 6 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309)

444

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 444 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 390 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 54 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

32

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 32 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 6 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P 11 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group L 7 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, gro. VARIA 8 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 2

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

761

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

2

Kingdom of France 2 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188 +TVRONV(I)S CIVI

5

County of Provence 5 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 4 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

16

Counterfeit deniers tournois 11 Of Achaïa 4 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos 1 Of Athens

1.106 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, ΠΚ 23. Summary of content: 140 grossi. Venice to Pietro Gradenigo. Note: This hoard is still in need of publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311). Concealment presumably occurred in ca. 1311. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 230; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 316, no. 16 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 130, 133, 145, 207, 1296 1.107 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, ΠΚ 24. Summary of content: 239 grossi. Venice to Pietro Gradenigo. Note: This hoard is still in need of publication.

762

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311). Concealment presumably occurred in ca. 1311. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 230; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 316, no. 15 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 130, 133, 145, 207, 1296 1.108 Unknown Provenance 1975 Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Private collection in Athens. Summary of content: 302 (Metcalf states 305) deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Karytaina; Provence. Note: The hoard was acquired by what Metcalf terms a “scholar-collector”. Date of concealment: Last issue: Philip of Taranto for Achaïa or Naupaktos (1296/8–1314), or Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne for Athens (1287–1311). The Achaïan sub-varieties for Philip suggest concealment in ca. 1311. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 344, no. 173; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 316, no. 17 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 145, 207, 1291, 1377, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1440, 1445, 1447 Content Deniers tournois 110 Principality of Achaïa 18 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 15 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 16 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 16 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 9 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 21 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA or Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 22 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

21

763

Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

147

Duchy of Athens 17 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 17 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 and GR105 38 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 38 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3, A7, A8 92 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

42

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 42 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 39 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

1

Lordship of Karytaina 1 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

2

County of Provence 2 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

1.109 Eleusina 1862 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Eleusina (Attica) (Map 1, D). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: 1076 coins, of which Lenormant saw 500. Uncertain number of deniers tournois and petty denomination coins of Frankish Greece; 175 gros tournois; 100 pierreali, one billon trachy. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeits; France; Sicily; Romania (Manfred of Hohenstaufen). Note: Although Lenormant is quite conscientious in providing descriptions of all the coinages contained in the hoard, he gives no indications as to the quantities of the deniers tournois. He attributed the 175 gros tournois to Philip IV. This remains convincing, particularly in view of the date of concealment, though according to the most recent classifications some of these specimens might well have been of Philip III. Lenormant only saw two of the 100 pierreali from this hoard, which were both of Frederick III (II). It is possible that some

764

appendix i

coins of this denomination were in fact from his predecessors, Constance and Peter of Aragon (1282–1285), or James I (1285–1296). The hoard is the first to contain counterfeit tournois of the Catalan Company. Date of concealment: Last issue: one of the issues of Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, France, Sicily, as well as the single counterfeit, are all possibly the last to be contained in the hoard. Concealment between 1311 and 1313 can be proposed on the basis of the political events and the absence of any Achaïan issues later than those of Philip of Taranto. Bibliography: Lenormant, “Monnaies”, pp. 37–52; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 55, no. E; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 246 and p. 345, no. 175; Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean”, pp. 282–283; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 314, no. 6 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 8; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, n. 33. Discussed further pp.: 73n422, 129, 132, 133, 134, 145, 207, 446, 462, 1353, 1356, 1359, 1363, 1364, 1377, 1408, 1427, 1429, 1445, 1447, 1453, 1481, 1483, 1500, 1501, 1507 Content Deniers tournois yes Principality of Achaïa yes William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) yes Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) yes Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) yes Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) yes Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) yes Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) yes

Duchy of Athens yes William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX yes Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

yes

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos yes Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) yes Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a no (?) Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b

yes

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra yes John II Angelos (1303–1318) yes Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

yes

765

Counterfeit(s) of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 yes Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA

Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7a, Y ACTñNAR Pierreali 100 Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule ? Constance and Peter of Aragon (1282–1285) ? James I (1285–1296) 100? Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) 100? Uncertain class, MEC, nos. 771–779 Gros tournois 175 Kingdom of France 175 Philip III (1270–1285) and/or Philip IV (1285–1314) Billon trachy 1 Lord of Romania 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258/1259–1266) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25 1.110 Arta 1985A Findspot: Epiros, Arta (Map 1, B). Present status: 7th EBA Larisa; now exhibited in the Byzantine Museum, Ioannina. Summary of content: Six grossi. Venice to Pietro Gradenigo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Pietro Gradenigo (1329–1311). The issues of this doge are mature, and concealment would have taken place in 1311, or shortly thereafter. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 142, no. 4; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 210 and 230. Discussed further pp.: 133, 147, 471, 473, 1296, 1299

766

appendix i

Content Grossi 6 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 5 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 1.111 Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was found during the excavations of the Archaeological Society in the Lytsika and Azape plot of old Athens, in an area which is now known to contain the Roman Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, inv. no. 1894–1895, H’, 90. Summary of content: One gigliato, three pierreali. Naples to Robert of Anjou, Sicily to Frederick III. Note: The two hoards from the Lytsika plot of old Athens («111» and «149») are the subject of a separate study. Previously the coins were variously considered stray pieces or a single hoard. The present hoard Lytsika B, containing the large module silver pieces of Sicilian and Neapolitan origin, was separated from the tournois and soldini upon entry in the Athens Numismatic Museum. A trachy of Manfred of Hohenstaufen is mentioned in the older bibliography, though no such coin could now be found with the remainder of the hoard and it must be assumed that this was a mistaken nineteenth-century identification. Date of concealment: Last issue: Frederick III (1296–1337). A dating between 1311 and two or three decades later is probable on numismatic grounds. The particular hoarding pattern in Attica and Boiotia in this period is further addressed in Chapters 2 and 6. Bibliography: PAE (1893), pp. 7–11; Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων, pp. 40–41; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 253, n. 27; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 299, n. 42 and p. 320, no. 2 (18) and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 17; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”. Discussed further pp.: 79n486, 134, 143, 446, 447, 454, 766, 822, 1353, 1356, 1502, 1504, 1507, 1660, 1772 Content Gigliato 1 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 1 Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1a, ROBERTVS, no obv. sign

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

767

Pierreali 3 Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule 1 Constance and Peter of Aragon (1282–1285) 1 Class A or B, MEC, nos. 757–764 1 James I (1285–1296) 1 Group 4, MEC, no. 766 1 Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) 1 Class B1, MEC, no. 772 1.112 Pikermi/Spata 1936 Findspot: Mainland Greece, nomos of East Attica. The hoard was found somewhere between the towns of Pikermi and Spata (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Three gigliati, seven pierreali, unspecified number of deniers tournois (not listed further below), one pair of earrings. Naples or Provence to Robert of Anjou, Sicily to Frederick III, Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos. Note: The hoard remains unstudied. The information regarding its content, such as it stands, was obtained by Mina Galani-Krikou from the ANK. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) or Frederick III (1296–1337). A dating between 1311 and two or three decades later is probable. The particular hoarding pattern in Attica and Boiotia in this period is further addressed in Chapters 2 and 6. Bibliography: Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 468, n. 47. Discussed further pp.: 127, 130, 133, 143, 158, 446, 447, 455, 1502, 1504, 1507 Content Gigliati 1 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) 2

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) or County of Provence 2 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343)

Pierreali 7 Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule 3 James I (1285–1296) 4 Frederick III (II) (1296–1337)

768

appendix i

1.113 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 71 grossi. Venice to Giovanni Soranzo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1328). Concealment presumably took place a short while after 1312, in view of the very small quantities of coins of the last doge. Bibliography: AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 13. Discussed further pp.: 133, 140, 1296 Content Grossi 71 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 67 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 3 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 1.114 Unknown Provenance before 1946 Findspot: Unknown, perhaps southern Greece (see below) (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 10 aspra, two pennies; one denier tournois, as part of a larger hoard. Trebizond to Alexios II; Burgundy of Hugh V; Achaïa of Philip of Savoy. Note: Pennies of Duke Hugh (Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de la France, 3, p. 199, nos. 5676–5678) are otherwise undocumented in the Greek context, as are aspra of Trebizond. Two attractive contexts for the presence of the first of these issues can be provided: first, Hugh was engaged to the daughter of Charles of Valois, titular emperor of Constantinople (NB: Hugh himself was titular king of Thessalonike), whose envoy in Greece might have been responsible for the appearance of French gros tournois in the first decade of the fourteenth century (see Appendix II.11.A, p. 1502). Second, Mahaut of Hainaut married Louis of Burgundy, the brother of Hugh, in 1313, and the princely couple arrived in Greece in 1316. Such connections, as well as the single denier tournois, would suggest a southern Greek findspot for this hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Hugh V (1306–1319) or Alexios II (1297–1330). According to the historical contexts concealment would have occurred some time around 1310, or after 1316. Bibliography: BCH, 71–72 (1947–8), NM, p. 393; Σύνταγμα, pp. 126–127, no. 123. Discussed further pp.: 142, 275n411, 333, 359n785, 1275, 1335, 1337, 1377

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

769

Content Aspra 10 Byzantine Empire at Trebizond 1204–1461 1 Manuel I Megalokomnenos (1238–1263) 9 Alexios II Megalokomnenos (1297–1330) Pennies 2 Duchy of Burgundy 2 Hugh V (1306–1319) Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1.115 Shën Dimitri Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, Sarandë district. The hoard was found near the church of Shën Dimitri, a few km southeast of the archaeological site of Butrint, in the Vrina plain, and bought by the Butrint Foundation from a shepherdess (Map 1). Present status: Butrint Museum, on display. Summary of content: 118 or 119 deniers tournois; Achaïa to Mahaut of Hainaut; Athens to Guy II or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: The hoard was discovered during construction work near the said church. Information on this hoard was kindly given to me by Pagona Papadopoulou, who will publish the hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321). Concealment probably occurred during this period, or shortly afterwards. Bibliography: Butrint Foundation Report 2003, pp. 15–16. Discussed further pp.: 147, 338, 471, 475, 1377, 1416, 1427, 1445 Content Deniers tournois yes Principality of Achaïa yes William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) yes Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain yes Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain yes Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) yes Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297)

770

appendix i

yes yes yes yes yes yes

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321)

yes

Duchy of Athens yes William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX yes Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

yes

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos yes Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1.116 Amphissa ca. 1977 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Amphissa (Phokis). The hoard is apparently from the vicinity of this town (Map 1). Present status: Private collection. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois. Amongst others, Achaïa to Mahaut. Note: Kravartogiannos fails to give grounds, both in his article and the entry in CH, for the way in which he re-constituted this hoard. Its core is, according to him, constituted by 107 deniers tournois of the NM, the acquisition of which was noted in AD. The remainder of the coins (38) are in his own collection. The coins which were described in AD were however not given an official provenance, nor has any such provenance been added to the museum records since. The latter prompted the Uncertain Attica (?) 1972 attribution of the coins in the Athens Museum by Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 346, no. 177. However, Metcalf lists both the Amphissa ca. 1977 and Uncertain Attica (?) 1972 hoards with the same reference to AD, which itself only speaks of one hoard. This hoard, in addition, was found by me on inspection to be 130 deniers tournois strong, as was stated in AD (therefore clashing with Kravartogiannos’ re-construction of 107 and 38 coins respectively). While it is apparently true that a hoard of deniers tournois from Amphissa must have been found, the documentation is such at present that the 130 coins of the Athens Numismatic Museum need to be given the Attic attribution and are therefore listed in this catalogue here below as «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972». The present hoard «116. Amphissa ca. 1977» remains one of an uncertain number of deniers tournois with an uncertain

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

771

composition, although probably not going beyond the issues of Mahaut of Hainaut for Achaïa. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321), a concealment date in this period or shortly thereafter being likely. Bibliography: AD, 28 (1973), NM, p. 8; Kravartogiannos, “Αμφισσαϊκό εύρημα”; CH, 4 (1978), p. 140, no. 445; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 346, no. 179; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 316, no. 18 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 126, 347, 446, 466, 770, 1377, 1416 1.117 Uncertain Attica (?) 1972 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was apparently found in this region (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 130 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Mahaut of Hainaut; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: This hoard was studied in its entirety by me, the most significant reattribution being the single coin of Mahaut of Hainaut. The comments made above in relation to «116. Amphissa ca. 1977» should be consulted. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321). Concealment in the early part of her rule is probable. Bibliography: AD, 28 (1973), NM, p. 8; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 346, no. 177. Discussed further pp.: 347, 446, 463, 770, 1377, 1410, 1416, 1418, 1427, 1437, 1445, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 65 Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 4 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 7 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5

772

appendix i

9

19

17

1 1 45

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c

Duchy of Athens 3 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 17 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

20

773

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 20 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 3 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2biii

1.118 Akarnania ca. 1960 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Akarnania. The hoard is said to have been found in this area (Map 1). Present status: Dispersed? Summary of content: 49, possibly more, deniers tournois. Achaïa to Mahaut; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321). Concealment might have occurred shortly after 1316, according to the low overall quantity of her specimens. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Pylia”, pp. 219–220; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 143, no. 6; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 347, no. 181. Discussed further pp.: 147, 471, 478, 1377, 1416, 1427, 1445 Content Deniers tournois 23 Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–GV21 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 4 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 11 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 16 Duchy of Athens 7 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 9 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

774 10

appendix i

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 10 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1.119 Ioannina 1986 Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. The hoard was apparently found in the vicinity of this town (Map 1, A). Present status: Private collection or dispersed. Summary of content: 309 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Mahaut of Hainaut; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Counterfeit; France. Note: Metcalf was communicated the content of this hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321), at a less than mature stage, suggesting concealment in ca. 1320 or just before. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 347, no. 180; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 14. Discussed further pp.: 147, 471, 477, 1286, 1287, 1377, 1416, 1427, 1445, 1453, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 146 Principality of Achaïa 10 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 13 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 13 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 12 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 22 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 41 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 39 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 6 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 105

Duchy of Athens 40 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 63 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Other Athenian issues

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

55

775

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 55 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318)

1

Kingdom of France

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

1.120 Athenian Agora 1939 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was excavated in the Ancient Agora, in section I of the site, just to the south of the Stoa of Attalos and to the west of what would have been the course of the medieval town walls (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: Four gigliati. Naples to Robert of Anjou; Provence to Robert of Anjou; Papacy to John XXII. Note: Thompson had not identified these coins as a hoard, no doubt because they were found on consecutive days and without the primary marks of a hoard (receptacle etc.). Nevertheless, a certain connection between these coins, which are very rare casual losses, is undeniable. The find-date is 27–28 April 1939. Kleiner illustrates the entire hoard. The inventory numbers are I-1488 (Charles II); I-1489 (Robert, Provence); I-1490 (John XXII); and I-1492 (Robert, Naples). Date of concealment: Last issue: any of the issues. The Provençal issue of Robert dates possibly from 1315 onwards; his Neapolitan specimen has been dated 1317–1321+/1323. The chronology of the papal issue is 1317–1321. Concealment from the very late 1310s or early 1320s onwards is likely. The hoarding pattern in Attica and Boiotia in this period is discussed further in Chapters 2 and 6. Bibliography: Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, p. 79; Kleiner, Mediaeval and Modern Coins in the Athenian Agora, p. 18; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 30; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 299, n. 42 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 467, n. 27. Discussed further pp.: 74n442, 143, 446, 447, 450, 454, 934, 1502, 1504, 1506, 1770

776

appendix i

Content Gigliati 2 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) 1 MEC, nos. 686–688 1 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 1 Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1b, ROBERTVS, obv. fleur-de-lis 1

County of Provence 1 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3982

1

Comtat Venaissin under papal rule 1 John XXII (1316–1334) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 4141

1.121 Delphi 1894Δ Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The hoard was found on the archaeological site during excavations (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two saluti; three gigliati; 22 pierreali, one gros tournois. Sicily to Charles II Anjou (in both denominations); Papacy to John XXII; Sicily (under Aragonese rule) to Frederick III (II); France to Philip III, IV, or V. Note: Caron attributed the single gros tournois to Philip VI, without specific reasoning and seemingly based on its large diameter. A positive identification to any French king of the name of Philip cannot be given according to the available information. Date of concealment: Last issue: John XXII (1316–1334) or Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) or Philip V (1316–1322). The chronology of the papal issue is 1317– 1321. There are relatively few specimens of Frederick. Concealment from the very late 1310s or early 1320s onwards is likely. The invasion of Walter of Brienne in 1331 may provide a context. Bibliography: Caron, “Delphes”, pp. 32–33; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 347, no. 182; Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean”, p. 283; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 26; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 177; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 318, no. 26 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 468, n. 31. Discussed further pp.: 73n423, 133, 143, 146, 446, 465, 1500, 1501, 1502, 1504, 1506, 1507

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

777

Content Gros tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Philip III (1270–1285) or Philip IV (1285–1314) or Philip V (1316–1322) Saluti 2 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 2 Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) 2 MEC, nos. 683–685 Gigliati 2 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 2 Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) 2 MEC, nos. 686–688 1

Comtat Venaissin under papal rule 1 John XXII (1316–1334) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 4141

Pierreali 22 Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule 6 Constance and Peter of Aragon (1282–1285) 6 MEC, nos. 757–764 10 James I (1285–1296) 10 MEC, nos. 766–768 6 Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) 6 MEC, nos. 771–779 1.122 Thebes 1967 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Thebes. The hoard is generally reported as having originated in the region of the town of Thebes, though it has also been termed ‘Thessalian’ (see also Note) (Map /). Present status: Dispersed and uncertain, partially in private collections, in Greece and elsewhere (?). Five coins owned by Kravartogiannos have recently entered the new museum of Amphissa and are on permanent display; 23 coins probably from the same hoard (see Note) used to be in the collection of John J. Slocum; Gaetano Testa was able to see some 500 coins, again probably from this hoard (see Note).

778

appendix i

Summary of content: In excess of 500 large module silver coins, including saluti, gigliati, pierreali, possibly gros tournois and grossi (see Note). Sicily to Charles II of Anjou; Sicily to Robert of Anjou; Provence to Robert of Anjou; Papacy to John XXII; Sicily (under Aragonese rule) to Frederick III; France to Philip V (?); Venice to Giovanni Soranzo. Note: The hoard was dispersed before a systematic study was possible. Tzamalis and Kravartogiannos have printed the same short description of this hoard. Tzamalis, who published earlier, provides the information on the findspot, date, and approximate size. Kravartogiannos combines Tzamalis’ illustrations with photographs of four of the coins which he acquired. The first list presented below is based on these. The second bibliographical item of Kravartogiannos describes how he purchased five coins in Amphissa from what he considered to be the same hoard as Tzamalis. However, the possibility that more than one hoard of similar description became available in this general period is heightened by the 23 coins from “the Thessalonian hoard” in the Slocum sale, and by Testa’s listings of coins he saw in the early 1980s, which diverge from the previous reports on the presence of French royal and Venetian coins. However, Testa himself (personal letter of 21 September 2008) has informed me that he considers all of these coins as emanating from the same find. I have listed here the three main parcels separately. It should be noted that Kravartogiannos’ pierreale of Frederick IV has been re-attributed to Frederick III. The Slocum sale and Testa’s report provide us with some useful information – however vague – regarding the proportions of the different issues. Testa also comments on the considerable wear of the coins which he handled. Testa’s most recent and detailed piece on this hoard has not been taken fully into consideration here. Date of concealment: Last issue: the hoard closes potentially with any one of the listed series, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Provençal, Papal, French, or Venetian. There is no single issue which is securely dated any later than the very early 1320s. However, in combination this hoard appears to be more mature than the previous two hoards of similar composition from Delphi and the Athenian Agora, a fact which is confirmed by the wear noted by Testa. Although the secure terminus post quem is 1317, concealment in the course of the 1320s or even beyond is likely. Maybe this valuable hoard was abandoned as the town was destroyed pre-emptively by the Catalans in 1331. Bibliography: Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, p. 94; Kravartogiannos, “Νομισματικές μαρτυρίες”; Kravartogiannos, “Θησαυροί που χάνονται”, p. 2818; John J. Slocum Collection, p. 51, no. 409; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 30; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 177; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 319, no. 30 and passim; Testa, “I gigliati napoletani”, p. 559; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 468, n. 35; Testa “Trésor de monnaies médiévales”. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 78, 129, 133, 143, 146, 446, 447, 460, 1296, 1299, 1500, 1501, 1502, 1504, 1505

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

779

Content Tzamalis & Kravartogiannos Saluti yes Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) yes Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) yes MEC, nos. 683–685 Gigliati yes Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) yes Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) yes MEC, nos. 686–688 yes Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) yes Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1a, ROBERTVS, no obv. sign yes

County of Provence yes Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) yes Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3982

yes

Comtat Venaissin under papal rule yes John XXII (1316–1334) yes Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 4141

Pierreali yes Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule yes Constance and Peter of Aragon (1282–1285) yes MEC, nos. 757–764 yes James I (1285–1296) yes MEC, nos. 766–768 yes Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) yes MEC, nos. 771–779 Slocum Gigliati 15 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 5 Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) 5 MEC, nos. 686–688 10 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343)

780

appendix i

4

County of Provence 4 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 4 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3982

4

Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule 4 Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) 4 MEC, nos. 771–779

Testa Gros tournois few

Kingdom of France few Louis X (1314–1316) few Philip III (1270–1285) and/or Philip IV (1285–1314) and/or Philip V (1316–1322)

Grossi few Republic of Venice last Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1328) Saluti few Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) few Charles I of Anjou (1266–1285) few MEC, nos. 677–679 few Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) few MEC, nos. 683–685 Gigliati 270 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) yes Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) yes MEC, nos. 686–688 more Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) yes Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1a, ROBERTVS, no obv. sign yes Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1b, ROBERTVS, obv. fleur-de-lis 80

County of Provence 80 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 80 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3982

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

yes

781

Comtat Venaissin under papal rule yes John XXII (1316–1334) yes Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 4141

Pierreali yes Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule yes Constance and Peter of Aragon (1282–1285) yes MEC, nos. 757–764 yes James I (1285–1296) yes MEC, nos. 766–768 yes Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) yes MEC, nos. 771–779 1.123 Sterea Ellada 1975 Findspot: Mainland Greece. The hoard was allegedly found somewhere between Aitolia and Akarnania and Attica (Map /). Present status: Private collection. Summary of content: 847 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Mahaut of Hainaut; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Chios. Note: The hoard was acquired by what Metcalf terms a “scholar-collector”. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) or Martin Zaccaria, alone (1320/1322–1329). Concealment will have taken place in the very early 1320s, perhaps 1325 according to the known military events. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 346, no. 178; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 319, no. 29 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 27. Discussed further pp.: 142, 147, 347, 446, 471, 1377, 1416, 1427, 1435, 1445, 1453, 1464, 1465 Content Deniers tournois 383 Principality of Achaïa 22 William of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 13 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 20 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 20 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 10 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203

782

appendix i

35 67 90 120 4 1 14

Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321)

315

Duchy of Athens 122 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 192 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

145

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 145 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 131 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 13 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

3

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 3 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 3 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, Types 1–2

1

Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

1.124 Attica 1950 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard is said to have been found in this general area (Map /).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

783

Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 20 deniers tournois of a larger hoard. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The overall quantities of coins contained in this hoard are so small that a generic concealment date of 1321–1332 or just beyond has to be proposed. The occasion may have been the invasion of Walter of Brienne (1331). Bibliography: BCH, 75 (1951), NM, p. 105; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 56, hoard H; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 349, no. 193; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 317, no. 24 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 1. Discussed further pp.: 146, 347, 446, 463, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1445, 1453, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 6 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 7

Duchy of Athens 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

5

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 5 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group ?

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

784

appendix i

1.125 Eleusina 1894 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was excavated at the archaeological site (Map 1, D). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Sumary of content: 15 deniers tournois; Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; France to Louis VIII or IX; Tours. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The overall quantities of coins contained in this hoard are so small that a generic concealment date of 1321–1332 or just beyond has to be proposed. Bibliography: Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων, p. 48. Discussed further pp.: 347, 446, 463, 1285, 1286, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1445 Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1

Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A

6

Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332)

3

Duchy of Athens 3 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX

4

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 4 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

785

1.126 Attica (?) 1951 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was apparently found in this area (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Sumary of content: 211 deniers tournois; Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Provence. Note: BCH speaks of 100 coins of uncertain provenance. The appropriate identification of the approximate findspot, and the amended content, dates back to Metcalf’s first publication, which was also mentioned by Galani-Krikou. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The precise subvarieties for this prince are not known, and the overall proportions of the issues of Mahaut and John are not always chronologically indicative. A concealment date in the early to mid-1320s can be postulated according to our current state of knowledge, although the occasion may conceivably have been the invasion of Walter of Brienne (1331). Bibliography: BCH, 76 (1952), NM, p. 205; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 55, no. G; Galani-Krikou, “Φραγκικό εύρημα”, pp. 329 and 332; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 347, no. 183; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 317, no. 21 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 2. Discussed further pp.: 146, 347, 446, 463, 1290, 1291, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1446, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 107 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV2 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 12 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 14 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 7 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 32 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 27 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 2 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 2 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa

786

appendix i

66

Duchy of Athens 23 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 43 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

31

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 31 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 27 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b

2

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 2 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P

2

County of Provence 2 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6.

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

1.127 Roussaiïka Agriniou 1966 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Akarnania. The hoard was found at Roussaiïka, near the settlement of Neapoli, to the northwest of Agrinio (Map 1). Present status: 8th EBA in Ioannina, transferred recently from the 12th EPKA (Archaeological Museum in Ioannina). The final destination of this hoard is apparently the 22nd EBA in Naupaktos. Summary of content: Ten deniers tournois of Arta. Note: The hoard was handed over by Mr Mosios and the identification took place at the Athens Numismatic Museum. No more information on the coins’ typologies is currently available. One may assume that, like «128. Thesprotia

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

787

1974», it would have contained predominantly IOγ issues, but we have no proof to that effect and attributions and dating have to be kept general. Date of concealment: Last issue: John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337). Concealment probably took place between 1323 and 1336/1337, though it might have been later. Bibliography: P.L. Vokotopoulos in AD, 22 (1967), B’2, p. 330; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 145, no. 10; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 348, no. 187. Discussed further pp.: 142, 147, 471, 478, 1466, 1472, 1473 Content Deniers tournois 10 Despot in Epiros at Arta 10 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 10Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 1.128 Thesprotia 1974 Findspot: Epiros, Thesprotia. The hoard was allegedly found within this area (Map 1). Present status: 8th EPKA, Archaeological Museum Corfu. Summary of content: 47 deniers tournois of Arta. Note: Galani-Krikou identified eight of the 47 coins as Artan, the remainder as unreadable. Upon inspection in Corfu, I was able to ascertain that the hoard consisted of 47 IOγ issues, of which not more than about ten of IOγvar1. Amongst the IOγvar2 specimens, only a few coins had marks around the rev. castle, and the remainder was evenly divided amongst specimens with minor errors in the legends, those with more significant aberrations, and those which were completely nonsensical. Date of concealment: Last issue: Last issue: John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337). Concealment generally took place between 1323 and 1336/1337, though it will invariably have been at one point between the early and later 1330s. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 145, no. 11; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 348, no. 188. Discussed further pp.: 142, 147, 471, 476, 1466, 1472, 1473 1.129 Aegean Area (?) 1858 Findspot: Apparently from an area in present-day Greece or Turkey bordering the Aegean Sea (Map /). Present status: Uncertain (some coins were in Lambros’ collection, itself now dispersed).

788

appendix i

Summary of content: Deniers tournois of Damala and Chios. Perhaps other Frankish Greek coins? Note: The provenance of this hoard might possibly lie outside the geographical parameters of this appendix. As Lambros stated “… le denier de Damala provient de la même trouvaille que les autres deniers de ce même Martin Zaccaria frappés par lui comme seigneur de Chio au type des deniers tournois  …”. Despite Metcalf’s reference to a second bibliographical item of Lambros, and to Promis’ monograph (Promis, La zecca di Scio; Lambros, “Monnaies inédites de Chio”, p. 246ff), this is to my knowledge the only historical mention of this particular hoard. It should certainly not be confused with the Chios 1857 hoard which contained Chiot coins of a later generation (Lambros, “Monnaies inédites de Chio”, p. 248). Date of concealment: Last issue: either one of the issues contained in the hoard, or another issue altogether which we are unaware of. The hoard may date to the mid-1320s, or in fact later. Bibliography: Lambros, “Damala”, p. 65; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 56, no. M; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 350, no. 196. Discussed further pp.: 1464, 1465 Content Deniers tournois yes Lordship of Chios yes Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) yes Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating) 1

Lordship of Damala 1 Anonymous 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.29

1.130 Romanos Dodonis 1963 Findspot: Epiros, settlement of Romanos, southern part of the nomos of Ioannina, southwest of ancient Dodona (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum and 8th EBA Ioannina, where it is displayed in the Byzantine Museum.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

789

Summary of content: 1070 (not 1071 as previously stated) deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Arta; Tinos; Provence. Note: I inspected this hoard in Ioannina, where I took samples from the different categories (princes or other sub-varieties), made amendments and established more detailed typologies for the later issues in particular. The most important discovery was one specimen of John of Gravina, which changes the concealment date. The absolute figures given here have been taken from the publications, are not entirely accurate, and do not entirely add up, but are indicative of overall composition. Figures in brackets indicate that I have only sampled a certain proportion of the totals for a given prince or sub-grouping. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The coin of Arta is of an early group, whereas the single specimen of John is probably later, even though the hoard is generally quite immature. This is one of a string of hoards that can be dated between the mid-1320s and the concealment date of «135. Orio 1959» (1328). Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 144–145, no. 9; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 347, no. 184; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 26. Discussed further pp.: 130, 142, 471, 477, 1291, 1377, 1418, 1419, 1422, 1427, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1462, 1466, 1472, 1740, 1742, 1746 Content Deniers tournois 462 Principality of Achaïa 35 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 46 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 46 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 10 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 40 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 76 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 112 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) (19) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA (13) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB (7) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ (1) Uncertain Philip of Savoy

790

appendix i

129

5 8 1

Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) (39) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA (54) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB (27) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1

428

Duchy of Athens (28) William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX (3) Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 (25) Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 (64) Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX (33) Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 (15) Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (16) Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 (159) Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX (35) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 64) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B (31) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ (1) Mule of Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ and GR20B (28) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ (99) Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX (88) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z (2) Uncertain GVI.DVX (5) Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX (5) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

174

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 174 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) (1) Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a (34) Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b (20) Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

(4) (4) (1) (9) (5) (5) (1) (1)

791

Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2biii Uncertain Philip of Taranto / Naupaktos

2

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 2 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 2 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group ?

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOAvar1

2

Lordship of Tinos 2 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

1

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

1.131 Attica (?) 1967 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was apparently found in this area (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 186 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Karytaina Provence. Note: Galani-Krikou’s accurate descriptions were transcribed into the more recently-established typology. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The issues of this prince are less than fully developed and this is one of a string of hoards that can be dated between the mid-1320s and the concealment date of «135. Orio 1959» (1328), although it is just conceivable that the invasion of Walter of Brienne (1331) caused the abandonment of the hoard.

792

appendix i

Bibliography: AD, 32 (1977), NM, p. 2; Galani-Krikou, “Φραγκικό εύρημα”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 348, no. 185; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 317, no. 23 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 3. Discussed further pp.: 146, 347, 446, 463, 1292, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1435, 1437, 1440, 1446, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 99 Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5 19 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB2 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 2 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 11 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 29 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 20 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 6 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA uncertain

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1

1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 1 Uncertain John of Gravina Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa

60

Duchy of Athens 5 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Uncertain G.DVX 17 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 17 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 17 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 17 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20E 2 Uncertain Athenian deniers tournois

22

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 22 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi

793

794

appendix i

2 1

Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

3

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 3 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P 2 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group L

1

Lordship of Karytaina 1 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

1

County of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3954. +K.FI.Rñ.F.COMESP. / +PROVINCIALIS

1.132 Nisi Ioanninon 1966 Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. The hoard was found on the island in the lake of Ioannina (Map 1). Present status: 8th EBA. The hoard is exhibited in the Byzantine Museum of Ioannina. Summary of content: 58 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; Naupaktos. Note: The hoard, studied in its entirety by me, is designated as Nisi Ioanninon 1977 in the museum exhibition, though I adhere here to the name originally used by Galani-Krikou. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). All sub-varieties are represented, though not plentifully. This is one of a string of hoards that can be dated between the mid-1320s and the concealment date of «135. Orio 1959» (1328). Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 143–144, no. 8; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 348, no. 186. Discussed further pp.: 142, 471, 477, 817, 1377, 1418, 1419, 1427, 1446, 1484, 1760, 1764

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 33 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 4 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 3 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 5 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 8 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 1 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMB 6 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ

795

796

appendix i

21

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 9 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

2

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 2 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Clarentza 1 Uncertain influence

1.133 Birmingham Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: Barber Institute, University of Birmingham. Summary of content: 15 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeit. Note: See hoard «86. Birmingham» for further information on the material contained in the Barber Institute. The parcel listed here bears Whitting’s own acquisition number of 37, which is representative of the year in which it entered his collection. It was studied by me. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The level of maturity of this hoard is difficult to assess due to the small overall quantities contained therein. Concealment might have occurred just before 1328, in line with the dating of «135. Orio 1959». Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 1377, 1419, 1427, 1446, 1481

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 8 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 5

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

1

Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVIS

797

798

appendix i

1.134 ANS 1952 Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York. Summary of content: 228 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeits. Note: This hoard was studied by me. Some of the information regarding the content of this hoard has been revised since the publication of Baker, “Thessaly”. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The hoard has not reached complete maturity in the issues of this prince, and its concealment dates therefore to a few years before the end of the princeship, and probably before that of «135. Orio 1959» (1328). Bibliography: Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 316, no. 19 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 1377, 1419, 1422, 1427, 1435, 1446, 1453, 1481, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 121 Principality of Achaïa 10 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV21–22 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 5 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 1 Uncertain Florent of Hainaut 19 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 26 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 17 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

28

1 1 22

6

69

Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMΓ Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 2 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB uncertain 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 1 Uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1

Duchy of Athens 6 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 21 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 22 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 19 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 19 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20E

799

800 36

appendix i

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 36 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 3 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 2 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 6 Uncertain Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

1

Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Philip of Savoy

1.135 Orio 1959 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia. The hoard was found in the settlement of Orio (Όριο), south of Kimi (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 583 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Chios; France to Louis VIII or IX; Counterfeits. Note: This hoard was studied in its entirety by me. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). His issues are well represented, though the last variety (IGA) is still not as plentiful as in later hoards and concealment in the later 1320s may be proposed from a numismatic point of view. In fact, I would suggest that this hoard was concealed and/ or not retrieved as a direct result of the massive Turkish onslaught on the island of Euboia in 1328: see Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade, p. 15. This hoard is thereby a measuring stick against which to compare other hoards terminating with the Achaïan issues of John. Bibliography: BCH, 84 (1960), NM, pp. 498–9; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 56, no. I; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 348, no. 189; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 319, no. 28 and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 22. Discussed further pp.: 146, 344, 446, 466, 789, 791, 794, 796, 798, 1286, 1377, 1406, 1419, 1420, 1422, 1427, 1435, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1464, 1484

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 331 Principality of Achaïa 13 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV212 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 14 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 14 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 11 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 43 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 19 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA or Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 56 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 27 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA-B 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 79 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 38 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA

801

802

appendix i

5 1 65

42

182

27 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 19 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 19 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 1 Uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut John of Gravina (1321–1332) 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB uncertain 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ4

Duchy of Athens 11 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 11 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 43 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 21 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 20 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 61 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 24 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

61

3

61

803

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 60 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 2 DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 1 DVX.ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b 2 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 61 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 13 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 10 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2 uncertain 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

2

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 2 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 2 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, Type 2

1

Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

804 2

appendix i

Kingdom of France 2 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

4

Counterfeit deniers tournois 4 Nonsensical legends

1.136 Lord Grantley Hoard A Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: British Museum, London; American Numismatic Society, New York (?). Summary of content: 120 counterfeit deniers tournois, and genuine deniers tournois of Frankish Greece. Catalan Company; Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: This hoard was inspected by me. Along with other coins of Frankish Greece in possession of Lord Grantley, it sold at auction in 1914. It entered the British Museum via Spink, who did the bidding on behalf of the BM, and A. Rosenheim, who bequeathed them to the museum. This information can be gained from the copy of the sales catalogue, Catalogue of a collection of Greek, Civic and Regal coins (…) a small collection of coins of the Latin Orient the property of the Rt. Hon. Lord Grantley (…) auction by Messrs. Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge on Tuesday, the 3rd of February, 1914 (…), pp. 16–18, held in the BM, which contains handwritten information on the proceedings of the auction. Not all coins of Frankish Greece from the auction went to Spink. The museum inventory, BM Department of Coins. Modern and Medieval Series 1913–1914, vol. 8, p. 30ff, lists the coins. The quantities given for the individual rulers and types in the museum inventory are William of Villehardouin (20); Charles I or II of Anjou (22); Florent of Hainaut (23); Isabelle of Villehardouin (63); Philip of Savoy (99); Louis of Burgundy (5); Ferdinand of Majorca (3); Mahaut of Hainaut (71); John of Gravina (44); G.DVX (98); GVI.DVX (141); Philip of Taranto/ Achaïa and Naupaktos (120). The counterfeit denier tournois coinage of the Catalan Company (Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, vars. c and d) was mixed in with the genuine GVI.DVX coins. It seems unlikely that the coins for auction constituted a single hoard. It is nevertheless probable that amongst this material was a parcel of coins containing counterfeit deniers tournois of the varieties described by Seltman, and genuine issues of Frankish Greece ending in the coins of John of Gravina. It is of note that these coins are unrelated to those published by Lord Grantley some years later [see «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B»], and that the same A. Rosenheim donated deniers tournois of Frankish Greece

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

805

to the American Numismatic Society [Charles I or II of Anjou (3), Florent of Hainaut (3), Isabelle of Villehardouin (2), Philip of Taranto (3), Mahaut of Hainaut (3), John of Gravina (2), G.DVX (4), GVI.DVX (19), Naupaktos (3)]. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). Concealment will have taken place in the very late 1320s, or just beyond. The invasion of Walter of Brienne in 1331 may provide a context. Bibliography: Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”; Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 318–319, no. 27 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 142, 146, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1446, 1481, 1482, 1483 Content Deniers tournois 120 Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 93 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 42 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVIS 3 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVS 2 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIS 15 +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVIS 1 +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVI 6 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVIS 13 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVS 2 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIS 2 +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVIS 6 +GVIDAXATENS / +ThEBANICIVIS 1 +GVIDAXATEN / +ThEBANICIVS 27 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d 26 +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA 1 +GVIDVXATENEP / +DECLARENCIA 1.137 Kafaraj Findspot: Albania, Fier county and district. The hoard was found near this village, a few km south of the town of Fier (Map 1). Present status: Perhaps in the Numismatic Collection, Archaeological Institute, Tirana. Summary of content: Ca. 130 grossi. Venice to Francesco Dandolo. Note: The existence of this hoard and its approximate content was kindly communicated to me by Prof. Muçaj. Date of concealment: Last issue: Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339). The hoard has a terminus post quem of 1329, but concealment might have occurred anything

806

appendix i

up to a decade or so later, perhaps in the context of the documented military events (1337/1338). Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 130, 133, 147, 343, 471, 475, 1296, 1297n567, 1299 1.138 Tritaia 1933 Findspot: Mainland Greece, settlement of Tritaia, near Itea (Phokis) (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 72 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). Concealment probably occurred in ca. 1330, to judge from the overall quantities from the last princes of Achaïa. Bibliography: BCH, 58 (1934), NM, p. 236; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 56, hoard J; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 348, no. 190; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 319, no. 31 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 126, 347, 446, 466, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 41 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 7 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 10 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 11 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 16

Duchy of Athens 4 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

9

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 9 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

6

Uncertain deniers tournois

807

1.139 Atalandi 1940 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Atalandi (Phthiotis) (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 288 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Arta; Chios. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The issues of John appear to be represented in this hoard at a relatively mature level, and are therefore more recent than the issue of Chios, and maybe those of Arta. Knowledge of the typology of the four Artan specimens would be particularly useful. Concealment might have occurred just beyond ca. 1330. Bibliography: BCH, 71–72 (1947–8), NM, p. 393; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 56, hoard K; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 349, no. 191; Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 316–317, no. 20 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 341, 347, 446, 464, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1446, 1464, 1466, 1472 Content Deniers tournois 175 Principality of Achaïa 8 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 4 GV1–21 4 GV22 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 6 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 19 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 28 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 28 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 36 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 48 John of Gravina (1321–1332)

808

appendix i

76

Duchy of Athens 29 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 46 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

19

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 19 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 16 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b

4

Despot in Epiros at Arta 4 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 4 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

13

Uncertain deniers tournois

1.140 Ermitsa 1985A Findspot: Mainland Greece Aitolia and Akarnania. The hoard was excavated in the Taxiarchis church of the locality of Ermitsa, 4km southeast of Agrinio (Map 1). Present status: Formerly 8th EBA, Ioannina, now 22nd EBA, Naupaktos. Summary of content: 360 (Galani-Krikou: 357) deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Arta; Provence. Note: The hoard was inspected, with the exception of the issues of William of Villehardouin, by me. Galani-Krikou and Metcalf speak of a hoard containing deniers tournois and Venetian soldini (the latter to Marco Corner). In AD, however, the excavator refers merely to the deniers tournois, and she informed me personally that the soldini are to be considered a separate hoard from the same locality and year. It is listed elsewhere in this appendix («169. Ermitsa 1985B»). This separation of the two coinages into different hoards obviates the

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

809

need to explain what would otherwise be a curiously arrested development in the denier tournois element. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332) or of John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337). The issues of John of Gravina are relatively mature, and the hoard is dated around 1330 or beyond, perhaps to 1331 with reference to the town’s military events. Bibliography: F. Kephalonitou-Konstantiou in AD, 42 (1987), B’1, p. 330; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 147–148, no. 17; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 353, no. 209; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 224, n. 40. Discussed further pp.: 126, 127, 131, 142, 147, 341, 471, 478, 853, 1290, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1435, 1446, 1453, 1466, 1472, 1484, 1489, 1716, 1744, 1746, 1748, 1760, 1762, 1764 Content Deniers tournois 178 Principality of Achaïa 13 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 9 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 12 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 23 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA uncertain 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 23 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 44 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 18 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ

810

appendix i

2 21

29

100

Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB4 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3

Duchy of Athens 8 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 24 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 16 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 43 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

22 1

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

39

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 39 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 13 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 5 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

24

Despot in Epiros at Arta 24 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 4 IOAvar1 5 IOAvar2 2 IOAvar3 1 IOAvar3 (obv.)–var4 (rev.) 9 IOAvar4 1 IOA uncertain var 2 IOB

1

18

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey dʹAvant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734 Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Mahaut of Hainaut 1 Of Clarentza 1 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos 1 Of John II Orsini 5 Of uncertain influence 9 Of general influence of Clarentza and Naupaktos

811

812

appendix i

1.141 Brussels without inventory Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: Cabinet des médailles, Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Brussels. Summary of content: 136 deniers tournois (including 84 counterfeits); Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Counterfeits. Note: The entry of this parcel in the museum was not inventoried, although it must have occurred in the nineteenth century. The totality of Frankish Greek coins without inventory in the Brussels cabinet does not constitute a hoard, as is demonstrated by the presence of four petty denomination issues. It is, however, very likely that those coins which were not inventoried include at least one hoard, or part of one. The coins grouped together here are for the most part denier tournois counterfeits issued by the Catalan Company. I have listed all the other deniers tournois of Frankish Greece of the Brussels Cabinet which have no inventory number. It is very likely that many formed part of the same hoard as these counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The issues of this prince look quite mature, and concealment is to be dated to beyond 1330, perhaps to 1331 and the invasion of Walter of Brienne. Bibliography: Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 317–318, no. 25 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 142, 146, 377, 1419, 1427, 1446, 1453, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1700, 1704, 1706, 1712, 1718, 1720, 1722, 1738, 1742, 1754, 1756, 1758 Content Deniers tournois 27 Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 5 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 7 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1 3 5

Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1–2 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3a–b John of Gravina (1321–1332) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1

18

Duchy of Athens 4 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 3 Uncertain G.DVX 6 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

6

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 6 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P

813

814 84

appendix i

Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 80 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 27 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVIS 3 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVS 2 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVI 3 +GVIDVXATENE / +ThEBANICIVIS 3 +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVIS 2 +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVS 4 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVIS 16 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVS 1 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIS 1 +GVIDVXATENI / +ThEBANICIVS 4 +GVIDVXATENI / +ThEBANICIS 2 +GVIDVXATENIS / +ThEBANICIVIS 5 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVIS 1 +GVIDVXATEN / +ThEBANICIVIS 1 +GVIDAXATEN / +ThEBANICIVS 1 +GVIDAXATENS / +ThEBANICIVIS (dot in angles of obv. X) 3 +GVIDAXATEN / +ThEBANICIVIS (dot in angles of obv. X) 1 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVS (dot in angles of obv. X) 4 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d 4 +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA

1.142 Patra 1955A Findspot: Peloponnese, Patra (Αchaïa). The hoard was found in the vicinity (Map 1, G). Present status: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Summary of content: 235 deniers tournois (Metcalf states 238). Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeits. Note: The hoard was formerly in the collection of James R. Stewart of Sydney, Australia. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332), at an advanced stage. Concealment took place in ca. 1332 or later. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 349, no. 195; Metcalf, “Three hoards”. Discussed further pp.: 79n485, 425, 444, 1377, 1419, 1427, 1437, 1446, 1484

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 147 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 8 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 20 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 4 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 24 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 22 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 1 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 23 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB uncertain 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3

815

816

appendix i

38

John of Gravina (1321–1332) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3

63

Duchy of Athens 4 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 16 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 30 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1

24

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 24 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 13 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2a uncertain 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 “Illiterate legend”

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

817

1.143 Limni Ioanninon 1965 Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. The hoard was found inside a vase near the lake bearing the name of the town (Map 1, A). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (the florin and one grosso of each doge) and 8th EBA. It is exhibited in the Byzantine Museum of Ioannina. Summary of content: 133 (134 stated erroneously in the publication) grossi, two ducats, one florin. Venice to Francesco Dandolo; Florence. Note: During the preparation of the display in the Ioannina museum this hoard was confused with «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966». It is, however, clear from the ample publications that the findspot of this hoard of Venetian and Florentine coins was a location near the lake of Ioannina, rather than on the island in the lake. It is also not to be confused with another place called Limni, in the nomos of Ioannina, which lies 47km northwest of the town. Date of concealment: Last issue: Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) or the florin, and 1332 is a secure terminus post quem. Bibliography: AD, 21 (1966), NM, p. 11; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 203 and 221; Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Θησαυρός γροσσίων”, p. 171; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 145, no. 12; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 211 and 232; Stahl, Zecca, p. 433, no. 22. Discussed further pp.: 130, 132, 133, 140, 146, 343, 344, 345, 408, 471, 477, 1296, 1299, 1307, 1658 Content Grossi 133 Republic of Venice 1 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 2 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 31 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 20 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 14 Jacopo Contarini (1275–1280) 9 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 26 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 1 Marino Zorzi (1311–1312) 16 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 13 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) Ducats 2 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339)

818

appendix i

Florin 1 Republic of Florence 1 Bernocchi, Monete, 2, p. 159, Vanni Bandini, 1332 1.144 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, ΠΚ 63. Summary of content: 16 grossi and one soldino. Venice to Giovanni Soranzo and Francesco Dandolo respectively; Serbia. Note: No further information with regard to the Serbian grossi is provided, though they are presumably of the usual types found in southern Greece. A southern Greek provenance (as opposed to Macedonia, or further afield) can be presumed on the grounds of the single soldino. Date of concealment: Last issue: Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339). His soldini were first issued in 1332/1333, the terminus post quem for this hoard. Concealment presumably took place within a short time of issue, judging from the profile of the grossi and the fact that the hoard contained only one single soldino. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 232. Discussed further pp.: 132, 133, 140, 345, 1296, 1302, 1320 Content Grossi 12 Republic of Venice yes Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 4

Kingdom of Serbia ? Stefan Dragutin (1276–1282/1316) or Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321) ? “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 238, 2.1 or p. 240, 3.1

Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1.145 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, ΠΚ 26.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

819

Summary of content: 23 grossi and one soldino. Venice to Francesco Dandolo; Serbia. Note: No further information with regard to the Serbian grossο is provided, though it is presumably of the usual type found in southern Greece. A southern Greek provenance (as opposed to Macedonia, or further afield) can be presumed on the grounds of the single soldino. Date of concealment: Last issue: Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339). His soldini were first issued in 1332/1333, the terminus post quem for this hoard. Concealment might have taken place shortly thereafter. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 170ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 232. Discussed further pp.: 133, 139, 140, 345, 1296, 1302, 1320 Content Grossi 22 Republic of Venice yes Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Kingdom of Serbia ? Stefan Dragutin (1276–1282/1316) or Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321) ? “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 238, 2.1 or p. 240, 3.1 Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1.146 Mesochori Findspot: Peloponnese, Messenia. The village of Mesochori lies just south of Pylos (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, where it is on display in the permanent exhibition. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, uncertain number of soldini. Note: Nothing is known to me about the composition of this hoard other than what I was able to glean from the exhibition, and the fact that it contained one specimen of John II Angelos (1303–1318), Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, uncertain group. The latest coins I was able to identify were deniers tournois of John of Gravina (1321–1332) and soldini of Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339).

820

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: possibly Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339), dating the hoard to after 1332/1333. There is the possibility that the hoard in fact contained later coins, though this is unknown to me. Bibliography: Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 19. Discussed further pp.: 133, 425, 444, 1320, 1377, 1419 1.147 Nivicë Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, Sarandë district, village of Nivicë-Bubari, located ca. 10km north of Sarandë, on the road leading to Himarë and Vlorë (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: 155 or 156 deniers tournois; Arta, Achaïa, Counterfeits (?). Achaïa of Charles I or II of Anjou and Mahaut of Hainaut. Note: The hoard was discovered during excavations in the church of Peshkëpi, on top of a lower floor and in a small container. The publication states that 149 coins are issues of Arta, while six additional coins, with partial and occasionally reversed legends, emulate Artan or other prototypes. Two further coins are reportedly of Achaïa. Although I did not see the hoard, I was able to discuss its content, and especially the typology of the coins contained therein, more fully with Prof. Muçaj, who is planning its more comprehensive publication. According to his description, the hoard contains standard Artan issues and typologies which are known from other hoards and collections, though also a number of completely new varieties. The presence of specific IO groups and varieties in this hoard has been deduced from these descriptions and listed below. Amongst IOγvar2, previously unrecorded decorations underneath the castle include Ns, Hs, and crescents. I am currently assuming that all 153 or 154 specimens of the Artan type are genuine issues of John at the Arta mint, although it remains possible that some of these coins were contemporary counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: John II of Orsini (1323–1336/1337). Given the developed typology of the Artan issues, concealment probably occurred towards the end of John’s rule, or even later, that is to say at one point from the early 1330s. Bibliography: Muçaj, Hobdari, Vitaliotis, “Kisha Mesjetare e Peshkëpisë (Nivicë)”, pp. 275, 298, 302; Lafe, “Archaeology in Albania”, p. 134. Discussed further pp.: 81n514, 127, 142, 147, 471, 476, 1377, 1416, 1466, 1469, 1473, 1484

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

821

Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 153/4

Despot in Epiros at Arta 153/4 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) ? IOAvar1 ? IOAvar2 yes IOAvar3 ? IOAvar4 yes IOB yes IOΓvar1 many IOΓvar2

1.148 Naupaktos 1976 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Naupaktos (Aitolia and Akarnania). The hoard was apparently found in the vicinity (Map 1). Present status: Widely dispersed in Europe and the USA. Some specimens are almost certainly in the numismatic collection of Firestone Library, Princeton University. Summary of content: Thousands of deniers tournois. Arta and possibly other issues of Greece; Counterfeits (?). Note: Artan coins which match the available description for the present hoard were relatively prominent on the antiquities’ market in the 1980s, and handled by known dealers. A London-based collector, Theo Sarmas, acquired a fair number of Artan specimens, of which 31 passed into the collection of Princeton University in 2007. While it remains impossible to tell whether each and every one of these was originally contained in the hoard, this collection provides nevertheless a good impression of its content. It is dominated by IOγvar2, with only a few specimens of IOAvar2, IOAvar4, IOB, and IOγvar1. As with the previous hoard, I assume that all of the coins of the Artan type in the hoard were genuine products of the Arta mint at the time of John of Orsini, although the possibility remains that some were contemporary counterfeits.

822

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Possibly John II of Orsini (1323–1336/1337). Concealment probably took place in close proximity to the previous hoard, given their common characteristics, that is to say at one point from the early 1330s. Bibliography: Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, p. 114; Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 84, nn. 21 and 22. Discussed further pp.: 70n466, 126, 142, 147, 471, 478, 1466, 1473, 1484 1.149 Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica, Athens. The hoard was found during the excavations of the Archaeological Society in the Lytsika and Azape plot of old Athens, in an area which is now known to contain the Roman Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, inv. no. 1894–1895, H’, 88. Summary of content: 263 deniers tournois, 19 soldini, possibly one petty denomination issue, one half grosso/basilikon/keration, one gigliato. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Venice to F. Dandolo. Note: The two hoards from the Lytsika plot of old Athens («111» and «149») are the subject of a separate study. Previously the coins were variously considered stray pieces or a single hoard. A seventeenth-century Polish coin and a late fourteenth-century tornesello were found with Lytsika hoard A, and are obvious intruders. For this reason it is possible that a petty denomination issue of the Corinth mint (Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9); a gigliato of Robert of Anjou for Naples (Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1a); a half grosso or basilikon / keration of Martin and Benedict Zaccaria at Chios, 1314–1319/1324 (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. 13.30), also found with the hoard but not further listed here below, were also originally not part of the find either. Date of concealment: Last issue: Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339), dating to post1332/1333. A dating of mid to late 1330s suggests itself. Bibliography: PAE (1893), pp. 7–11; Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων, pp. 40–41; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 253, n. 27; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 299, n. 42 and p. 320, no. 2 (18) and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 17; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”. Discussed further pp.: 79n486, 133, 347, 446, 447, 454, 766, 822, 947, 1286, 1320, 1377, 1394, 1419, 1425, 1427, 1446, 1453, 1466, 1472, 1484, 1700

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 1 French royal or feudal? 159

Principality of Achaïa 8 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 6 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 7 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 3 Uncertain Florent of Hainaut 12 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 26 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 32 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 2 Uncertain Philip of Taranto 2 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMΓ 30 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 2 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB

823

824

appendix i

33

2

6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 6 Uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut John of Gravina (1321–1332) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 2 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2–4 4 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2–4 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 4 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ Uncertain prince

70

Duchy of Athens 4 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 2 Uncertain G.DVX 23 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 29 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 2 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B-Γ 5 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 13 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 6 Uncertain GVI.DVX 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20E

27

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 27 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 12 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

2 1 4 1 2 1

825

Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d Uncertain Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii Uncertain Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2a Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii Uncertain Philip of Taranto

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos 1303–1318 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOΓvar 2, with a star to the left of rev. castle and a dot to the right

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois

Soldini 19 Republic of Venice 19 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1.150 Elateia before 1885 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Elateia (Phthiotis) (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: 138 deniers tournois and 22 Venetian coins, soldini according to Metcalf, to Francesco Dandolo. Note: The hoard was found during excavations by the French School, in the floor of the Panagia church. The information provided by Diehl does not allow for any more precise characterisations of the Frankish coins contained in the hoard, which are therefore not listed below. Date of concealment: Last issue: Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339), though the soldino dates to after 1332/1333 and concealment can have taken place sometime in the mid to late 1330s. Bibliography: Diehl, “Pierre de Cana”, p. 40; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 57, no. N; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 350, no. 197. Discussed further pp.: 127, 133, 446, 464, 1320

826

appendix i

Content Soldini 22 Republic of Venice 22 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1.151 Brussels 1904 Findspot: Uncertain (but see Note below) (Map /). Present status: Cabinet des médailles, Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Brussels. Summary of content: 111 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Counterfeit. Note: The coins, listed here as a possible hoard or part of a hoard, were acquired by the cabinet in 1904. Caution arises from the fact that other coinages of the Latin East were part of the same acquisition (not listed here below). From an article of the time dealing with the cabinet’s medieval Cypriot holdings (Tourneur, “Deux gros d’Henri II”) one can gather the possible origin of the coins: “Parmi les monnaies de Chypre de la collection Gebhard récemment acquise par le Cabinet des Médailles de l’État …”, and “La collection Gebhard et rien d’autre que celle du prince de Montenuovo, qui, vendue en bloc en 1886, fut considérablement augmentée par son dernier propriétaire.” The coins which I list here were examined by me and were all found to be in similar physical condition. A possible origin in the western or northwestern part of the analyzed area is suggested by its composition. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364). Concealment in the late 1330s or 1340s is likely. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 142, 471, 1377, 1423, 1427, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1466, 1472, 1481, 1700, 1702, 1704, 1706, 1708, 1710, 1712, 1714, 1716, 1718, 1720, 1722, 1726, 1728, 1732, 1734, 1740, 1742, 1754 Content Deniers tournois 78 Principality of Achaïa 14 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV121 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

3 6

7

12

6

20

1 2 3 3 1

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 1 Uncertain Florent of Hainaut Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMΓ Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1

827

828 23

appendix i

Duchy of Athens 4 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 6 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX 2 Anonymous issues of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 2 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

5

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 5 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi–ii

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group L

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

3

Despot in Epiros at Arta 3 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOAvar1 1 IOAvar3 1 IOB

1

Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVIS

829

1.152 Unknown Provenance ca. 1964 Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: 113 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Arta; Provence. Note: This hoard was published in exemplary fashion by Seltman, allowing for a relatively easy translation into the more recent system of the sub-varieties which he lists. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364). Concealment in the later 1330s or 1340s is likely. Bibliography: Seltman, “A hoard”. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 142, 1292, 1377, 1423, 1427, 1446, 1466 Content Deniers tournois 90 Principality of Achaïa 4 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 4 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 11 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 26 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 2 Uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut

830

appendix i

41

2 16

John of Gravina (1321–1332) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 3 Uncertain John of Gravina Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 6 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

4

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 4 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

2

Despot in Epiros at Arta 2 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

831

1.153 Larisa 1955 Findspot: Thessaly, Larisa. The hoard was found in the general area of this town (Map 1). Present status: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Summary of content: 157 deniers tournois (the discrepancy with Metcalf’s figure of 151 arising from a miscalculation of the quantities of John of Gravina’s issues). Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: Of note is the unusual composition of this hoard, particularly the lack of earlier Achaïan coins, and the disproportionately small number of Athenian coins. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364). Concealment might have occurred in the late 1330s or the 1340s. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 350, no. 198; Metcalf, “Three hoards”. Discussed further pp.: 79n485, 126, 142, 334, 468, 470, 1377, 1421, 1423, 1425, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 142 Principality of Achaïa 7 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 19 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 76 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 18 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3

832

appendix i

23 17 10

5

Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 19 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAB Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa

Duchy of Athens 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain denier tournois of Athens Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 5 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

1.154 Delphi 1894Γ Findspot: Mainland Greece, archaeological site of Delphi (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 266 deniers tournois and 11 soldini; Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Venice to Bartolomeo Gradenigo. Note: This hoard was inspected by me. It was found to have been combined, possibly by Svoronos himself, with the other Delphi hoards of that year, with the consequence that the precise composition of each hoard can no longer be re-constructed. Date of concealment: Last issue: Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342). Concealment will have occurred in the period 1339–1342, or just after, perhaps as Umur bey invaded the area (1339/1340).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

833

Bibliography: Caron, “Delphes”, pp. 31–32; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 57, no. O; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 350, no. 199; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 7; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 13. Discussed further pp.: 73n423, 133, 143, 146, 347, 446, 465, 1320, 1377, 1419, 1425, 1428, 1446, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 158 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 4 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 6 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 23 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 19 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 33 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 30 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 31 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 2 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa 76

Duchy of Athens 29 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 47 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

31

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 31 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318)

Soldini 11 Republic of Venice 9 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 2 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342)

834

appendix i

1.155 Lepenou 1981 Findspot: Mainland Greece, village of Lepenou (Aitolia and Akarnania), northwest of Agrinio (Map 1). Present status: 6th EPKA, Patra. Summary of content: 93 deniers tournois and 7 soldini. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Venice to Bartolomeo Gradenigo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342). Concealment will have occurred in the period 1339–1342, or just after, perhaps in 1339– 1341 with reference to the imperial conquests of the area. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 146, no. 13; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 350, no. 200; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, n. 14. Discussed further pp.: 133, 142, 147, 471, 478, 1320, 1377, 1419, 1425, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 41 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 3 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 9 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 7 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 15 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 2 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 38

14

Duchy of Athens 8 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 30 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 14 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

835

Soldini 7 Republic of Venice 6 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 1.156 Shën Jan Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, Delvinë district. The hoard was excavated in the church of St. John, in the settlement known as Shjan, which lies on the main road from Sarandë to Delvinë, near the village of Finiq (Map 1). Present status: Not disclosed. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois, nine soldini. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto, Venice to Bartolomeo Gradenigo. Note: This is a hoard from a secure archaeological context. Date of concealment: Last issue: Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342). The excavators argue that the hoard was concealed on the occasion of the Serbian invasion, which is attested by a burnt layer. They date this to 1343, when Albania was first affected by the forces of Dušan, although this area was only finally taken by the Serbs in 1347: see Nicol, Epiros II, p. 128. Bibliography: Muçaj, Lako, Hobdari, Vitaliotis, “Rezultatet e gërmimeve në bazilikën e Shën Janit, Delvinë”, pp. 120 and 123; Lafe, “Archaeology in Albania”, p. 134. Discussed further pp.: 81n514, 127, 133, 142, 147, 359, 471, 476, 1320, 1377, 1408 Content Deniers tournois 3 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) Soldini 9 Republic of Venice 8 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 1.157 Thebes 1990 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Thebes, area of Agia Triada, just to the west of the walled medieval town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, storage space in Athens.

836

appendix i

Summary of content: Three soldini, one denier tournois. Venice to Andrea Dandolo; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354). Type 1 soldini date to 1343–1346, and concealment will have occurred in these years or just after. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Αγία Τριάδα”, p. 134, no. 110; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 17. Discussed further pp.: 79n475, 146, 214, 347, 446, 447, 460, 461, 1320, 1428 Content Soldini 3 Republic of Venice 2 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1.158 Petsouri 1997 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The hoard was discovered in the immediate vicinity of Olympia, in a place called Petsouri, situated on the lower course of the Kladeos river, the point where it enters the Alpheios river (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA. Storage facility at Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: 1270 soldini and 27 deniers tournois. Venice to A. Dandolo; Achaïa to John of Gravina or Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II; Naupaktos. Note: The existence of this hoard was first kindly communicated to me by Klaus Herrmann, DAI Athens, in letters of 17 May and 21 June 1999. He explained that it was discovered in the autumn of 1997 by a workman shifting rubble at or near the said river (the river is waterless for part of the year). The preliminary identifications were undertaken by Klaus Herrmann, and the hoard was studied and published in detail by me. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364), or Counterfeit, or Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354). Type 1 soldini date to 1343–1346 and their profile is fairly immature so that concealment will have occurred in those years or just after.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

837

Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 287–288; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 16. Discussed further pp.: 126, 129, 143, 146, 214, 425, 444, 1320, 1321, 1377, 1419, 1423, 1425, 1428, 1446,1484, 1660, 1702, 1718, 1728 Content Soldini 1270 Republic of Venice 1022 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 114 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 134 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 134 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 Deniers tournois 22 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 3 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 8 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1–4

838

appendix i

1

1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2–4 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) or Robert of Taranto (1332–1364)

3

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

1.159 Patra 1955B Findspot: Peloponnese, Patra (Αchaïa). The hoard was found in the vicinity (Map 1, G). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (304 coins). Summary of content: Ca. 1000 deniers tournois and 150 soldini. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Neopatra; Arta; Tinos. Venice to Andrea Dandolo. Note: Metcalf wonders whether this and the next hoard are one and the same find. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) or Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354). These respective issues end in 1353 and 1346. Type 1 soldini date to 1343–1346 and concealment will have occurred in those years or just after. Bibliography: BCH, 80 (1956), NM, p. 228; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 57, no. P; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 351, no. 203; Stahl, Zecca, p. 457, no. 110; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 24; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 15. Discussed further pp.: 130, 143, 146, 214, 425, 444, 1320, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1435, 1446, 1453, 1462, 1466

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 112 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 9 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 5 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 14 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 27 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 30 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 13 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 6 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa 22

Duchy of Athens 9 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

15

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 15 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 13 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, gr. VARIA

839

840

appendix i

2

Despot in Epiros at Arta 2 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

1

Uncertain denier tournois

Soldini 150 Republic of Venice 110 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 17 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 23 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 23 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 1.160 Patra 1955C Findspot: Peloponnese, Patra (Αchaïa). The hoard was found in the vicinity (Map 1, G). Present status: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Summary of content: 461 deniers tournois (Metcalf counted 460) and 23 soldini. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeits; perhaps Corfu and Arta. Venice to Andrea. Dandolo. See also Note. Note: In the first mention of the hoard Metcalf notes the presence of coins of Corfu and Arta. These do not feature in his second publication. Metcalf also wonders whether this and the previous hoard are one and the same find. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) or Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354). Type 1 soldini date to 1343–1346, and concealment will have occurred in those years or just after. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 351, no. 204; Metcalf, “Three hoards”; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 15. Discussed further pp.: 79n485, 143, 146, 214, 425, 444, 1320, 1377, 1394, 1421, 1423, 1425, 1428, 1441, 1443, 1446, 1484

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 406 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 4 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 14 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 17 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 23 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 1 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 68 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 14 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 28 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB uncertain 16 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 174 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 33 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 60 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3

841

842

appendix i

94

15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 16 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 73 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAB 8 Uncertain Robert of Taranto or counterfeits

41

Duchy of Athens 15 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 14 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 11 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Ε

13

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 13 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2a uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

?

Despot in Epiros at Arta ? John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) ? Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

?

Lordship of Corfu ? Philip of Taranto (1294–1331) ? Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.24

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 ‘Illiterate legend’

843

Soldini 23 Republic of Venice 16 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 2 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 5 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 5 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 1.161 Thespies Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thespies. The hoard was excavated (Map 1). Present status: Presumably Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 16 soldini. Venice to Andrea. Dandolo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354). In the absence of any more precise knowledge about the typology of the soldini, this hoard is datable to 1343–1354 or just beyond. Bibliography: De Ridder, “Fouilles”, p. 298; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 18. Discussed further pp.: 126, 143, 146, 214, 413, 446, 464, 1320, 1321 Content Soldini 16 Republic of Venice 12 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 4 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 4 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, types 1 or 2 1.162 Nea Sampsous 1982 Findspot: Epiros, Nea Sampsous, 18km north of Preveza. The hoard originates from the church of the Dormition of the Virgin, monastery of Kozili (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Patra; on display in the Byzantine Museum Ioannina. Summary of content: Seven ducats. Venice to Andrea Dandolo. Note: The hoard was inspected by me. The distribution of the issues amongst the doges was found to have been somewhat different to that given in the publication.

844

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354). Given the relatively plentiful issues of this doge it is possible to propose concealment in ca. 1350. The Serbian invasion of 1347 might provide a good context for the abandonment of this valuable hoard. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 146, no. 14; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 212, n. 43. Discussed further pp.: 127, 130, 133, 146, 147, 214, 344, 408, 418, 1307 Content Ducats 7 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 1 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 4 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1.163 ANS 1986 Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York. Summary of content: 233 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: This hoard was studied by me. The issues of Robert of Taranto were not preserved well enough to allow for the establishment of a complete breakdown of types, though both RAA and RAB are represented. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364), dating 1332– 1353. As Robert’s issues are particularly mature in this hoard, its concealment date might be placed at ca. 1353 or even later. Bibliography: Baker, “Apulia”, p. 223, n. 39. Discussed further pp.: 102, 143, 146, 214, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1446, 1453 Content Deniers tournois 141 Principality of Achaïa 6 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

7 18

41

34

13

20 60

845

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 24 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 16 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 13 Uncertain Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB uncertain 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 or Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 3 Uncertain John of Gravina Robert of Taranto (1332–1364)

Duchy of Athens 38 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 38 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 7 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 GR20H 7 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

846 32

appendix i

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 32 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 17 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii

1.164 Kiras Vrisi Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia, village of Kiras Vrisi on the Isthmos (Map 1). Present status: In the 25th EBA, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 44 torneselli. Venice to unspecified doge. Note: No other information regarding the content is provided. Date of concealment: Any time after 1353. Bibliography: K. Skarmoutsou in AD, 47 (1992), B’1, p. 166; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 131. Discussed further pp.: 132, 425, 430, 1327 1.165 Agrinio 1967 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Agrinio (Aitolia and Akarnania). This town is generally given as the findspot (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 212 deniers tournois, 179 soldini, one tornesello. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to William II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Venice to Andrea Dandolo. Note: There is a small possibility that the single tornesello which dates the hoard was a contamination. Date of concealment: Last issue: issues of Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354), dating to after 1353. The Achaïan issues of Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) had ceased in 1353. Concealment would have occurred in the period 1353–1354, or just after, perhaps as a result of the first Albanian incursion into the area. Bibliography: AD, 23 (1968), B’1, NM, p. 13; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 146– 147, no. 15; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 351, no. 202; Stahl, Zecca, p. 457, no. 109. Discussed further pp.: 126, 132, 134, 142, 143, 148, 407, 418, 471, 478, 1320, 1327, 1328, 1377, 1423, 1428

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Content Deniers tournois 183 Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 3 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 7 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 7 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 40 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 68 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 14 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 34 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa 21

Duchy of Athens 9 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 12 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

8

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 8 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

Soldini 179 Republic of Venice 152 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 11 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 16 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 16 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, types 1 or 2 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354)

847

848

appendix i

1.166 Euboia Findspot: Mainland Greece, island of Euboia. The hoard is said to have been found in the northern part of the island (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: 37 ducats. Venice to Giovanni Gradenigo. Note: The content of this hoard was communicated to Metcalf by an ‘experienced student in Athens’ some time before 1979. Date of concealment: Last issue: Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356). Concealment probably occurred in 1355–1356, or just after. Bibliography: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 299; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 352, no. 205; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 212, n. 42. Stahl, Zecca, p. 434, no. 25. Discussed further pp.: 129, 133, 148, 344, 408, 446, 467, 1307 Content Ducats 37 Republic of Venice 1 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) 2 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 5 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 7 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 21 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 1.167 Kaparelli Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Kaparelli. The hoard was found by farmers working in a field outside this village (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Content: 53 deniers tournois, 71 soldini, one pierreale. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Venice to Giovanni Dolfin. Sicily to Frederick III. Note: On the basis of this hoard Cox developed the idea of a production of soldini at Clarentza under the stewardship of Nicolò Acciaiuoli. Neither her historical arguments (see also Metcalf’s comments) nor her classifications of soldini into genuine and “soapy”, are particularly convincing. Her ideas on the operations of the mint of Clarentza in the 1330s and 1340s, and the temporary cessation of its denier tournois production in line with the supposed imitative soldini, are nevertheless still cited in some modern writings on the subject. It is not possible to re-construct from Cox’s publication how many of Andrea Dandolo’s soldini are respectively of Stahl, “Cephalonia”, types 1 or 2, though both are represented in the hoard.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

849

Date of concealment: Last issue: Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361). The issues of this doge appear to be quite immature in this hoard, and concealment in 1356 is suggested on numismatic grounds. Nevertheless, in “Lytsika” Galani-Krikou and I argue that Turkish raids in 1363–1365 might have caused the concealment and non-retrieval of this hoard. Bibliography: Cox, Caparelli; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 57, no. Q; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 252, no. 206; Stahl, Zecca, p. 457, no. 111; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, pp. 467–468, n. 22, p. 471, n. 34. Discussed further pp.: 73n425, 143, 148, 407, 413, 446, 464, 465, 1320, 1323n743, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1446, 1507 Content Deniers tournois 47 Principality of Achaïa 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 4 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 4 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 5 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 19 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 11 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 5

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b

Soldini 71 Republic of Venice 45 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 10 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 13 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 1 Uncertain doge

850

appendix i

Pierreale 1 Kingdom of Sicily under Aragonese rule 1 Frederick III (II) (1296–1337) 1 MEC, no. 772 1.168 Elis 1964 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The hoard is said to be from this region (Map 1). Present status: Dispersed. Content: 9013 deniers tournois, 4217 soldini, two pennies (?). Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Karytaina; Tinos; Chios; France to Philip III; Provence; Counterfeits. Venice to Giovanni Dolfin. Roman Senate; Patriarchate of Aquileia. Note: This exceptionally large and important hoard provided the basis for Tzamalis’ classification of much of the Achaïan and Athenian series of deniers tournois. The sample taken by the two numismatists who studied this hoard amounted to some 67% of the total content. More studies based on the hoard were promised for the future, especially since not all sub-varieties were described in Tzamalis’ original publication. There are additional problems for the Athenian coins, where the percentages relate to larger units which are not quite adequately defined, no totals for the G.DVX and GVI.DVX varieties are given at all, and certain groupings are combined (for instance Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 with Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A). The distribution for the Athenian coins nevertheless looks fairly unexceptional: A3 and A8 dominate G.DVX, GR20Z GVI.DVX, with GR20B the second grouping at less than half of GR20Z. The precise identity and dating of the Roman penny is uncertain, as is the denomination and type of the Aquileian coin. Date of concealment: Last issue: Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361). Given the very low overall quantities of soldini of this doge, even in relation to those of his immediate predecessor, concealment probably took place in 1356 itself or just after. Bibliography: Tzamalis, “Εlis”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 352, no. 207; Stahl, Zecca, p. 457, no. 112; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 11; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 275; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 288–289. Discussed further pp.: 78n467, 129, 142, 143, 182n447, 210, 407, 419n1062, 425, 445, 1286, 1288, 1290, 1320, 1323, 1341, 1342, 1377, 1412n1157, 1413, 1418, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1428, 1440, 1446, 1453, 1462, 1464, 1466, 1472, 1484

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

851

Content Deniers tournois 11 Kingdom of France 8 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 11 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A 3 Philip III (1270–1285) 1

7906

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6 Principality of Achaïa 95 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 76 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 73 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 50% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA 30% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 20% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 200 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 50% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA 44% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB 6% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 274 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 49% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 38% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 13% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 455 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 52% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 28% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 20% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 8 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 71% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA 29% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBB 24 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 36% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMA 36% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMB 28% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMΓ

852

appendix i

1464

3442

1795

Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 51% Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 35% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB 14% Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 72% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA 22% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB 6% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 87% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA 13% Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAB

709

Duchy of Athens

295

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 295 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 88% Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 12% Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

12

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 12 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 92% Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1 8% Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 2

39

Despot in Epiros at Arta 39 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 39 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

2

Lordship of Tinos 2 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

2

Lordship of Karytaina 2 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

853

5

Lordship of Chios 5 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 5 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

31

Counterfeit deniers tournois

Soldini 4216 Republic of Venice 3198 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 443 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 566 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 557 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 9 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 7 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 2 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 1

Counterfeit soldino

Pennies (?) 1 Roman Senate 1 Patriarchate of Aquileia 1 Bertrando di San Genesio (1334–1350) 1.169 Ermitsa 1985B Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Akarnania. The hoard was excavated in the church of Taxiarchis of the locality of Ermitsa, 4km southeast of Agrinio (Map 1). Present status: 8th EBA, Ioannina. Summary of content: Six soldini. Venice to Marco Corner. Note: See my comments for «140. Ermitsa 1985A»: the deniers tournois and soldini, given by Galani-Krikou and Metcalf as a single find, belong to two separate hoards. Date of concealment: Last issue: Marco Corner (1365–1368). The quantities contained in this hoard are so small that concealment in 1365–1368 or just beyond needs to be assumed. The context might have been provided by the Albanian incursions or the Tocco re-conquests.

854

appendix i

Bibliography: F. Kephalonitou-Konstantiou in AD, 42 (1987), B’1, p. 330; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 147–148, no. 17; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 353, no. 209; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 224, n. 40. Discussed further pp.: 126, 127, 131, 148, 418, 471, 478, 808, 1320 Content Soldini 6 Republic of Venice 2 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 1.170 Eleusina 1952 Findspot: Attica, Eleusina. The hoard is said to be from the area (Map 1, D). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 555 (557 given by Metcalf) deniers tournois and 1018 soldini. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Tinos. Venice to Marco Corner. Note: A seventeenth-century Ragusan coin is termed a contamination by Metcalf. Date of concealment: Last issue: Marco Corner (1365–1368), not quite mature and suggestive of concealment in ca. 1365–1368. Bibliography: BCH, 77 (1953), NM, p. 194; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 57, no. R; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 353, no. 208; Stahl, Zecca, p. 458, no. 113; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 9; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 467, n. 22. Discussed further pp.: 130, 143, 148, 407, 413, 446, 463, 1320, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1462 Content Deniers tournois 342 Principality of Achaïa 12 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 8 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 10 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

2 8 15 24 47 3 64 140 17 109

52

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) John of Gravina (1321–1332) Robert of Taranto (1332–1364)

Duchy of Athens 36 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 71 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Anonymous issues of the interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 1 DVX. ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 52 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 45 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

3

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 3 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 3 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, Type 1, Group

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

48

855

Uncertain deniers tournois

856

appendix i

Soldini 1018 Republic of Venice 505 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 78 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 134 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 19 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 103 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 25 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 5 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 148 Uncertain doge 1.171 Thespies Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thespies (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain number of torneselli and deniers tournois. Venice to Andrea Contarini. Date of concealment: Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). Its precise concealment date within that period, or slightly thereafter, cannot be determined numismatically. Perhaps the hoard was concealed as a result of the Navarrese occupation in 1379–1380. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 126, 134, 148, 413, 446, 464, 1327, 1329, 1377 1.172 Soudeli Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia, locality of Poliana, settlement of Soudeli, village of Velimachio, in the former eparchy of Gortyna (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Four soldini and 190 torneselli. Venice to Andrea Contarini and unspecified, respectively. Note: See my comments for «200. Gortyna»: it is possible that these are two parcels from the same hoard. However, in the absence particularly of knowledge about the tornesello element in the present find this cannot be stated with any degree of certainty. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) (?). According to our present knowledge about the soldini, this hoard dates relatively early within the indicated period. If, however, the present parcel and «200. Gortyna» were from the same hoard, concealment will have taken place during 1400– 1413, or just after.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

857

Bibliography: AD, 23 (1968), NM, p. 13; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 263, n. 11; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 85, no. 25. Discussed further pp.: 134, 143, 420, 425, 445, 863, 885, 1320, 1322, 1327, 1329 Content Soldini 4 Republic of Venice 2 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Torneselli 190 Republic of Venice 1.173 Lamia 1985 Findspot: Mainland Greece. The hoard was apparently found in the area of Lamia (Map 1). Present status: Formerly in the hands of the 14th EPKA, Museum of Lamia, though now probably with the 7th EBA, Larisa. Summary of content: Nine soldini, possibly belonging to a larger hoard (according to the museum inventory). Venice to Andrea Contarini. Note: The hoard was briefly studied by me. It was confiscated on 1 April 1985 in Lamia, and inventorised in the museum of that town as nos. N3173–3181. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). His type 4 issues date from 1379, and concealment will have occurred in the period 1379–1382. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 126, 134, 148, 413, 446, 465, 1320 Content Soldini 9 Republic of Venice 2 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 5 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 5 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 4

858

appendix i

1.174 Ancient Elis 2005 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The hoard was confiscated from an inhabitant of the village of Ancient Elis, close to the archaeological site (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One denier tournois, 103 soldini, nine denars, 961 torneselli, six pennies. Achaïa, Venice, Hungary, Counterfeits, Ancona, Macerata, Pisa, Rhodes, Sicily (Naples). Note: The hoard is presented and discussed in greater detail in the cited publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). The profile of the soldini and torneselli of this doge suggest a dating in the late 1370s or early 1380s. In the publication of this hoard I argue that concealment and nonretrieval took place as a direct result of the Navarrese incursions into Elis in 1381–1382. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 282–284. Discussed further pp.: 130, 143, 149, 419n1062, 422, 425, 445, 1320, 1324, 1327, 1329, 1331, 1332, 1337, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1346, 1377, 1662, 1664, 1668, 1676, 1678, 1680 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 Soldini 103 Republic of Venice 9 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 7 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 5 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 12 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 9 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 64 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 64 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Denars 9 Kingdom of Hungary 9 Louis I of Anjou (1342–1382) 3 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–2 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–6 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–11 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–19 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–/ 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–? 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 86–2 Torneselli 928 Republic of Venice 6 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 18 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 11 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 62 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 146 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 662 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 78 rev. legend VENECIAR 470 rev. legend VENETIAR 114 rev. legend VENECIAR or VENETIAR 22 Uncertain doge 33

Counterfeit torneselli 2 Of A. Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Of L. Celsi (1361–1365) 2 Of M. Corner (1365–1368) 26 Of A. Contarini (1382–1400) 2 Of uncertain doge

Pennies 1 Republic of Ancona 1 CNI XIII, p. 3, no. 14 1

Republic of Pisa 1 CNI XI, pp. 310–314

859

860

appendix i

1

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Joanna of Anjou (1343–1381)

1

Papacy at Macerata 1 John XXII (1316–1334)

2

Order of St. John at Rhodes 2 Anonymous 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. X.2

1.175 Pyrgos 1967 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The hoard is said to be from the area of Pyrgos (Map 1). Present status: The hoard went through the hands of an Athens dealer and a collector, and great parts of it were subsequently dispersed. The whereabouts of the core group of coins is not known. Summary of content: Ca. 1100 (of which 524 were examined) + one soldini, 14 denars. Venice to Andrea Contarini; Lesbos to Francesco I; Hungary to Louis I. Note: Metcalf notes the possibility that some of the coins listed by Tzamalis as soldini might in fact have been issues of Lesbos or Hungary. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). The profile of the soldini of this doge suggests a dating of ca. 1380. In Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 252, I argue that concealment and non-retrieval took place as a direct result of the Navarrese incursions into Elis in 1381–1382. Bibliography: Tzamalis, “Gattilusii”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 354, no. 211; Stahl, Zecca, p. 458, no. 115; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 257 and 289; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 467, n. 23 Discussed further pp.: 78n465, 130, 134, 143, 149, 419n1062, 425, 445, 1320, 1324, 1325 Content Soldini 524 Republic of Venice 7 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 4 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 44 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 3 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 41 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 3 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 42 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

159 73 28 164

1

861

Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) Marco Corner (1365–1368) Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 163 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3

Lordship of Lesbos 1 Francesco I Gattilusio (1355–1384) 1 Kneeling ruler/Agnus Dei Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio, p. 412, Myt.I.k; cf. Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 257, n. 108

Denars 14 Kingdom of Hungary 14 Louis I of Anjou (1342–1382) 1.176 Achaïa Findspot: Peloponnese, historical region and present-day nomos (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 48 soldini and three coins of an unspecified denomination (not listed below), of an originally much larger hoard. Venice to Andrea Contarini. Ragusa. Note: It is not possible to identify and date the Ragusan coins. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). The quantities for the last few doges suggest an advanced date of concealment, 1382 or later. Bibliography: AD, 17 (1961–62), NM, p. 6; BCH, 86 (1962), NM, p. 426. Discussed further pp.: 134, 149, 419, 421, 425, 445, 1320, 1509 Content Soldini 48 Republic of Venice 3 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 4 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 6 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 3 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 28 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382)

862

appendix i

1.177 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Unknown. Summary of content: 232 torneselli. Venice to Michele Morosini. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Morosini (1382). Given the emphatic presence of the issues of this short-lived doge, and the lack of issues of his immediate successor, concealment in 1382 itself is very likely. Bibliography: Seltman, “Venetian coins”; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 86, no. 34. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 1327 Content Torneselli 232 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 4 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 13 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 59 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 154 Michele Morosini (1382) 1 Uncertain doge 1.178 Athenian Agora 1936 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The hoard was excavated in the Ancient Agora, in a position described as “Second cut west- east of church- soft fill below”, of section HH (see Kroll, The Greek Coins, pl. 35) (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: Five tornesi, maybe other denomination coins. Byzantine Empire to John V and Manuel II Palaiologoi. Note: The coins were discovered together on 17 March 1936. According to the excavation notebook, three uninventoried and discarded “Venetian coins” were found in the same stratigraphical fill. Considering the rareness of later Palaiologan coins in the southern Greek area, and the manner in which they were found, one must consider them as being associated, if not strictly speaking forming a hoard. Thompson, who had identified them as coins of Manuel I Komnenos (pp. 74–75), did not classify these coins as a hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: John V with Manuel II Palaiologoi (1373–1391). The Thessalonike issue in question dates 1382–1387 and concealment would have taken place in this period or just after, perhaps on the occasion of the take-over of Athens by Nerio Acciaiuoli (1387–1388).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

863

Bibliography: Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian Period; Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 302, n. 65 and 336, nos. 10–14; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 408, nn. 54 and 57. Discussed further pp.: 56n317, 74n442, 142, 446, 447, 450, 455, 934, 935, 1183, 1273, 1274, 1327 Content Tornesi 5 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 5 John V with Manuel II Palaiologoi (1373–1391) 5 Thessalonike 1382–1387, Bendall, Private Collection, p. 102, no. 331; DOC V, pp. 203 and 212; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 408, nn. 54 and 57. 1.179 Velimachio Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia, village of Velimachio, formerly in the eparchy of Gortyna (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 941 torneselli. Venice to Antonio Venier. Note: This hoard was found in the immediate vicinity of «172. Soudeli» and «200. Gortyna», though it differs from these somewhat in its composition. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). We do not know the typology or the maturity of the issues of this doge, and concealment between 1382 and 1400, or just after, is possible. Bibliography: AD, 22 (1967), NM, p. 10. Discussed further pp.: 149, 417, 420, 425, 445, 1327 Content Torneselli 941 Republic of Venice yes Marco Corner (1365–1368) yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1.180 Mystras 1934 Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. The hoard was apparently found during excavation or restoration work at the archaeological site of Mystras (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 320 Venetian coins of Andrea Contarini and Antonio Venier.

864

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). The precise content of the hoard is now available in the last of the cited references, though could not be used in this book. Bibliography: BCH, 59 (1935), NM, p. 244; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 84, no. 20. Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”, p. 90, no. 10. Discussed further pp.: 80n489, 127, 149, 417, 420, 425, 440, 1327 1.181 Thebes 1995 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The hoard was excavated at the site of the cultural centre, within the walled area of the medieval town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: 12 torneselli. Venice to Antonio Venier. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Due to the small size of the hoard it is impossible to determine the precise date of concealment within this period or just later. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Πολιτιστικό Κέντρο”. Discussed further pp.: 79n475, 148, 446, 447, 455, 461, 1327 Content Torneselli 12 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 9 Uncertain doge 1.182 Troizina Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis, Troizina, though now in the nomos of Peiraias. The hoard was found at an unspecified location on the site (medieval settlement of Damala or Damalas, renamed Troizina in modern times) (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain, probably Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain quantity of torneselli. Venice to Antonio Venier. Note: Although Legrand does not make this point entirely clear, I assume that we are dealing here with a hoard and not merely a number of stray finds. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Given our general lack of knowledge about this hoard the precise date of concealment within this period or just after cannot presently be ascertained. Bibliography: Legrand, “Antiquités de Trézène”, p. 271, n. 1; Welter, Troizen und Kalaureia, p. 66; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 85, no. 28. Discussed further pp.: 126, 149, 417, 420, 425, 445, 1327

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

865

Content Torneselli yes Republic of Venice yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1.183 Butrint Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, Sarandë district, archaeological site of Butrint (Map 1). Present status: Butrint Museum, on display. Summary of content: 18 torneselli; Venice to Antonio Venier. Note: Information on this hoard was kindly given to me by Pagona Papadopoulou, who will publish the hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). The cited publication dates the hoard to 1386 and the taking of the town by the Venetians. Bibliography: Butrint Foundation Annual Report 2007, p. 7. Discussed further pp.: 126, 149, 419, 471, 475, 1327 Content Torneselli 18 Republic of Venice yes Marco Corner (1365–1368) yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) yes Uncertain doge 1.184 Eretria 1962B Findspot: Mainland Greece, island of Euboia. The hoard was purchased in this location, and might have been local or from further afield (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 29 soldini and two torneselli. Venice to Antonio Venier in both cases. Note: It is assumed, though not completely certain, that these soldini and torneselli were part of the same hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). The soldini in this hoard look short of maturity within this timeframe and concealment in the late 1380s/early 1390s may be proposed. Bibliography: BCH, 86 (1962), NM, p. 426; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83, no. 7; Stahl, Zecca, p. 459, no. 117; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 467, n. 23. Discussed further pp.: 126, 143, 148, 408, 446, 467, 1320, 1322, 1327, 1329

866

appendix i

Content Soldini 29 Republic of Venice 3 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 16 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 15 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Michele Morosini (1382) 6 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 2 Uncertain doge Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1.185 Kalapodi Findspot: Mainland Greece, Phthiotis, village and ancient site in the southwestern part of the nomos, in the former eparchy of Lokris (Map 1). Present status: Private collection, now possibly in the new museum of Amphissa. Summary of content: Ca. 100 soldini (of which 22 are described) and denars. Venice to Antonio Venier; Hungary to Louis I. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). The hoard lacks Stahl type 5 issues of this doge (minted from 1391 onwards) and a 1380s or very early 1390s dating is likely, perhaps a link can be found with the Ottoman occupation in 1392–1394. Bibliography: Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος ενετικών και ουγγρικών νομισμάτων”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 262; Stahl, “Cephalonia hoard”, p. 85; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 256, n. 101; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 467, n. 23. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 126, 134, 143, 148, 412, 446, 464, 1320, 1324 Content Soldini 16 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 2 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

1 1 6 4

867

Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) Marco Corner (1365–1368) Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 5 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 4 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 4

Denars 6 Kingdom of Hungary 6 Louis I of Anjou (1342–1382) 3 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–2 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–4 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–9? 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–11? 1.186 Epiros Findspot: Epiros. The hoard apparently originated in this region (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (five specimens) and dispersed. Summary of content: Five torneselli of a much larger hoard. Venice to Antonio Venier. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Concealment occurred in this timeframe. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 148, no. 18. Discussed further pp.: 149, 217, 471, 1328 Content Torneselli 5 Republic of Venice 5 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1.187 Thebes 1973 Findspot: Mainland Greece, Thebes. The hoard was found during controlled excavations in 1973 at the plot of Agios Vovos (οικόπεδο Αγ. Βώβου), although the location of this plot is now uncertain (Map /). Present status: 23rd EBA, Thebes Museum. Summary of content: Thousands of torneselli; much smaller quantities of soldini. Venice to Antonio Venier.

868

appendix i

Note: This hoard still has to be cleaned and studied. I handled some 100 of these coins and recognised the following Venetian torneselli: Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) (1); Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) (5); Antonio Venier (1382–1400) (14). Amongst this material I found merely one soldino of an uncertain doge. Date of concealment: Last issue: probably Antonio Venier (1382–1400). The hoard is less than mature in these issues, and concealment before 1400 is likely. Perhaps abandonment was a result of the Ottoman occupation in 1392–1394. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 130, 148, 412, 446, 447, 455, 461, 1328 Content Torneselli yes Republic of Venice yes Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1.188 Gastouni 1961 Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, Gastouni. The hoard is said to have originated from the area of this town (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Three soldini and 376 torneselli. Venice to Antonio Venier in both cases. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Concealment took place at an advanced stage in these issues, perhaps ca. 1400. Bibliography: AD, 17 (1961–62), NM, p. 6; BCH, 86 (1962), NM, p. 426; Tzamalis, “Torneselli”; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83, no. 8; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 354, no. 214; Stahl, Zecca, p. 459, no. 118; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 289–290. Discussed further pp.: 78n465, 419, 425, 445, 869, 1320, 1328 Content Soldini 3 Republic of Venice 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

869

Torneselli 376 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 4 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 11 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 79 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4 Michele Morosini (1382) 276 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Uncertain doge 1.189 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two soldini and 376 torneselli. Venice to unspecified and Antonio Venier respectively. Note: The identity of the soldini is not revealed. This hoard is surprisingly close in composition to the previous hoard, «188. Gastouni 1961», reported in the same issue of BCH. Nevertheless, they are listed there as two separate finds. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). The hoard appears to be mature within this period. Bibliography: BCH, 86 (1962), p. 426. Discussed further pp.: 1320, 1328 Content Torneselli and soldini 378 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 8 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 11 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 81 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 2 Michele Morosini (1382) 231 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 44 Uncertain doge 1.190 Mesopotam Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county, Delvinë district, village of Mesopotam, a few km south of Delvinë (Map 1). Present status: Butrint Museum, on display. Summary of content: 321 soldini; Venice to Michele Steno.

870

appendix i

Note: Information on this hoard was kindly given to me by Pagona Papadopoulou, who will publish the hoard. It should be noted that this is a soldino savings hoard, which includes successive issues beginning with Francesco Dandolo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The hoard was probably concealed in this period, or shortly after. Bibliography: Crowson, Venetian Butrint, p. 35. Discussed further pp.: 104, 130, 134, 217, 408, 419, 471, 476, 1320 Content Soldini 321 Republic of Venice yes Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) yes Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) yes Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) ? Marino Falier (1354–1355) ? Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) yes Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) yes Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) yes Marco Corner (1365–1368) yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) ? Antonio Venier (1382–1400) yes Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1.191 Ritzanoi Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia, locality of Ritzanoi, village of Oxylithos, formerly in the eparchy of Karystos, on the north coast of the island, just south of Kimi (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 449 torneselli. Venice to Michele Steno. Note: The hoard was brought to the NM by the 1st EBA. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The hoard was concealed at an uncertain point during the period 1400–1413, or just after. Bibliography: AD, 46 (1991), NM, p. 4; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 133. Discussed further pp.: 148, 446, 467, 1328

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

871

Content Torneselli 449 Republic of Venice yes Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) yes Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) yes Marco Corner (1365–1368) yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) yes Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1.192 Corinth BnF Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinth. The hoard is said to be from this town or its vicinity (Map /). Present status: Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque nationale, Paris. Content: 254 deniers tournois, two torneselli, four pennies. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Venice to M. Steno; Jerusalem; Cyprus. Note: The hoard, which has been studied in its entirety by me, was formerly in the collection of Chandon de Briailles. It is stated quite clearly in the documentation at present in the BnF that all the coins listed below were originally part of the hoard, even the pieces of Cyprus and Jerusalem. I thank Michel Dhénin for his assistance in the study of this hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The overall quantity of torneselli is so small that it is impossible to ascertain when during the period 1400–1413 or just after this hoard might have been concealed. In the recent publication of the hoard I proposed the year 1402. Bibliography: Baker, “Apulia”, p. 223, n. 39; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 241, nn. 144–145; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 16; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 258; Baker, “Corinthe”. Discussed further pp.: 79n481, 134, 143, 149, 214, 425, 426, 437, 1328, 1329, 1343, 1344, 1377, 1421, 1423, 1428, 1446, 1453, 1466, 1678 Content Deniers tournois 212 Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV221 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224

872

appendix i

4 1 5

11

9

6 46

104

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 35 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA uncertain 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB uncertain 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

20

5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB-Γ uncertain 1 Uncertain John of Gravina Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA2 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA uncertain

30

Duchy of Athens 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 13 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 10 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX

10

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 10 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

873

874

appendix i

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOΓvar1

Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) Pennies 1 Kingdom of Jerusalem 1 Amaury I (1163–1174) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. III.20 3

Kingdom of Cyprus 3 Henry II (1285–1324) 3 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. VI.23

1.193 Naxos 2005 Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, village of Danakos, monastery of Photodote (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Five torneselli, one denier tournois (not listed below). Venice, uncertain issuer. Note: No other information is known. This hoard was communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The hoard dates from this period or shortly after. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 127, 420, 479, 482, 1328, 1329

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

875

Content Torneselli 5 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 3 Uncertain doge 1.194 Sparta 1926A & B Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia, Sparta. The hoard was excavated at the location “E Parodos” in the theatre, on the Spartan akropolis (Map 1, F). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 248 tornesi; one tornesello; two ancient coins (possible intruders, not listed below). Byzantine Empire to Manuel II Palaiologos; Venice to Michele Steno. Note: I have published these coins extensively elsewhere, and merely give a brief summary here. It is possible that we are in fact dealing with two hoards (hence Sparta 1926A & B), though it is much more likely that all these coins were concealed together. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413) or Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425). The latter dates in all likelihood from 1393/1394, though 1408 and 1415 have been put forward as alternative dates. Concealment in 1400–1413, or shortly after, is probable. Bibliography: Woodward, “The Theatre”, p. 183; Metcalf, “Brauron”, p. 254; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 236, no. 15; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”; Baker, “Argos”, p. 231, n. 48. Discussed further pp.: 16n83, 75n443, 104, 134, 420, 425, 426, 439, 1037, 1272, 1273, 1328, 1329, 1644, 1646 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) Tornesi 248

Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 248 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 1 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”

876

appendix i

1.195 Zakynthos 1978 Findspot: Ionian islands, island of Zakynthos. Tzamalis is certain that the hoard originated on this island (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: More than 6000 torneselli, of which 701 were examined. Venice to Michele Steno; Counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The soldini of this doge are represented at an incomplete stage of maturity, and concealment in the first decade of the fifteenth century is likely. Bibliography: Tzamalis, “Torneselli”; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 85, no. 29; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 354, no. 215; Stahl, Zecca, p. 462, no. 126. Discussed further pp.: 129, 149, 217, 418, 471, 479, 1328, 1331 Content Torneselli 699 Republic of Venice 2 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 7 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 20 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 142 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 5 Michele Morosini (1382) 469 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 51 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 3 Uncertain doge 2

Counterfeit torneselli

1.196 Delphi 1894B Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The hoard was found on the archaeological site, during excavations (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Content: 2592 or 2594 deniers tournois, no or two petty denomination coins of Frankish Greece, 19 torneselli. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Interregnum or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Karytaina; Tinos; Chios; Arta; Venice to Michele Steno. Note: All four Delphi hoards of 1894 have been mixed up in the trays at the Numismatic Museum, and the original hoards are consequently no longer discernible. It is Caron’s assumption that the torneselli were not originally part of this hoard because of the absence of issues of Prince Robert of Taranto (1332–1364), although there is now a sufficiently large number of extant hoards

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

877

which display partially arrested developments in the Achaïan series, and it is no longer necessary to make such assumptions (see also Metcalf’s comments on this matter). I have listed below two anonymous Athenian deniers tournois of the DVX.ACTENAR variety despite Caron’s reference to petty denomination coins (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.6= Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 6). The reason for this is not merely that such deniers tournois are relatively frequently found in hoards, while their lower-value equivalents are rare site finds and unheard of in hoards. In fact it seems likely that Caron was lacking an appropriate reference for these two coins (these deniers tournois do not feature on Schlumberger’s plates) and he might have chosen a different denomination with the same legend. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). Concealment probably occurred some time before 1410. In the most recent publication I proposed 1404. Bibliography: Caron, “Delphes”, pp. 27–31; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 56, no. L; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83, no. 6; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 349, no. 194; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 6; Baker, “Corinthe”. Discussed further pp.: 73n423, 130, 134, 143, 149, 212, 446, 465, 1286, 1290, 1292, 1328, 1329, 1377, 1419, 1428, 1437, 1440, 1446, 1453, 1462, 1464, 1466 Content Deniers tournois 2 Kingdom of France 2 Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

5

County of Provence 5 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

1

County of Toulouse 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271)

1604

Principality of Achaïa 68 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 90 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 90 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 13 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 13 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203

878

appendix i

69 201 265 316 12 5 284 281

Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) John of Gravina (1321–1332)

716

Duchy of Athens 272 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 441 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 2 DVX. ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 1 DVX. ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b

251

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 251 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

11

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 11 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 11 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

879

1

Lordship of Karytaina 1 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

1

Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

Torneselli 19 Republic of Venice 4 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 13 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 2 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1.197 Kephallonia Findspot: Ionian islands. The hoard is said to have been found on this island (Map 1). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue, four deniers tournois, three pennies, 1857 soldini, 158 denars, 12192 torneselli, possibly part of an even larger hoard. Achaïa; Athens to William; Naupaktos; Arta; Rhodes; Venice to Antonio Venier and Michele Steno respectively. Hungary to Louis I. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The issues of this doge appear immature, as do the soldini of Venier, and concealment took place before ca. 1410. Bibliography: Stahl, “Cephalonia Hoard”; Stahl, Zecca, p. 460, no. 120; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 256, n. 100; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 467, n. 23. Discussed further pp.: 79n479, 129, 149, 217, 418, 471, 479, 1320, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1328, 1329, 1331, 1346, 1365, 1428, 1446, 1466, 1484 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä

880

appendix i

Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

Pennies 3 Order of St. John at Rhodes 3 Anonymous 3 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. X.13 Soldini 1816 Republic of Venice 142 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 13 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 90 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 16 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 74 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 63 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 243 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 99 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 25 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 878 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 6 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 756 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3 116 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 4 6 Michele Morosini (1382) 257 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 230 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 4 27 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 5 41

Counterfeit soldini

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

Denars 157 Kingdom of Hungary 157 Louis I of Anjou (1342–1382) 5 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–1 47 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–2 3 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–2a 23 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–4 12 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–4a 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–4d 32 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–6 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–7 4 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–8 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–9a 2 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–9b 5 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–9e 3 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–10 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–11 4 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–15 1 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–18 5 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 79–19v 2 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 83–2 5 Pohl, Münzzeichen, no. 86 1

Counterfeit denar

Torneselli 12073 Republic of Venice 13 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 20 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 22 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 94 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 319 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 2131 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 158 rev. legend VENECIAR 1973 rev. legend VENETIAR 51 Michele Morosini (1382) 8291 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1043 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 87 Uncertain doge 118 Counterfeit torneselli

881

882

appendix i

Soldino-tornesello mule 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1.198 Delphi 1894A Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The hoard was found during excavations at the archaeological site (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Content: 1455 deniers tournois, 449 soldini and 1939 torneselli, one tornese. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche, or Interregnum, or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Chios. Venice to Andrea Dandolo and Michele Steno respectively. Byzantine Empire to Manuel II Palaiologos. Note: All four Delphi hoards of 1894 were mixed together in the Numismatic Museum, and the original hoards are consequently no longer discernible. The minority coinages in these hoards cannot at present be located, including the single piece referred to by Caron as Sabatier, Description générale, 2, pl. 68. no. 14. This specimen is now most likely one of the Lakonian tornese issues (see Baker). Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413) or Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425). The latter issue dates in all likelihood from 1393/1394, though 1408 and 1415 have been put forward as alternative dates. The issues of Steno are less than entirely mature, and concealment before ca. 1410 looks probable. In a recent publication I proposed 1404. Bibliography: Caron, “Delphes”, pp. 33–37; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 58, no. S; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83, no. 6; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 354–355, no. 216; Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 302–303, n. 65; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 5; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, pp. 401–402, n. 24; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, n. 22; Baker, “Corinthe”. Discussed further pp.: 73n423, 129, 134, 143, 149, 212, 446, 465, 1272, 1285, 1290, 1292, 1320, 1322, 1328, 1329, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1464, 1466, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 County of Provence 1 1

Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285)

County of Toulouse 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3706

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

883

805

Principality of Achaïa 39 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 41 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 41 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 10 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 46 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 104 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 111 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 154 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 5 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 133 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 135 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 6 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 20 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa

433

Duchy of Athens 156 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 255 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 2 DVX.ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b 20 Uncertain deniers tournois of Athens

201

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 201 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

5

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 5 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 5 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

884

appendix i

6

Counterfeit deniers tournois

1

Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

Soldini 449 Republic of Venice 413 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 28 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 8 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) Torneselli 1939 Republic of Venice 3 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 4 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 12 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 59 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 383 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 7 Michele Morosini (1382) 1254 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 216 Michele Steno (1400–1413) Tornese 1 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 1 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 1 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” 1.199 Sterea Ellada Findspot: Mainland Greece, in the western part of this region (Map /). Present status: Private collection of Marinos Kachrilas. Summary of content: 179 torneselli. Venice to Michele Steno. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). At relative maturity in the period 1400–1413, perhaps beyond 1410. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 149, no. 20. Discussed further pp.: 134, 149, 418, 471, 478, 1328

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

885

Content Torneselli 179 Republic of Venice 5 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 29 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Michele Morosini (1382) 106 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 24 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 14 Uncertain doge 1.200 Gortyna Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia, settlement of Soudeli, village of Velimachio, formerly in the eparchy of Gortyna (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two soldini and 10 torneselli. Venice to Andrea Contarini and Michele Steno respectively. Note: The present hoard and «172. Soudeli» are in some respects similar, even though the latter hoard is not sufficiently well known and is arranged in this catalogue at an earlier concealment date on the basis of the soldini. Metcalf suspects both were from the same find. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). Concealment possibly took place at an advanced point in this timeframe, perhaps after 1410. Bibliography: AD, 22 (1967), NM, p. 10; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 263, n. 11; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 85; Stahl, Zecca, p. 460, no. 121. Discussed further pp.: 420, 425, 445, 856, 863, 1320, 1328 Content Soldini 2 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Torneselli 10 Republic of Venice 6 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413)

886

appendix i

1.201 Vasilitsi 2000 Findspot: Peloponnese, nomos of Messenia. The hoard was excavated at the ruined church of the Virgin, at an isolated site between the village of Vasilitsi and the southern tip of the nomos, Cape Akritas (Map 1). Present status: 26th EBA, Kalamata Museum. Summary of content: Six torneselli. Venice to Michele Steno; Counterfeit. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413) or counterfeit. Concealment probably took place after ca. 1410. Bibliography: Kontogiannis, “Vasilitsi”, pp. 511–512. Discussed further pp.: 79n484, 127, 134, 425, 445, 1328, 1331 Content Torneselli 5 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382), rev. legend VENETIAR 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1

Counterfeit tornesello 1 Of Antonio Venier (1382–1400)

1.202 Unknown Provenance Findspot: Unknown (Map /). Present status: Unknown. Summary of content: 43 torneselli. Venice to Michele Steno; Counterfeit. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The hoard appears to be relatively if not completely mature within the period of this dogeship, and 1410–1413 may be proposed. Bibliography: Seltman, “Venetian torneselli”; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 86, no. 35. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 1328, 1331 Content Torneselli 42 Republic of Venice 2 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 5 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 5 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 10 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

3 10 5 1

887

Michele Morosini (1382) Antonio Venier (1382–1400) Michele Steno (1400–1413)

Counterfeit tornesello

1.203 Greenall Findspot: Uncertain. The hoard is named after its owner (Map /). Present status: Some time ago the hoard was owned by Philip D. Greenall, USA, though his collection has been sold more recently. Summary of content: 318 torneselli. Venice to Michele Steno. Date of concealment: Last issue: Michele Steno (1400–1413). The relative quantity of issues of this doge, as compared to his immediate predecessors, is curiously high in this hoard, and concealment in 1413 or later may be supposed. Bibliography: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 32. Discussed further p.: 1328 Content Torneselli 318 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 2 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 13 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 24 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 51 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 6 Michele Morosini (1382) 114 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 106 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1.204 Leukada 1933 Findspot: Ionian islands, island of Leukada. I was unable to locate the given findspot of Sokipon (Σωκήπων), although Galani-Krikou’s distribution map places it in the centre of the island (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 30 torneselli. Venice to Tomaso Mocenigo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423). The relative level of maturity of this hoard cannot be ascertained because of the small number of specimens.

888

appendix i

Bibliography: BCH, 58 (1934), NM, p. 236; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 149, no. 21; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 84; Stahl, Zecca, p. 462, no. 128. Discussed further pp.: 104, 149, 418, 471, 479, 1328, 1329 Content Torneselli 30 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 5 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 16 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 2 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 5 Uncertain doge 1.205 ANS 1983 Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York. Summary of content: 1771 torneselli. Venice to Tomaso Mocenigo; Counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423). The issues of this doge appear to be contained in this hoard in rather immature proportions, and a date before ca. 1420 may be proposed for concealment. Bibliography: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 86, no. 31. Discussed further pp.: 130, 1328, 1329, 1331 Content Torneselli 1762 Republic of Venice 7 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 8 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 13 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 50 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 57 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 198 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 13 Michele Morosini (1382) 803 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 429 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 29 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 155 Uncertain doge 9

Counterfeit torneselli

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1200–1430

889

1.206 Arta 1985B Findspot: Epiros, Arta (Map 1, B). Present status: 8th EBA. Exhibited in the Byzantine Museum of Ioannina. Summary of content: 1700 torneselli. Venice to Tomaso Mocenigo. Date of concealment: Last issue: Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423). The issues of this doge appear to be contained in this hoard in less than complete maturity, and a date before ca. 1420 may be proposed for concealment. Perhaps the Tocco siege of the town in 1416 provides a context for the abandonment of the hoard. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 149–150, no. 22; Stahl, Zecca, p. 462, no. 127. Discussed further pp.: 130, 149, 419, 471, 473, 474, 1328, 1329 Content Torneselli 1700 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 2 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 3 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 15 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 31 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 297 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 7 Michele Morosini (1382) 927 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 219 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 35 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 162 Uncertain doge 1.207 ANS 1982 Findspot: Uncertain (Map /). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York. Summary of content: 930 torneselli. Venice to Tomaso Mocenigo; Counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423). The issues of this doge appear to be contained in this hoard in less than complete maturity, and ca. 1420 may be proposed as the date of concealment. Bibliography: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 86, no. 30. Discussed further pp.: 1328, 1329, 1331

890

appendix i

Content Torneselli 923 Republic of Venice 7 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 125 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 629 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 132 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 30 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 7

Counterfeit torneselli

1.208 Morea 1849 Findspot: Peloponnese. Further details on the findspot were not provided in the initial report (Map /). Present status: Formerly in the collection of Costantino Cumano, archivist in Trieste. Probably dispersed, perhaps extant in an Italian collection. Summary of content: Ca. 532 torneselli, unspecified number of deniers tournois (not listed below). Venice to Tomaso Mocenigo; France, Achaïa, Athens, and perhaps others, to unspecified rulers. Note: Cumano acquired the hoard in Greece from a medical doctor. Caron (‘milliers’) and, following him, Metcalf speak of a very large hoard, when in fact it was merely medium-sized. Date of concealment: Last issue: Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423). The issues of the last doge are somewhat less than mature, and concealment sometime after ca. 1420 may be proposed. 1422/1423 are possible dates with reference to a documented earthquake and an Ottoman raid. Bibliography: Cumano, “Numismatica”; Caron, “Delphes”, p. 38; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 58; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 86, no. 33. Discussed further pp.: 73, 127, 149, 214, 406, 417, 420, 425, 445, 1328, 1329 Content Torneselli ca. 532 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 6 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 10 Marco Corner (1365–1368) ca. 100 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1430–1500

2 ca. 400 8 2 2

891

Michele Morosini (1382) Antonio Venier (1382–1400) Michele Steno (1400–1413) Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423)

Hoards in Greece, 1430–1500 (in Chronological Order)

2.209 Larisa ca. 2001B Findspot: Thessaly, Larisa. The hoard was handed over to the Archaeological Service by an inhabitant of this town (Map 1). Present status: 7th EBA in Larisa. Summary of content: 151 Venetian soldini; one Ottoman akče. Venice to Francesco Foscari; Ottoman Empire to Murad II. Date of concealment: Last issue: Murad II, dated 1430/1431. Concealment probably took place a relatively short time thereafter. Bibliography: AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 82. Discussed further pp.: 126, 128, 217, 421, 468, 470, 497, 1318, 1320, 1321, 1350, 1351 Content Soldini 151 Republic of Venice yes Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) yes Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) yes Michele Steno (1400–1413) yes Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) yes Francesco Foscari (1423–1457) Akče 1

Ottoman Empire 1 Murad II (1421–1451) 1 mint of Novar (Novo Brdo), AH 834 = 1430/1431

2.210 Lord Grantley Hoard B Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The hoard was acquired in Athens and was said to be from the vicinity (Map /). Present status: Uncertain, one of the coins of James of Majorca (?) is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

892

appendix i

Summary of content: 33 deniers tournois, perhaps from a larger original assemblage. Karytaina (four listed); Campobasso (11); James of Majorca (?) (two); counterfeits (16?). Note: According to Metcalf, this was an unusual selection of coins which, as it stood, cannot have constituted a single hoard. Indeed, Metcalf thinks that Grantley might have picked over the coins (which might originally have resembled a conventional hoard more closely) before acquiring them. Although an assemblage of deniers tournois hoarded so late might have taken on a slightly unusual character, it is of note that the only recorded earlier specimens are rare issues from Karytaina. As I discuss further in Appendix II.9, Grantley’s attribution of two enigmatic coins to the pretender James of Majorca (1315– 1349) has withstood the test of time and recent attempts of re-attribution. The Campobasso coins are not illustrated and their typologies cannot be determined. The tournois counterfeits mostly imitate earlier Athenian issues, though none are to be attributed to the Catalan Company. Date of concealment: Last issue: perhaps Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450– ca. 1467), with a dating of the coins after 1459–1462/3. The large presence of counterfeits and uncertainties about the precise nature of the Campobasso pieces make a somewhat later dating possible. Bibliography: Grantley, “Crusaders”, pp. 49–54; Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 59; Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, pp. 127–129; Baker, “Denari tornesi”, p. 16, n. 43. Discussed further pp.: 73, 128, 347, 446, 455, 463, 497, 804, 1377, 1426, 1440, 1477, 1480, 1484, 1485, 1724 2.211 Chalkida Findspot: Mainland Greece, island of Euboia. The hoard was apparently found in or near the town of Chalkida (Map 1). Present status: American Numismatic Society, New York (59 torneselli and all other denomination coins), Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, and dispersed. Summary of content: One soldino, 4783 torneselli, two mules, one follaro, one quattrino, six pennies, one tornese and eight deniers tournois (total of 4803 coins). Venice to Andrea Dandolo and Christoforo Moro respectively; Cattaro; Bologna; Ancona; Sicily (Naples); Barcelona; Cyprus; Rhodes; Byzantium to Manuel II Palaiologos; Achaïa to Philip of Savoy; Counterfeits; Campobasso. Note: Stahl, pp. 71–72, provides some details on the appearance and dispersal of the hoard. Some of the deniers tournois have been re-attributed from Stahl’s plates. None of the Athenian counterfeits are Catalan (Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, varieties c and d). The coins of Bologna and Ancona are probably of the fourteenth century and do not influence the date of concealment.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1430–1500

893

Date of concealment: Last issue: Christoforo Moro (1462–1471), or Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467). Stahl suggests concealment in relation to the final Turkish conquest of the island in 1470. Bibliography: Stahl, Tornesello; Stahl, Zecca, pp. 462–463, no. 129; Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 302–303, n. 65; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 275; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 401, n. 23; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 256, n. 97 and p. 258, n. 114; Baker, “Denari tornesi”, p. 16, n. 43. Discussed further pp.: 79, 128, 158, 407, 446, 455, 467, 496, 497, 1272, 1320, 1328, 1329, 1331, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1372, 1477, 1481, 1484, 1489, 1509, 1561 Content Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 Torneselli 4656 Republic of Venice 4 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 11 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 6 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 47 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 97 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 789 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 43 rev. legend VENECIAR 746 rev. legend VENETIAR 26 Michele Morosini (1382) 2629 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 698 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 283 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 3 Francesco Foscari (1423–1457) 17 Christoforo Moro (1462–1471) 45 Uncertain doge 127

Counterfeit torneselli 110 Of Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 13 Of Michele Steno (1400–1413) 4 Of Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423)

894

appendix i

Soldino-tornesello mules 2 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) Follaro 1 Republic of Venice for Cattaro 1 Alvise Baffo (1451–1453) 1 Stockert, “Cattaro”, pp. 26–27; Dobrinić, Novci, pp. 39–40, nos. 8.3.1.29–8.3.1.39 Quattrino 1 Republic of Bologna 1 CNI X, p. 26, no. 39 Pennies 1 Republic of Ancona 1 CNI XIII, p. 9, no. 76 2

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Conrad I (1250–1254) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 53 1 Ladislaus (1386–1414)

1

County of Barcelona 1 James II (1291–1327) 1 Cayon and Castan, Monedas españolas, p. 302, no. 1747

1

Kingdom of Cyprus 1 Hugh IV (1324–1359)

1

Order of St. John at Rhodes 1 Anonymous 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. X.2

Tornese 1 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 1 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 1 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”

COIN FINDS: HOARDS, 1430–1500

895

Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 5

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Florent of Hainaut/ Achaïa 3 Of William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Of rougher style

1

County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

2.212 Corinth 10 November 1936 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The hoard was found during excavations in the monastery of St. John, in a pot beneath the pavement of the complex’s courtyard. The area is classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 1580 torneselli; three petty denomination issues; six deniers tournois; one tornese; six pennies; nine cavalli; three older Byzantine coppers (one Constans I; two Anonymous Folles Type A, not listed below). Venice to Agostino Barbarigo; Counterfeits; Achaïa and Athens; Counterfeits; Catalan Company; Byzantium to Manuel II; Naples; Ancona. Note: I was able to consult a revised inventory for this hoard thanks to the kindness of Orestes Zervos. I managed to identify one Lakonian issue of Emperor Manuel II. The Anconite coins are of the late style (fifteenth-century). Date of concealment: Last issue: Charles VIII (1495–1496) or Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) or tornesello counterfeits. On the basis of the genuine torneselli one can postulate concealment in the period 1496–1501, since issues of Barbarigo’s successor Loredan would soon have made an appearance in Greece. Bibliography: Harris, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939”, pp. 146–147 and 154; Scranton, Mediaeval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth, pp. 64 and 93; Baker, “Argos”, p. 231, n. 49. Discussed further pp.: 74, 128, 212, 425, 426, 430, 437, 497, 971, 1272, 1328, 1329, 1331, 1337, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1359, 1360, 1363, 1365, 1481, 1484, 1489, 1509, 1644

896

appendix i

Content Torneselli 187 Republic of Venice 2 Michele Steno (1400–1414) 185 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) 947

Counterfeit torneselli 947 Of Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501)

446

Uncertain or counterfeit torneselli

Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. / 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate

Deniers tournois 2 Counterfeit deniers tournois 2 Of Athens, obv. legend GVI.DVX, though not Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c–d 4

Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 4 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 1 +GVIDAXATENS / +ThEBANICIVIS 3 Uncertain legend

Tornese 1 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 1 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 1 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” Quattrini 4 Republic of Ancona 1 CNI XIII, pp. 32–35 var

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

897

Pennies 2 Kingdom of Sicily 2 Alfonso I the Magnanimous (1442–1458) 2 MEC, nos. 837–846 Cavalli 9 Kingdom of Naples 9 Charles VIII of France (1495–1496) 3 L’Aquila, MEC, nos. 1040–1047 5 Chieti, MEC, nos. 1048–1053 1 Ortona, MEC, p. 388 3

Coins in Graves in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Alphabetical Order)

3.213 Aliartos Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aliartos (Boiotia). The hoard was found during controlled excavations in a grave (Map 1). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens, to be transferred to the 23rd EBA in Thebes. Summary of content: Four deniers tournois. Achaïa to Charles Ι of Anjou; Provence. Date of concealment: Last issue: Charles I of Anjou for Achaïa (1278–1285), which is more recent than his Provençal issue. His KA101 variety was presumably minted in the period 1279–1281. The hoard dates therefore to the very late 1270s or very early 1280s. Bibliography: M. Galani-Krikou in AD, 49 (1994), B’1, pp. 126–127; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 267, n. 11; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 248, n. 46. Discussed further pp.: 151, 447, 464, 1292, 1377, 1392, 1394 Content Deniers tournois 3 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη”, GV1–21 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη”, KA101

898 1

appendix i

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

3.214 Athenian Agora Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The graves were excavated in 1936 in section KK of the site, the area around the Hephaisteion (‘Theseion’), which was the church of St. George in medieval times (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Note: This material was originally contained in Margaret Thompson’s catalogue, though of course not separated from the remainder of the excavation coins from the Agora. My listing below merely provides information on graves containing medieval western-style coins. Graves without coins have been omitted, as have any non-medieval coins. It is of note that these graves did not receive any attention in Setton, “The Archaeology of Medieval Athens”. Bibliography: Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period. Discussed further pp.: 74, 151, 204, 331, 407, 447, 450, 452, 454, 455, 934, 1328, 1359, 1365, 1377, 1428, 1477, 1480, 1481, 1483, 1484, 1488, 1752 Content Grave X Coin KK-369 Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 Grave XXII Coins KK-23 Feb. 1939 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) Grave XXVI Coin KK-557

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX. ACTñnAR / G Grave XXIX Coin KK-467 Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX Grave XXXI Coins KK-468, KK-473 Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 5, GVIOT Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 Grave XXXII Coin KK-481 Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 Grave XXXIII Coin KK-483, KK-482/1 and 2, KK-27 Feb. 1939

899

900

appendix i

Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX 2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 2 Of crude style and meaningless legends

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) Grave XXXV Coin KK-486, KK-6 March 1939 Denier tournois 1 Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 1 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVS Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave XXXVI Coins KK-490, KK-489, KK-7 March 1939 Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX 1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of crude style and meaningless legends

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382)

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

Grave XXXVII Coins KK-493, KK-492, KK-7 March 1939 (*2) Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) Grave XXXIX Coins KK-526, KK-527, KK-529, KK-531, KK-525, KK-528, KK-495/1, KK-498 Petty denomination issues 1 Lordship of Athens 1 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX.ACTñnAR / G

Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 2

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A

901

902

appendix i

1

County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

1

Uncertain denier tournois

Grave XLI Coin KK-501, KK-500, KK-499, KK-503, KK-8 March 1939 Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV21 1

Uncertain denier tournois

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 2 Of crude style and meaningless legends

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) Grave XLII Coins KK-509, KK-508, KK-511 Deniers tournois 1 Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos 2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 2 Of crude style and meaningless legends

Grave XLIII Coins KK- 8 March 1939 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) Grave XLV Coins KK- 8 March 1939

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave XLVI Coins KK- 9 March 1939 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave XLVIII Coin KK-536, KK- 9 March 1939 Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave XLIX Coins KK-518, KK-517, KK- 9 March 1939 Petty denomination issues 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 5, GVIOT

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave LX Coin KK-540

903

904

appendix i

Petty denomination issues 1 Lordship of Athens 1 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate Grave LXIII Coins KK-546, KK-551, KK-547 Petty denomination issues 3 Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä Grave LXVI Coin KK-556 Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate 3.215 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Monastiraki district. These graves were unearthed in and around the church of Agios Asomatos, which was built onto the western part of the Library of Hadrian, just outside of the medieval walls (Map 3). Present status: A’ EPKA, Athens; 1st EBA. Bibliography: Touloupia, “ʹΑγιος Ασώματος”, pp. 596 and 597; AD, 54 (1999), B’1, p. 28; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 253, n. 75. Discussed further pp.: 151, 447, 452, 454, 456, 1328, 1377, 1428 Content Grave I Seven deniers tournois of Frankish Greece.

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

905

Grave II Two fourteenth-century copper coins. Grave IV Three copper and one silver fourteenth-century coin. Grave XVIII Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ Torneselli yes Republic of Venice yes Antonio Venier (1382–1400) yes Michele Steno (1400–1414) Grave XII Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Uncertain prince 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3.216 Clarentza Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, archaeological site of Clarentza near the modern town of Kyllini. The graves were excavated inside the Church of St. Francis (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Note: Most of the excavated graves contained no coins at all, and a few merely one, but no. 19 contained a considerable number. The cited publication provides greater analysis of this phenomenon, and illustrates a number of the coins from these graves. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 271–272, Appendix I.1 Discussed further pp.: 80, 150, 151, 425, 426, 441, 1320, 1328, 1331, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1377, 1484, 1487, 1666, 1667

906

appendix i

Content Grave 4 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge Grave 11 Two coins, of which only the one below is readable. Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) Grave 15 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge Grave 16 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge Grave 19 Torneselli 32 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 8 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 14 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 8 Uncertain doge 1

Counterfeit tornesello

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

907

Denier tournois 1 Counterfeit denier tournois Penny 1 Kingdom of Sicily 1 Conrad I (1250–1254) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 54 Grave 21 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave 26 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave 31 Torneselli 1 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 1 Counterfeit tornesello Grave 34 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Grave 37 Torneselli 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge 1 Counterfeit tornesello

908

appendix i

Grave 44 Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 3.217 Corinth 31 May 1932 Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. This grave assemblage was found at Temple E, classified as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 27 tetartera. Byzantine Empire to Manuel I Komnenos; Counterfeits. Note: Metcalf, who was provided with the relevant information by Ron Stroud, describes this find: “Twenty-seven folles of Manuel were found on 31 May 1932 stuck together in a grave in the cemetery on the site of the Temple of Livia (Temple E), in the south-western quarter of Corinth.” He adds, interestingly, that “there were four such folles (NB: Emperor Standing), and 14 St. George folles, all on small, roughly clipped flans, in poor style, and apparently very worn.” Edwards had not classified this as a hoard. I have treated here the 18 coins described by Metcalf as post-1204 counterfeits, and the remaining nine coins as genuine issues of Manuel. This can be done relatively confidently, since the small clipped flans are the obvious hallmarks of counterfeit, though naturally subject to verification. Date of concealment: Last issue: counterfeit tetartera, suggesting a date of 1204 or later, perhaps quite a bit later in view of the wear of the coins. Bibliography: Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”; Metcalf, “Brauron”, p. 253; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 235, no. 12; Baker, “Argos”, p. 226, n. 14. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 76n453, 151, 254n342, 425, 217, 432, 971, 1201, 1203 Content Tetartera 9 Byzantine Empire before 1204 9 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 18

Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 14 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 4 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

909

3.218 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The graves are from in and around the church on the north side of the Frankish complex, in the ‘Central Area’, excavated during 1976 and 1989–1997 (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Note: Listed here are all the graves with a general Frankish dating from the Frankish complex containing coins, even if the coins themselves are not of the Frankish period. This information is derived from the relevant grave inventory cards of Corinth Excavations. There are additionally many more graves which were found to contain no coins at all. The archaeology of these graves was being worked on more extensively by the late Arthur Rohn, however a study on this subject is yet to appear. Bibliography: Coins reported yearly in Hesperia, though never with reference to graves; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 253, n. 76. Discussed further pp.: 254n342, 425, 426, 430, 984, 1201, 1203, 1222, 1365, 1428, 1484, 1487 Content Grave 90–28 Coin 90–285 One late Roman coin Grave 90–30 Coins 90–294 and 295 Tetartera 2 Byzantine Empire before 1204 2 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 2 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ Grave 91–1 Coin 91–35 Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A Grave 91–4 Coin 91–47

910

appendix i

Denier tournois 1 Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin / Achaïa Grave 95–1 Coin 95–69 One ancient coin Grave 95–7 Coins 95–407, 409, 410 One Greek coin Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX

Grave 95–10E Coins 95–422 and 423 (not listed) Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 Uncertain small or large module type Grave 95–13 Coins 95–431 (not listed) and 432 Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 Grave 95–16 Coins 95–438 (not listed) and 439

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F Grave 95–18A Coins 430 (not listed) and 442 Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G Grave 96–1 Coins 96–41 and 39 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä Grave 96–2 Coin 96–50 One follis of Nikephoros III Grave 96–14 Coin 96–375 Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D Grave 96–18 Coin 96–356

911

912

appendix i

Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A Grave 96–19 Coin 96–358 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 21 and 24, ‘Emperor Standing’ Grave 96–37 Coins 96–379 (a seal, not listed) and 376 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ Grave 96–39 Coin 96–377 Tetarteron 1 Counterfeit tetarteron after 1204 1 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ Grave 96–40 Coin 96–378 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Alexios I Komnenos (1082–1118) 1 DOC IV, type 38, ‘Jewelled Cross’ Grave 96–47 Coin 96–382

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ Grave 96–49 Coin 96–383 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ (concave) Grave 97–15 Coin 97–475 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ Grave 97–19 Coin 97–488 Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä Grave 97–22 Coin 97–476 Tetarteron 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) 1 DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ Grave 97–492

913

914

appendix i

Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 3.219 Naxos 1978 Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Chora, area of Grotta (Map 1, H). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Three torneselli of Venice to Antonio Venier. Note: The three coins were found in the mouth of the body. This find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Burial probably took place during these years or shortly after. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 151, 479, 482, 1328 Content Torneselli 3 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Uncertain doge 3.220 Neochorio Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Arkanania, Neochorio, a village to the west of Mesolongi (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One billon trachy. Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike of Theodore Komnenos Doukas. Bibliography: AD, 22 (1967), B’2, p. 330, pl. 239β; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 133; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 253, n. 78. Discussed further pp.: 151, 471, 478, 1236 Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 38.6–7

COIN FINDS: GRAVES, 1200–1430

915

3.221 Palaiochora Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia, Inner Mani, demos of Oitylos. This grave hoard was excavated in the church of Agios Petros, in the village of Palaiochora (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Four deniers tournois and one short cross penny. Abbey of St. Martin; France to Louis VIII and/or Louis IX; England. Date of concealment: Last issue: the last royal French or the English issue. The small size of the hoard and the lack of any further information on the English piece seriously undermine any attempts at dating. Given the absence of issues of the brothers of Louis IX, and the usual profile of English coins in the Peloponnese, a dating in the 1230s or 1240s may provisionally be proposed. Bibliography: AD, 30 (1975), B’1, NM, p. 4, pl. 3; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 245, n. 26 and 253. Discussed further pp.: 151, 264, 425, 443, 1377 Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 3 Kingdom of France 2 Philip II (1180–1223) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

1

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II to Henry III (1154–1272) 1 Short Cross classes 1–8, 1180–1247 3.222 Thira 1999 Findspot: Cyclades, Thira, village of Mesa Gonia, church of Panagia Episkopis (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA.

916

appendix i

Summary of content: Apparently one or two coins per tomb (nos. 5, 7, 8, 10). One denier tournois, and six illegible coins of the same period. Bibliography: AD, 54 (1999), B’2, p. 842; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 151, 479, 482, 1377 4

Excavation and Single Finds in Greece, 1200–1430 (in Alphabetical Order)

4.223 Acrocorinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia, archaeological site of Acrocorinth, to the south of Ancient Corinth. The coins were excavated during the only American campaign on Acrocorinth, in the spring of 1926 (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 27 petty denomination coins, five deniers tournois, one short cross penny, one soldino, 18 torneselli. Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, France, Tours, Campobasso, Venice. Additionally, Bellinger refers to ca. 13 tetartera and billon trachea, some of which might have dated to the thirteenth century. Of this material I was able to verify four counterfeit tetartera, the only Byzantine-style coins I list here below. The coin attributed by Bellinger to Andronikos II with Michael IX Palaiologoi could not be found. Note: The list below is a combination of Bellinger’s information and my own observations. The curious proportions of the two main varieties of Achaïan petty denomination issues might be down to peculiar loss conditions, though this could not be verified in the excavation notebooks “Acrocorinth March to May 1926”, which provide only the most generic of information on the circumstances of the coin finds. It should be noted that Zervos’ statistics for type 10 sub-varieties are partially based on the Acrocorinth finds and that no unusual distribution pattern is to be observed in this respect, thereby weakening somewhat the suggestion that these specimens reached the site in one single movement (see Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47). Bibliography: Bellinger, “The coins”. Discussed further pp.: 74n441, 106, 107, 112, 114, 116, 202, 405, 426, 430, 432, 433, 436, 1203, 1222, 1278, 1285, 1287, 1320, 1328, 1365, 1369, 1370, 1428, 1446, 1477, 1481, 1750, 1751 Content Tetartera 4 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 4 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Petty denomination issues 27 Principality of Achaïa 27 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 26 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d‘Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

1 1 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 John (1199–1216) or Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 5c–6c1, 1207–ca. 1217, London/ Walter North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 971–976/1 Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Foscari (1423–1457)

917

918

appendix i

Torneselli 18 Republic of Venice 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 11 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 4.224 Agios Nikolaos Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. The findspot is named after the nearest village, even though the coins were found in a locality called Vromontas, 8km to the south, and 5km west of Cape Maleas (Map 1). Present Status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One coin (petty denomination issue or denier tournois) of Achaïa, and unspecified Venetian torneselli. Of the latter, one is of Doge Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501). Bibliography: AD, 19 (1964), NM, p. 14; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83. Discussed further pp.: 426, 443, 444, 445, 1328, 1365, 1377 4.225 Agios Stephanos Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. This location lies in the coastal plain, between Skala and Gytheio (Map 1). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Sparta. Summary of content: Five deniers tournois. France and Achaïa. Note: The coins were found in domestic structures. The limited chronological span of these coins is confirmed by the analysis of the pottery published in the same volume. The abandonment of the site is brought in connection with the increasingly dangerous situation in Peloponnesian coastal areas. Bibliography: Janko, “Roman, medieval and modern coins”. Discussed further pp.: 80n498, 107, 123, 264, 426, 443, 444, 1287, 1377, 1391, 1399, 1408, 1416 Content Deniers tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

4

Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1 1 1

919

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321)

4.226 Agrapidochori Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The village of Agrapidochori lies just to the south of the Peneios river, close to Ancient Pylos (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One denier tournois, one soldino. Achaïa and Venice. Note: These finds are presented in greater detail in the indicated publication. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 278. Discussed further pp.: 419n1062, 426, 444, 1320, 1377, 1391 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 4.227 Ai Lias Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis, a locality in the vicinity of Mycenae (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, BE 623. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: AD, 50 (1995), NM, p. 10. Discussed further pp.: 426, 438, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287), Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) obv. legend G.DVX or GVI.DVX

920

appendix i

4.228 Aktaio Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia. The village of Aktaio, in the former eparchy of Karystos, is situated near the north coast of the island, north of Karystos and west of Cape Filagra (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, BE463; 18/1983. Summary of content: One hyperpyron of Byzantine emperor Michael VIII. Bibliography: AD, 38 (1983), NM, p. 2 and pl. 1, no. 15; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 1 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 92n42, 205, 257, 447, 466, 1264, 1265 Content Hyperpyron 1 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Type IIIb, Christ with Book, DOC V, nos. 17–25 var., obv. left siglon A? 4.229 Amphissa Findspot: Mainland Greece, Amphissa (Phokis) (Map 1). Present status: Formerly for the most part in the hands of Kravartogiannos, these coins have now been donated to the Amphissa museum. Others remain in private collections or in the Athens Numismatic Museum, while the Anconite coin belongs to the 10th EPKA in Delphi. Summary of content: In his article on local Byzantine coin finds Kravartogiannos describes 57 tetartera and seven billon trachea of the Komnenoi and Angeloi emperors. Of these merely four date later than the reign of Manuel I (1143– 1180): one tetarteron of Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195), DOC IV, types 5–6, ‘St. Michael’; one billon trachy of the same emperor; and two billon trachea of Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203). These coins might have been lost in the early thirteenth century. On a separate occasion Kravartogiannos published a penny of Ancona, excavated within the town of Amphissa, belonging to the fifteenthcentury anonymous variety with the obv. A (CNI XIII, pp. 32–35). Note: It is not clear whether Kravartogiannos specifically targeted these coinages, or whether the area of Amphissa has not yielded any later Byzantine or Byzantine-style coinages. Bibliography: Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος βυζαντινών νομισμάτων”; Kravarto­ giannos, “Τορνέσιο της Δημοκρατίας της Αγκώνας”. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 108, 255, 447, 466, 1211, 1340

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

921

4.230 Andros Findspot: Cyclades, Andros, Kato Kastro in the island capital. The coins originate from excavations conducted by the University of Athens (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Five deniers tournois; one denier tournois or petty denomination issue. Bibliography: Kontogiannis, “Τα νομίσματα”; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 80n504, 106, 120, 123, 158n321, 266, 344, 479, 481, 483n130, 1202, 1292, 1359, 1365, 1377, 1404, 1462 Content Deniers tournois 1 County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1

Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

Denier tournois or petty denomination issue 1 Uncertain issuer 4.231 Andros Findspot: Cyclades, Andros, Epano Kastro above the island capital. The coins originate from excavations conducted by the University of Athens (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois, two torneselli, one billon trachy. Achaïa, Venice, Byzantium. Note: These coins were communicated to me kindly by Nikos Kontogiannis, who is preparing the publication of this material. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 120, 123, 158n321, 205, 332, 344, 420n1064, 479, 481, 482

922

appendix i

Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 73–76; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C11 Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 2

Uncertain issuers

Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 4.232 Apollonia Findspot: Albania, Fier county and district. The archaeological site is a few km to the west of the town of Fier (Map 1). Present status: Perhaps in the Numismatic Collection, Archaeological Institute, Tirana. Summary of content: Deniers tournois of unspecified rulers. Note: Prof. Muçaj has kindly informed me of the presence of single deniers tournois, in addition to the hoard listed elsewhere in this catalogue (see «93. Apollonia»), amongst the material excavated from this site. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 108, 338, 471, 475, 1377 4.233 Argos Findspot: Peloponnese, Argos. The coins are from the French excavations, in the ancient monumental area of the city (Map 1, E). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 78 bronze coins, of which eight are readable (including one petty denomination issue of Achaïa). Bibliography: JIAN, 10 (1907), NM, p. 182. Discussed further pp.: 107, 426, 437, 1211, 1365

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

923

Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 4.234 Argos Findspot: Peloponnese, Argos. The coins are from the excavations of the French School in the central monumental area of the town (Map 1, E). Present status: 4th EPKA Nauplio, Archaeological Museum Argos. Summary of content: Four soldini and 49 torneselli of Venice. I targeted these two denominations specifically at Argos Museum. Amongst the French material from the town one can otherwise find the usual sequence of Byzantineand western-style issues. Note: The material of the Ecole française d’Athènes from Argos is divided between Athens Numismatic and Argos Archaeological Museums. Publications have been planned, first by Tony Hackens, and then by Jean-Michel Saulnier. Bibliography: Baker, “Argos”, p. 230, n. 44, p. 232. Discussed further pp.: 107, 112, 114, 116, 123, 405, 406, 426, 437, 438, 1211, 1320, 1328, 1330 Content Soldini 4 Republic of Venice 2 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) Torneselli 49 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 4 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 5 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 24 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 14 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 4.235 Argos Findspot: Peloponnese, Argos. The precise findspot is not communicated (Map 1, E).

924

appendix i

Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One grosso. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 177. Discussed further pp.: 107, 426, 437, 1211, 1297, 1299n581 Content Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 4.236 Argos Findspot: Peloponnese, Argos. The coins originate from the following plots: Selli; Agricultural Bank of Greece (A.T.E.); National Telecommunications Company (O.T.E.); Kontoyanni; Kostaki. All of these are in the southern part of the modern town, outside the ancient and medieval city walls (see Baker, “Argos”, p. 233) (Map 1, E). Present status: 25th EBA, Archaeological Museum Argos. Summary of content: 39 tetartera, 10 billon trachea, 20 petty denomination issues, two pennies, 25 deniers tournois, one tornesello. Counterfeits, Latin Empire, Achaïa, Athens, Burgundy, England, Naupaktos, Venice. Note: These coins were all found during excavations by Anastasia Oikonomou-Laniado. For further details see the recent publication of this material. Bibliography: Baker, “Argos”, pp. 220–224. Discussed further pp.: 80n503, 107, 112, 114, 116, 123, 202, 255, 330, 331, 405, 426, 437, 438, 1203, 1205, 1211, 1225n156, 1233, 1278, 1279, 1287, 1292, 1328, 1330, 1336, 1359, 1360n957, 1365, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1395, 1404, 1408, 1413, 1418, 1428, 1446, 1484, 1489, 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1674, 1675 Content Tetartera 2 Counterfeit tetartera before 1204 2 Of Alexios I, DOC IV, type 38, ‘Jewelled Cross’ 37

Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 6 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 6 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 25 Of uncertain or undefined prototype

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Billon trachea 10 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 4 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 1 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module uncertain type Petty denomination issues 19 Principality of Achaïa 19 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 15 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. / 1

Lordship of Athens 1 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate

Pennies 1 Duchy of Burgundy 1 Hugh III (1162–1192) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 3, no. 5676 1

Kingdom of England 1 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Long Cross class 2b, 1248, York/Ieremie North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 985

Deniers tournois 2 Kingdom of France 2 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187

925

926

appendix i

2

County of Provence 2 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS

13

Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 1 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA 3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3

3

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin / Achaïa 1 Of Achaïa

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

927

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge 4.237 Arta Findspot: Epiros, town of Arta. The coins were excavated at the following plots within the town: Agia Theodora and Féüzal Streets; Badaloukas; Bakagiannis; Charitos-Manaras; Christogiorgos; Dalias; Kotsaridas; Mitsis; Pantasis; Papadimitriou; Parigoritissa; Rizos; Smiris-Papoutsos; Staï-Giannakis; Theatre; Tsirogiannis-Siozos; Tachos; Zarkadas (Map 1, B). Present status: Byzantine Museums in Arta and Ioannina, formerly 8th EBA, though now some of this material might well be the responsibility of the new 18th EBA. Summary of content: Seven tetartera; 313 billon trachea; one silver trachy; 19 deniers tournois; five grossi; two soldini; one tornesello. Byzantine Empire to Michael VIII and Andronikos II respectively; Despots at Arta; Bulgaria; Faithful Copies; Latin Imitatives; Lord of Romania (Manfred Hohenstaufen); Provence; Achaïa; Athens; Naupaktos; Arta; Venice. Note: Galani-Krikou and Oikonomidou et al. prepared their respective publications for the congress on the ‘Despotate’ of Epiros, held at Arta. I presume that the material which they were offered emanated from the same plots within Arta, and that their respective listings of western- and Byzantine-style coinage groups give an accurate picture of the relative proportions in which these coinages were found. For this reason I have combined these data in one list. In addition to the thirteenth-century tetartera which are listed here below, only 28 are given for the twelfth century, and none for any of the successors of Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180). The different plots also yielded 24 billon trachea of the Komnenoi and Angeloi emperors, 11 of which were respectively of Isaac II (1185–1195) and Alexios III (1195–1203), and no doubt lost for the most part in the thirteenth century.

928

appendix i

There has been much speculation, by Protonotarios and Touratsoglou amongst others, about the unattributed billon trachea bearing the two ruler (?) figures on the reverse. DOC IV, pp. 625–626, 698, compares the type directly to the Arta issue depicting the town walls and attributes it tentatively to Michael II, with the second figure being that of a saint. The pieces listed here and in DOC IV under Thessalonike, for Demetrios, and for John III with Michael II, are held by many Greek writers to be from the Arta mint: see Touratsoglou, “La monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390. Grierson believes that C2, C5, C7 of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) are in fact issues of Philadelphia rather than Constantinople. Bibliography: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 133; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 177; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, pp. 155 and 157; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 214, n. 53. Discussed further pp.: 107, 112, 114, 116, 138, 203, 205, 206, 254, 330, 331, 332, 419, 471, 472, 473, 1202, 1206, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1219, 1222, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1250, 1292, 1297, 1320, 1328, 1330, 1353, 1356, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1395, 1404, 1428, 1446, 1466, 1489 Content Tetartera 6 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 6 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 3 DOC IV, type 12; DOS XII, pl. 38.10–11 1 DOC IV, type 14; DOS XII, pl. 38.13 2 DOC IV, type 15; DOS XII, pl. 38.14–15 1

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–1261) 1 DOC IV, type 6; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 36.5–6

Billon trachea 8 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 7 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 60

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 12, Constantinople large module type M 2 DOC IV, no. 16, Constantinople large module type P 2 DOC IV, no. 17, Constantinople large module type Q 1 DOC IV, no. 18, Constantinople large module type R 1 Metcalf, “Peter and Paul”, p. 166, nos. 323–342

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

2 31 4 1 7 4 2 3

150

929

DOC IV, no. 25, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type B DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10 2 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 35, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 33.1 1 DOC IV, no. 37, type C; DOS XII, type C, pl. 33.3 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 25 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 10 DOC IV, no. 4, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 37.7–9 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type C; DOS XII, type C, pl. 38.1–2 3 DOC IV, no. 7, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 38.3–4 2 DOC IV, no. 9, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 38.6–7 8 DOC IV, no. 10, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 38.8–9 1 Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas”, p. 8, no. 2 25 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 2 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 39.3 13 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 39.4–5 2 DOC IV, no. 5, type C; DOS XII, type C, pl. 39.6 5 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 39.7 1 DOC IV, no. 8, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 39.9 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 39.10–11 1 DOS XII, pl. 51.7–8 6 John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) 3 DOC IV, no. 5, series I, type E; DOS XII, series I, type E, pl. 40.5 1 DOC IV, no. 10, series II, type D; DOS XII, series II, type I, pl. 40.9–10 2 DOC IV, no. 31, series III, type R; DOS XII, series III, type K, pl. 41.12–13

930

appendix i

3 79

12

Demetrios Komnenos Doukas (1244–1246) 3 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, pl. 41.20–21 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 31 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 42.1–2 11 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 42.3–4 5 DOC IV, no. 5, type C; Bendall and Protonotarios, “More rare and unpublished coins”, p. 46, no. 8 6 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type C, pl. 42.5–6 2 DOC IV, no. 7, type E; DOS XII, type D, pl. 42.7–8 4 DOC IV, no. 8, type F; DOS XII, type E, pl. 42.9–10 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type F, pl. 42.11–12 3 DOC IV, no. 10, type H; DOS XII, type G, pl. 43.1–2 4 DOC IV, no. 11, type I; DOS XII, type H, pl. 43.3–4 1 DOC IV, no. 12, type J; DOS XII, type I, pl. 43.5–6 1 Bendall and Protonotarios, “More rare and unpublished coins”, pp. 47–48, no. 13 4 With Michael II, DOC IV, pl. XLVII, no. 1; Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 15 6 With Michael II, DOC IV, pl. XLVII, no. 2; Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 16 Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) 12 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, type 1, pl. 43.10

7

Despots in Epiros at Arta 7 Michael II Komnenos Doukas (ca. 1236–1266/68) 3 DOC IV, no. 2, type A; Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 13 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type B; Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 12 2 Undisclosed type: Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, p. 115 1 With John III, DOC IV, pl. XLVII, no. 3; Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 17

7

Uncertain attribution, Thessalonike/Arta? 7 Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 14; DOC IV, p. 703, no. 9, type B

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

76

931

Byzantine Empire after 1261 72 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 2 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 52–56; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C2 1 Constantinople?, DOC V, no. 58; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C5 2 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 64–65; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C7 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 66–69; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C8 2 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 79–81; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C13 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 86–90; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C15 3 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 100–102; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, UC4 1 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 106; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C20 7 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 109; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C21 6 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 114–122; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C23 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 125–126; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C25 2 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 133–135; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T1 6 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 136–143; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T2 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 144–146; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T3 4 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, no. 151; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T5 5 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 152–154; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, UT2 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 155–158; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T6

932

appendix i

1

3

1

Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 159–160; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T7 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 162–164; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, UT3 3 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 165–168; PCPC, no. 75 5 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 169–170; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T10 5 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 171–173; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T12 4 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 174–175; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T11 2 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 180–181; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T14 4 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 186–190; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T16 Michael VIII and Andronikos II Palaiologoi (1272–1282) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 200–201; PCPC, no. 88 1 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 202 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 203–205 Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 771–773

1

Bulgarian Empire 1 Ivan II Asen (1218–1241) 1 DOC IV, no. 2; DOS XII, pl. 46.10–11

1

Lord of Romania 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258/1259–1266) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25

Silver trachy 1 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 2; Bendall, “Unpublished silver trachy of Manuel Comnenus Dukas”

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Deniers tournois 1 County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS 7

Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6)

8

Duchy of Athens 3 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

Grossi 5 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 1 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) 2 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) Soldini 2 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400)

933

934

appendix i

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4.238 Athenian Agora Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Athenian Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: 711 petty denomination issues; 383 deniers tournois; 13 petty denomination issues or deniers tournois; two quartaroli; five grossi; 21 soldini; 554 torneselli; two pennies; two quattrini; one copper tank; one gigliato; one akče; six cavalli. Tours; France; Provence; Achaïa; Athens; Naupaktos; Arta; Tinos; Salona; Counterfeits; Campobasso; Venice; Rhodes; Florence; Ancona; Armenia; Sicily (Naples); Ottoman empire; Naples. Note: Listed here are the medieval, western-style (including one Ottoman and one Armenian) coins dating ca. 1200–1500 which have been excavated by the ASCSA at this site from 1931 onwards, with the exception of hoards and grave finds I have presented elsewhere («17», «51», «55», «120», «178», «214»). The North Slope of the Akropolis, though excavated by the same school, is not technically part of the Agora and is treated separately in the next entry. The medieval coins from this site were first discussed briefly by Josephine Shear in 1936, who also intended to publish the first monograph on this material. In fact is was Margaret Thompson who, based entirely on Shear’s coin cards, authored the relevant volume in 1954. Relatively speaking, very few medieval coins have been excavated at the Agora since 1949. It might be added that Kleiner deals with this material, accompanied by some useful photographs, in the Athenian Agora Picture Book Series, and that Walker has referred to medieval coins from the site on one occasion. I was able to consult most of the coins in the list below, which is essentially an updated version of Thompson’s catalogue, with hoards, graves and faulty attributions eliminated, and typological details added. The most significant changes since Thompson are the disappearance of rare tournois issues of Neopatra, Chios, and two of the four coins of Salona, and the appearance of a large body of tournois counterfeits of all descriptions, issued by the Catalan Company, as well as by private persons throughout the later medieval period in diverse styles. I was not able to find the penny of Brittany (Thompson no. 1976), reported as an issue of Duke John I (1237–1286), Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 356; Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 27, no. 73. Omitted from my list are also coins of Latin states dating earlier than 1200, that is to say seven coppers of Norman Sicily, three coppers of Antioch, one penny of Tripoli, and two pennies of Lucca. The one category of finds which has not been given due attention is that of counterfeit torneselli, although the North

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

935

Slope material gives a general impression of this phenomenon in the area (see «239»). Byzantine and Byzantine-style coins from the Agora Excavations, even those post-dating 1200, were not systematically approached for this study. Hoards «17» and «178» serve to illustrate the potential as well as the associated problems, since these thirteenth- and fourteenth-century coins were originally attributed to Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180). Because access to coins is only possible via the pertinent coin cards, a full appreciation of Byzantine-style coinage of the period after 1200 would entail working through thousands of coins and their cards for the Komnenian period. It is somewhat easier to isolate billon trachea amongst this material, and such coins are also almost certainly of post-1200 dating, if not in production itself, then at any rate in loss. I was able to see the following trachea: Isaac II (1185–1195) (1); Alexios III (1195–1203) (1); Faithful Copies type C (2); Latin Imitative Constantinople large module type C (1); small module types A (11); B (1); C (1); F (1); G (2); uncertain (1); Theodore Komnenos Doukas at Thessalonike (1224–1230) DOC IV, no. 4, type A (3); DOC IV, no. 10, type G (1); and Manuel Komnenos Doukas at Thessalonike (1230–1237) DOC IV, no. 4, type B (1). There is also one crude counterfeit hyperpyron of the type of John III Vatatzes, and a copper issue Leo Gabalas (ca. 1235) at Rhodes, DOC IV, no. 1. Thompson pp. 75–76 mentions a few other late Byzantine coins which can either be dismissed as false attributions, as in the case of the two Palaiologan coins (nos. 1924–1925), or which remain unconfirmed for lack of access to the coins themselves. My preliminary enquiries dispel the myth that the Agora did not have early Latin Imitative trachea. The Athenian Agora also boasts a large number of counterfeit tetartera. No attempt has been made here to account for such issues for the site as a whole. For general impressions I refer to my analysis of section HH of the excavations, where 25% of all tetartera were found to be counterfeits (Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 301– 302), as well as to the experience from the adjacent North Slope (below, «239»). Bibliography: Shear, “Analytical Table of Coins”, p. 149; Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, pp. 74–82; Miles, The Islamic Coins, p. 22; Kleiner, Mediaeval and Modern Coins in the Athenian Agora, pp. 16–20; Walker, “Worn and corroded coins: their importance for the archaeologist”. Discussed further pp.: 74n442, 107, 112, 114, 116, 202, 204, 255, 328, 330, 331, 405, 413, 447, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 455, 1164, 1183, 1203, 1204n46, 1206, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1219, 1222, 1225n156, 1231, 1236, 1249, 1264, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1290, 1292, 1294, 1297, 1320, 1322, 1324, 1328, 1329, 1331, 1335n817, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1344, 1346, 1351, 1359, 1361, 1363, 1365, 1369, 1374, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1394, 1395, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1410, 1413, 1416, 1418, 1428, 1434, 1437, 1443, 1444, 1446, 1454n1304, 1462, 1466, 1472, 1477, 1480, 1481, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1488, 1502, 1509, 1608, 1609, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1628, 1629, 1642, 1643, 1648, 1649, 1654, 1655, 1670, 1671, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684,

936

appendix i

1685, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1734, 1735, 1736, 1737, 1744, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1770, 1771 Content Petty denomination issues 433 Principality of Achaïa 433 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 99 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 281 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 50 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 1 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, nos. 1–2 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 2 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 3 37 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, nos. 4 and 1 5 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. / 56

Lordship of Athens 56 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 34 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate 21 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 2, G 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1–2

215

Duchy of Athens 87 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 61 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate 26 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 4, shield 101 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 101 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 5, GVIOT 27 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 11 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 6, DVX.ACTñnAR / castle 16 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX.ACTñnAR / G

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

3

Lordship or duchy of Athens 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, types 1–7

1

Counterfeit petty denomination issue 1 Of Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI

3

Uncertain petty denomination issues

937

Deniers tournois 2 Abbey of Tours 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 6

Kingdom of France 6 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 6 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A

4

County of Provence 4 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 4 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6 Principality of Achaïa 16 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–22 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain

77

938

appendix i

9 7 2 8 14

10

1 3

6

1 49

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PS uncertain Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LB uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB uncertain John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA or Γ Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa

Duchy of Athens 7 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

7

8

24

2

1 16

939

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 16 Uncertain GVI.DVX Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b 1 DVX ATeNeS / ThñBAü CIVIS, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 275, type A6 Uncertain denier tournois of Athens

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 16 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2ai–ii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii–iii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi–ii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2b uncertain

2

Despot in Epiros at Arta 2 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOAvar1 1 IOΓvar2

1

Lordship of Tinos 1 George I Ghisi (1303–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.29

940 1

appendix i

Lordship of Salona 1 Thomas (III) of Autrementcourt (1294–1311) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.13

31

Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 23 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 10 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVIS 2 +GVIDVXATENE / +ThEBANICIV 4 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVS 1 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIS 6 Uncertain legend 3 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d 3 +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA 5 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, vars. c or d

52

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 1 Of William of Villehardouin 4 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 Of Philip of Savoy 3 Of Philip of Taranto/ Achaïa 1 Of Philip of Savoy or Philip of Taranto/ Achaïa 10 Of Achaïa 1 Of Athens, obv. legend G.DVX 15 Of Athens, obv. legend GVI.DVX 3 Of Athens 5 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos 1 Of John II Orsini / Arta 7 Of uncertain prototype

104

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of crude style and meaningless legends

21

County of Campobasso 21 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

16

Uncertain deniers tournois

Petty denomination issues or deniers tournois 13 Uncertain issuing authorities Quartaroli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Grossi 5 Republic of Venice 2 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) 1 Uncertain doge Soldini 21 Republic of Venice 15 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 2 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Uncertain doge Torneselli 476 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 3 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 8 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 22 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 135 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 13 Michele Morosini (1382) 228 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 36 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 9 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 21 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) 78

Uncertain doges or counterfeits

Pennies 1 Order of St. John at Rhodes 1 Anonymous 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. X.3 1

Republic of Florence 1 CNI XII, p. 19, no. 104, pl. XV.20, after 1315

941

942

appendix i

Quattrini 2 Republic of Ancona 1 CNI XIII, p. 33, nos. 58 and 61 1 CNI XIII, pp. 32–35 var Copper tank 1 Kingdom of Armenia 1 Hetoum I (1226–1271) 1 Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia, no. 1360 Gigliato 1 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 1 Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1a, ROBERTVS, no obv. sign Akče 1

Ottoman Empire 1 Mehmet I (1413–1421) 1 mint of Edirne

Cavalli 6 Kingdom of Naples 1 Charles VIII of France (1495–1496) 1 Chieti, MEC, nos. 1048–1053 5 Frederick III (1496–1501) 5 Naples, MEC, nos. 1066–1072 4.239 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The coins were excavated by the ASCSA on the North Slope, that is to say the area between the Akropolis and the Athenian Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athenian Agora Museum. Summary of content: 27 tetartera; 65 petty denomination issues; 91 deniers tournois; 195 torneselli; one denar; one aspron; one half grosso or basilikon/ keration. Counterfeits; Achaïa; Athens; Tours; France; Provence; Naupaktos; Campobasso; Venice; Hungary; Chios; Lesbos. Note: The excavations were conducted by a team from the Athenian Agora. The coins were identified by the Agora numismatist Alan Walker, and are still preserved at the site museum. The list presented here is based on Walker’s original,

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

943

unpublished typescript, and on certain verifications I undertook myself. It provides an accurate picture of the main Latin coinages and their counterfeits, of some rarer issues (those of Lesbos and Chios), and of counterfeit tetartera, but is not altogether exhaustive and certainly neglects other Byzantine-style coinages which would have been found during the same excavations (for instance the early-thirteenth-century Imitative issues). The last twelfth-century Byzantine emperor to be represented is Isaac II (1185–1195), with three tetartera. The Hungarian denar which has been included in the list is heavily worn and broken, and its attribution is not entirely secure. Bibliography: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 82. Discussed further pp.: 112, 114, 116, 202, 204, 255, 328, 330, 331, 405, 412n1045, 413, 447, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 935, 1203, 1275, 1285, 1287, 1292, 1324, 1328, 1329, 1331, 1347, 1349, 1350, 1359, 1361, 1363, 1365, 1366, 1369, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1394, 1395, 1404, 1416, 1418, 1428, 1446, 1477, 1480, 1481, 1483, 1484, 1488, 1608, 1609, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1672, 1673, 1680, 1681, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1690, 1691, 1696, 1697, 1702, 1703, 1718, 1719, 1720, 1721, 1722, 1723, 1730, 1731, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1762, 1763, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769 Content Tetartera 27 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 20 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 3 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 4 Of uncertain or undefined prototype Petty denomination issues 34 Principality of Achaïa 34 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 19 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 9 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 7

Lordship of Athens 7 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 2, G

944 24

appendix i

Duchy of Athens 11 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 4, shield 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 5, GVIOT 4 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 6, DVX.ACTñnAR / castle 6 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX.ACTñnAR / G

Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1

Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A

1

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS

14

Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV21 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1 1 4

1

Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2–3 Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa

9

Duchy of Athens 5 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3 Uncertain GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain denier tournois of Athens

3

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 3 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2b uncertain

10 8

945

County of Campobasso 10 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467) Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 8 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c

11

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 1 Of Florent of Hainaut 9 Of Athens, obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Of William of Villehardouin/ Campobasso

33

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of crude style and meaningless legends

1

Company of the Maona (Giustiniani) at Chios 1 Anonymous 1 Mazarakis, “Chio”, p. 897, period 1428/1458–1479

946

appendix i

Torneselli 161 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 3 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 11 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 29 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 50 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 14 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 4 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 1 Christoforo Moro (1462–1471) 47 Uncertain doges 34

Counterfeit torneselli

Denar 1 Kingdom of Hungary 1 Louis I of Anjou (1342–1382) Aspron 1 Lordship of Lesbos 1 Anonymous 1 Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio, p. 422, Myt.III.A3 Half grosso or half basilikon/keration 1 Lordship of Chios 1 Martin and Benedict II Zaccaria (1314–1319/1324)? 1 Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, p. 182; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 48, var The coin displays some significant differences to this type: on the obv. the large cross patty is bolder with angulated extremities. The obv. and rev. legends also do not quite fit those of the indicated type, although the beginning of the obv. appears to read MA followed by the characteristic Z.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

947

4.240 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The coins were found by Konstantinos Lagos at the campus of Athens University and at other locations in Athens (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue of Athens; one denier tournois counterfeit of the Catalan Company. Bibliography: AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 75, and personal comments by the finder. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 453, 1359, 1481 4.241 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Academy of Plato (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Amongst others, Byzantine and Frankish coins. Bibliography: BCH, 59 (1935), NM, p. 243; AD, 27 (1972), NM, p. 5; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(3) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451 4.242 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Roman Agora The coins were found during the 1891 excavations of the Archaeological Society in the Lytsika and Azape plot of old Athens, in an area which is now known to contain the Roman Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain, though very probably some of the medieval coins mentioned under «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A» – the Achaïan petty denomination issue (Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9), the Neapolitan gigliato (Baker, “Casálbore”, group 1a), the Chiot half grosso or half basilikon/ keration (of Martin and Benedict II Zaccaria, 1314–1319/1324: Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.30), the tornesello – were single finds. In addition to these, numerous other single finds were made which remain unstudied and unpublished. Note: The two hoards from the Lytsika plot of old Athens will be the subject of a forthcoming study, which will however not be dealing with the single pieces from the same excavations. Bibliography: PAE (1893), pp. 7–11; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 253, n. 27; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 299, n. 42 and p. 320, no. 2(18) and passim; Baker and Galani-Krikou,

948

appendix i

“Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 414, no. 17; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 453, 454, 456, 1347, 1349, 1365, 1502, 1680, 1681, 1770, 1771 4.243 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Roman Agora (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Amongst others, six Byzantine coins of the Komnenian period (1931) and eight Byzantine, Frankish and Venetian coins (1947–48). Bibliography: BCH, 55 (1931), NM, pp. 454–5; BCH, 71–72 (1947–48), NM, p. 392; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(11) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 453, 456 4.244 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Adrianou Street, 117, in the Plaka district, outside of the medieval walls (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, BE 454. Summary of content: Amongst others, one denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: AD, 37 (1982), NM, p. 1; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(12) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4.245 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Herodus Atticus Theatre (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 100 coins of all ages. Bibliography: BCH, 81 (1957), NM, p. 498; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(2) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 454 4.246 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. These coins were excavated in the Library of Hadrian (Map 3).

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

949

Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum and 1st EPKA. Summary of content: Medieval coins and one tornesello of Marco Corner (1365–1368). Bibliography: AD, 29 (1973–1974), NM, p. 11; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(4) and passim; AD, 55 (2000), B’1, NM, pp. 30–31. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 456, 1328 4.247 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Akropolis (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, BE 312. Summary of content: Amongst others, seven completely defaced ancient, Byzantine, and medieval coins. One tornesello of Venice is described. Bibliography: AD, 29 (1973–1974), NM, pp. 11 and 14; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(4) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 456, 1328 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4.248 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, eastern slopes of the Akropolis (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, BE 438. Summary of content: Amongst others, one denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: AD, 36 (1981), NM, p. 2; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(5) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 454, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4.249 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Psarides plot, in an unspecified area of the town (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, BE 145.

950

appendix i

Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: AD, 24 (1969), NM, p. 7; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(6) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4.250 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The coins were found in a plot between Mironos and Thrasyllos Streets, in the Plaka area, immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of the Theatre of Dionysos and the Akropolis rock (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Amongst others, one unspecified Venetian coin. Bibliography: AD, 25 (1970), NM, p. 10; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(7) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 447, 450, 451, 456 4.251 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens, Kerameikos excavations (Map 3). Present status: Oberlaender Museum, Kerameikos archaeological site. Summary of content: Two petty denomination coins of Athens and Achaïa. Note: Virtually no medieval coins from this site have been published, and I have been able to ascertain from the responsible German Archaeological Institute that only one additional coin to that listed by Touratsoglou has been preserved from the excavations at the site. This is of some interest, given the site’s proximity to the medieval centre of Athens, and its size. No doubt the rapid method of excavation in the nineteenth century must be held responsible for this, although this statistic will also be a reflection of medieval developments themselves. In addition to the coins listed below, only three tetartera of the Komnenian period were recorded. Bibliography: Touratsoglou, “Münzen”, p. 228, and personal observations; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 2(8) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 204, 447, 450, 452, 453, 454, 456, 1359, 1365

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

951

Content Petty denomination issues 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 4, shield or type 5, GVIOT

4.252 Athens Findspot: Mainland Greece, Athens. The coins were excavated in Leophoros Olgas, which runs between the Zappeion Park and the Temple of Olympian Zeus (Map 3). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two petty denomination coins of Achaïa; one further uncertain Frankish coin, not listed below. Bibliography: Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων, p. 38. Discussed further pp.: 204, 447, 453, 456, 1365 Content Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 4.253 Ballsh Findspot: Albania, Fier county, Mallakastër district. The coins were excavated in the church of St. Mary in the town of Ballsh (medieval Glavinitza) (Map 1). Present status: Not disclosed. Summary of content: Amongst other unspecified medieval coins, two grossi of Venice and one billon trachy of Manfred of Hohenstaufen. Bibliography: Muçaj and Hobdari, “Manastiri i Shën Mërisë, Ballsh (Glavinicë)”, pp. 206 and 209; Lafe, “Archaeology in Albania”, p. 129. Discussed further pp.: 81n513, 106n143, 331, 471, 475, 1297, 1299, 1353, 1356

952

appendix i

Content Billon trachy 1 Lord of Romania 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258/1259–1266) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25 Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) 1 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 4.254 Berat Findspot: Albania, Berat county and district. The coins were unearthed in the fortress of the town (Map 1). Present status: Not disclosed. Summary of content: The publication lists 21 billon trachea from Alexios I to Andronikos II, one denier tournois, and one grosso. Most of these are illustrated, though not in a fashion which permits verification of the attributions with any degree of confidence. One billon trachy of Michael VIII, three billon trachea of Andronikos II, and two western-style coins are listed here since their attributions seem clear. These coins are, in the order of my presentation: Spahiu, no. 22, pl. LXVIII.7; no. 23, pl. LXVIII.8; and no. 16, pl. LXVII.8, read here as obv. St. Michael, though the overall aspect of the depicted coin looks most like the St. George / enthroned emperor combination of DOC V, nos. 165–168; no. 20, pl. LXVIII.5; no. 19, pl. LXVIII.4; and no. 21, pl. LXVIII.6. Additionally, the following coins might be identified, though with lesser degrees of certainty: two small module Latin Imitative issues of the early thirteenth century (Spahiu, nos. 6 and 13, illustrated by her as pls. LXVI.7 and LXVII.6); three early-thirteenth-century large module billon trachy issues of the empires at Nicaea or Thessalonike (nos. 10, 11, 18, pls. LXVII.4, 3, LXVIII.3); and one small module billon trachy issue of John Komnenos Doukas for Thessalonike (no. 17, pl. LXVII.7). One supposed large module western-style issue, and one of Michael VIII, are not illustrated (Spahiu, nos. 14 and 15). Bibliography: Spahiu, Qyteti Iliro-Arberor i Beratit, pp. 185–190, nos. 1–23, plates LXVI–LXVIII. Discussed further pp.: 81n511, 106n143, 123, 203, 205, 206, 255, 331, 332, 338, 471, 474, 1211, 1222, 1231n191, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1243, 1245, 1297, 1299, 1377, 1404

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

953

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis “Εlis”, PSB-Γ Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) Billon trachea 4 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 165–168; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C17 1 Andronikos II Palaiologos alone (1282–1294) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 575–576 2 Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 721–728 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 740–742 4.255 Bozika Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. The village of Bozika lies inland, to the southwest of Kiato, close to the site of Ancient Titani (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One denier tournois, one tornesello, and one uncertain later medieval coin (not listed here below). Bibliography: AD, 22 (1967), NM, p. 9. Discussed further pp.: 426, 444, 446, 1328, 1377, 1391 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400)

954

appendix i

4.256 Butrint Findspot: Albania, Sarandë district, archaeological site of Butrint (Map 1). Present status: Butrint Museum; Archaeological Institute, Tirana; dispersed. Summary of content: Two unspecified deniers tournois (not listed below); one soldino of Antonio Venier. Note: The coins assembled here are those which are known from the older bibliography. The more recent finds are presented in the next entry. In addition to the three western-style coins, three twelfth-century billon trachea were reported, one of Manuel I and two of Isaac II. Bibliography: Cesano, “Monetazione e circolazione sul suolo dell’antica Albania”; Ugolini, Butrinto, p. 175; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 202. Discussed further pp.: 108, 123, 206, 471, 475, 1320 Content Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4.257 Butrint Findspot: Albania, Sarandë district, archaeological site of Butrint. The coins were excavated in recent campaigns in the Triconch Palace and in the Diaporit area to the southeast of Lake Butrint (Map 1). Present status: Butrint Museum. Summary of content: Triconch Palace: one billon trachy and seven deniers tournois; Diaporit: four deniers tournois. Additionally some information on billon trachea for the town as a whole is available (see below). Byzantium; Achaïa; Athens; Naupaktos; Arta. Note: The Byzantine coin and one denier tournois from the Triconch Palace are known from Guest et al. The identification of the single trachy from this location was communicated to me by Pagona Papadopoulou, whom I thank. With regard to Diaporit, information on the deniers tournois is again owed to Papadopoulou, who will publish the remainder of the Byzantine and medieval materials from this location and for the site as a whole. Papadopoulou’s publication of a billon trachy hoard from the town was appended with a table charting also the single finds of late twelfth and early thirteenth century trachea: there are three specimens from the Angeloi emperors (1185–1204) and ten from the successor states. Bibliography: Guest et al., “The Small Finds and Coins”, pp. 301 and 304; Papadopoulou, “Butrint2”, p. 1236 Discussed further pp.: 123, 206, 255, 331, 338, 419, 471, 475, 1243, 1245, 1330n788, 1377, 1404, 1408, 1428, 1446, 1466

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

955

Content Triconch Palace Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) Deniers tournois 3 Duchy of Athens 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 2 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

Uncertain denier tournois

Diaporit Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

4.258 Byllis Findspot: Albania, Fier county, Mallakastër district; archaeological site 5km south of the town of Ballsh (medieval Glavinitza). Byllis itself was known in medieval times as Graditzion (Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 24–25) (Map 1).

956

appendix i

Present status: Not disclosed Summary of content: Among other Byzantine finds and five grossi of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1333/1346–1355), one denier tournois. Note: These coins were communicated to me by Prof. Muçaj, who will publish them. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 106n143, 338, 471, 475, 1302, 1303n606, 1330n788, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4.259 Chalkida Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia, town of Chalkida. The four coins were excavated in 2007 in Orionos Street, 10, just outside the old town walls of Negroponte (Map 1). Present status: Chalkida storage of 23rd EBA. Summary of content: Four billon trachea. Latin Imitatives and Byzantine Empire at Nicaea. Note: I was able to see these coins thanks to the kindness of Nikos Kontogiannis. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 108, 255, 447, 466, 1222, 1233, 1235, 1295n555 Content Billon trachea 2 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 Uncertain type 2

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 1 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 1 DOC IV, no. 8, type D 1 Uncertain emperor

4.260 Chelidoni Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The village of Chelidoni lies in the central part of the modern nomos, a few km north of Olympia (Map 1).

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

957

Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One denier tournois. Naupaktos. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 278. Discussed further pp.: 419n1062, 426, 444, 1446 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 4.261 Chloumoutzi Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The coins were excavated at Chloumoutzi castle, in the village of Kastro, in the western part of the nomos (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One billon trachy, one denier tournois, one soldino, seven torneselli. Latin Empire; Achaïa; Venice; Counterfeits. Additionally, one twelfth-century tetarteron, and two further uncertain trachea or tetartera were found during these excavations. Note: This material is discussed in greater detail in the cited publication. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 278–279. Discussed further pp.: 203, 216, 426, 433, 444, 446, 1202, 1222, 1320, 1322, 1328, 1330, 1377, 1670, 1671 Content Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, nos. 1 or 30, Constantinople large module type A or small module type A Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Uncertain prince Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339)

958

appendix i

Torneselli 5 Republic of Venice 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 2 Uncertain doge 2

Counterfeit torneselli

4.262 Clarentza Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, archaeological site of Clarentza near the modern town of Kyllini. The coins were excavated in different areas of the site, or reached the NM through local confiscations (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum, and 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: 88 deniers tournois, six petty denomination issues, seven soldini, 63 torneselli, one pul/follaro, one penny, one gigliato, two cartzias. Achaïa; Athens; Naupaktos; Counterfeits; Venice; Golden Horde; Sicily (Naples); Cyprus. Note: The finds listed here were presented in their original publication in three different appendices: one group of coins derived from a single dump, the content of which was abandoned in 1407. Other coins were excavated recently at diverse locations, while a few pieces came from more ancient stock. For more information on this material one needs to consult there Athanasoulis and Baker. Neither the pre-1200 material, nor the two medieval counters, have been transcribed from the publication. Bibliography: AD, 33 (1978), NM, p. 1; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 273–277, Appendices I.2, I.3, I.4; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 469, n. 38. Discussed further pp.: 80n494, 106, 112, 114, 116, 153n284, 206, 216, 331, 405, 419n1062, 426, 441, 1320, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1328, 1330, 1331, 1337, 1343, 1344, 1346, 1359, 1360n957, 1363, 1365, 1367, 1373, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1404, 1408, 1418, 1428, 1446, 1484, 1487, 1502, 1660, 1661, 1664, 1665, 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670, 1671, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1690, 1691, 1698, 1699, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1764, 1765, 1770, 1771 Content Deniers tournois 15 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1 4

1 2 2 1

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA-Γ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB-Γ Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) or Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa

5

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain

67

Counterfeit deniers tournois of crude style

Petty denomination issues 4 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 12, Clarentza 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 13

959

960 2

appendix i

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7a, Y or DVX.ACTENAR

Soldini 6 Republic of Venice 3 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 2 Uncertain doges 1

Counterfeit soldino

Torneselli 55 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 2 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 16 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 14 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 3 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 17 Uncertain doge 8

Counterfeit torneselli

Pul/ follaro 1 Golden Horde Penny 1 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1266–1285) 1 MEC, no. 660

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

961

Gigliato 1 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) 1 Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 1b, ROBERTVS, obv. fleur-de-lis Cartzias 2 Kingdom of Cyprus 1 James I (1382–1398) or Janus (1398–1432) 1 Uncertain king 4.263 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds are from the ‘Central Area’, excavated during the 1896–1914 seasons (Map 2). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 101 billon trachea; one hyperpyron; 55 petty denomination issues; 45 deniers tournois; two pennies; two torneselli. Faithful Copies; Latin Empire; Byzantine Empire; Achaïa; Tours; France; Provence; Athens; Catalan Company; Counterfeits; England; Sicily; Venice. In addition to the coins listed here, the following were counted amongst this material: tetartera of Alexios I (140); John II (23); Manuel I (374); Andronikos I (17); Isaac II (15); Alexios III (1), and of uncertain issuers or counterfeits (112), some of which dating to the thirteenth century. Further, one billon trachy each of John II, Manuel I, Alexios III; one hyperpyron of Alexios I; and one follaro of Roger Borsa, Duke of Apulia (1085–1111). Note: The coins from the early excavations of the ASCSA at Corinth were transferred to the NM, where they remain to the present day. I was able to view this material in its entirety. The coins are included in Edwards’ monograph. The «43. Corinth 1898» hoard has been separated from this material, Bibliography: Edwards, Coins 1896–1929. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 74n441, 107, 112, 114,116, 160n339, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 453, 965, 1203, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225n156, 1227, 1236, 1243, 1258, 1260, 1263, 1278, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1292, 1328, 1330, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1365, 1368, 1373, 1378, 1385, 1391, 1395, 1404, 1408, 1428, 1446, 1481, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1487 Content Billon trachea 3 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 2 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B

962

appendix i

83

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 2, Constantinople large module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 3 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 27 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 5 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 4 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 3 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 1 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 34 Uncertain small module type

3

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 38.6–7 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 39.10–11 1 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 42.1–2

1

Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 162–164; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, UT3

11

Uncertain Billon Trachea

Hyperpyron 1 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea or Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 In the name of John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) Petty denomination issues 55 Principality of Achaïa 55 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 31 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 23 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 12, Clarentza

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 6

Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

4

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

1

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

1

Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1

17

County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS Principality of Achaïa 10 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202–203 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5

963

964

appendix i

1 2

Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PS uncertain Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PT uncertain

9

Duchy of Athens 5 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

1

Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d + GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA

1

Counterfeit denier tournois, of good quality 1 Of Achaïa

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of crude style and meaningless legends

6

Uncertain deniers tournois

Pennies 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7a–7b, 1217–ca. 1236, London/Ilger North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 978–979

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1

965

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1197–1250) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 31; MEC, nos. 549–551

Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Uncertain doges 4.264 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds are from the ‘Central Area’, excavated during the 1925 season (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 13 billon trachea; 41 petty denomination issues; 23 deniers tournois; three pennies; three torneselli. Faithful Copies; Latin Empire; Achaïa; Tours; France; Athens; Counterfeits; England; Venice. Note: The 1925 excavations produced such considerable quantities of coins that Bellinger decided to present this season alone in a separate monograph. I was able to verify this material, which is also included in Edwards’ Corinth volume, though I omitted counterfeit tetartera. Hoard «53. Corinth 15 June 1925» featured amongst these coin finds, as did the first published specimen of the Achaïan petty denomination issue of Philip of Savoy, although it remained unnoticed by scholarship (see Zervos’ comments). Edwards’ Corinth volume, comprising the excavation seasons 1896–1929, is partially covered by my entries «263», «264», «271», and by hoards «43», «53», «56», «76». Other coins from the same seasons have not been entered in this appendix, suffice it to say that the overall statistics are no different to my other lists from the ‘Central Area’: the Achaïan series of deniers tournois peters out with Philip of Taranto, and one of the two coins assigned to John of Gravina is a counterfeit from the Kraneion basilica (see «271»). Some of the thirteenthcentury billon trachea and western-style pennies (Verona, Châteaudun) are discussed in Appendix II.5. Bibliography: Bellinger, Corinth; Edwards, Coins 1896–1929; Zervos, “Obols of Philip of Savoy”; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 248, n. 28. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 74n441, 107, 112, 114, 116, 160n339, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 436, 965, 1203, 1212, 1222, 1227, 1278, 1279, 1283n512, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1293, 1328, 1335n817, 1336n819, 1337n824, 1365, 1368, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1395, 1408, 1428, 1483, 1484, 1486

966

appendix i

Content Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 12

Latin Empire 1204–1261 5 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 3 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 4 Uncertain small module type

Petty denomination issues 41 Principality of Achaïa 40 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 25 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 15 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 2 13 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. ? 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 13 Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 5

Kingdom of France 2 Philip II (1180–1223) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

3

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

1

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

7

Principality of Achaïa 4 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV221 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222–223 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA

5

Duchy of Athens 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

5

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 1 Of Louis VIII or IX / France 1 Of William of Villehardouin 1 Of Florent of Hainaut 2 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos

967

Pennies 3 Kingdom of England 1 John (1199–1216) or Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 6x, 1215–1216, Canterbury/John North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 976/4 2 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Long Cross class 2b–3c, 1248, Rener/York North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 985/2–988

968

appendix i

1

Long Cross class 3, 1248, uncertain moneyer and mint North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 986–988

Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1

Counterfeit tornesello

4.265 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds listed here were excavated in 1925–1926 in the Theater, which is considered part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 24 billon trachea; 13 petty denomination issues; 22 deniers tournois; three torneselli; one penny. Latin Empire; Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike; Achaïa; Counterfeits; France; Poitou; Athens; Venice; Melgueil. In addition to the coins listed below, MacIsaac published 216 tetartera of Manuel I, four of Andronikos I, 60 of uncertain issuers (some no doubt counterfeits), and seven counterfeits of Alexios I’ Jewelled Cross type (which must be dated to the twelfth century), and one billon trachy of Alexios III. There were also twelfth/thirteenth-century pennies and obols of Lucca, Champagne, Maguelone and Valence (see Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 18: the issues of Valence at present in the Latin East would appear to be twelfth rather than thirteenth century in date), and coppers of Norman Apulia and Antioch, and of Seljuq Syria. Note: T.L. Shear excavated in the Theater during the 1925–1930 seasons. The coins obtained in 1925–1926 have been treated in one article by MacIsaac, while other seasons are said to be forthcoming. I have not seen these coins and merely reproduce MacIsaac’s list. It should be noted that MacIsaac did not consider the problem of counterfeit tetartera in the name of Manuel I in this study, as he did later for the Nemean material (see «334»). Williams, “Frankish Corinth: an Overview”, p. 425, n. 6, uses the coin statistics from these excavations to support his view of a downturn in the transition from the twelfth to the thirteenth centuries, though the evidence is to my mind not particularly compelling. Bibliography: MacIsaac, “Corinth”. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 107, 160n339, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 430, 432, 433, 434, 436, 1203, 1205, 1211, 1222, 1227, 1231, 1236, 1287, 1290, 1328, 1335n817, 1336, 1338, 1344n866, 1350, 1365, 1368, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1399, 1404, 1418, 1428, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1630, 1631, 1676, 1677

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

969

Content Billon trachea 23 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 14, Constantinople large module type N 4 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 5 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C 5 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 2 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 2 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 1 Uncertain small module type 1

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Demetrios Komnenos Doukas (1244–1246) 1 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, pl. 41.20–21

Petty denomination issues 12 Principality of Achaïa 12 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI, small module 1

Counterfeit petty denomination issue 1 Of Achaïa, Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head

Deniers tournois 4 Kingdom of France 3 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Philip IV (1285–1314) 1

County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

970

appendix i

7

Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa

8

Duchy of Athens 5 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain deniers tournois of Athens Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 2 Of Achaïa

2

Torneselli 3 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) Penny 1 County of Melgueil 1 Anonymous twelfth/thirteenth century 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 397 4.266 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds are from the ‘Central Area’, excavated during the seasons 1930–1935 (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 13 billon trachea; 276 petty denomination issues; 204 deniers tournois; ten pennies; one quattrino; one copper tank; one grosso; one

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

971

quartarolo; 22 torneselli. Byzantine Empire at Nicaea; Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike; Byzantium; Achaïa; Tours; France; Provence; Athens; Naupaktos; Arta; Counterfeits; Catalan Company; England; Champagne; Sicily (Naples); Ancona; Armenia; Venice. In addition to the coins which are here listed, there were also eleventh and twelfth-century pennies and obols of Lucca (1); Tripoli (1); Le Puy (1); Poitou (2); Limoges (1) (perhaps to 1245: Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 216); Anjou (1); Valence (2) (see Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 18: the issues of Valence in the Latin East appear to be twelfth century in date); and twelfth-century coppers of Sicily (3); Antioch (4); Edessa (1); Seljuq Syria (2), and one overstruck by a Byzantine-style issue: Zervos, “Late Byzantine Copper”. See also the Note on other Byzantine-style issues. Note: The material presented here corresponds to Edwards’ article of 1937, although it has been reviewed by me in its entirety. Omitted are the «217. Corinth 31 May 1932» hoard, the grave find «217. Corinth 31 May 1932», and single finds from the following locations outside the ‘Central Area’: «271» and «277». I have also made no attempt to look at tetartera and counterfeit tetartera, and have omitted Faithful Copy billon trachea, and those of the Latin Empire. Issues of the Empires at Nicaea and Thessalonike, and of the restored Palaiologan Empire, have by contrast been studied in their entireties and are included. I have not systematically studied the stray finds from the subsequent excavation seasons 1936–1939 (see Harris, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939”), and a separate heading has not been created for this material in this appendix, with the exception of the two hoards «57» and «212». The great bulk of these coins emanate also from the ‘Central Area’, and their overall spread is very similar to my other entries covering this part of the excavation, perhaps with the mid-fourteenth-century gap slightly less pronounced, with two specimens of Mahaut for Achaïa, a tournois of Arta, and the beginning of the Venetian tornesello series with Doge Marco Corner (1365–1368). A number of thirteenth-century billon trachea and some westernstyle pennies from the 1936–1939 excavations are also referred to in my discussions in Appendices II.1 and 5. Bibliography: Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1930–1935”; Zervos, “Rare and unpublished late Byzantine coppers”; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 246, n. 28. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 107, 160n339, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 433, 434, 435, 436, 1233, 1236, 1243, 1278, 1279, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1290, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1297, 1328, 1335n817, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1344, 1350, 1365, 1366, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1394, 1395, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1410, 1415, 1428, 1446, 1466, 1472, 1481, 1483, 1484, 1487, 1630n631, 1632, 1633, 1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731

972

appendix i

Content Billon trachea 6 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 6 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 6 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10 5

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 37.7–9 3 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 2 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 39.3 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 39.7 1 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type C, pl. 42.5–6

2

Byzantine Empire after 1261 2 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 144–146; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T3 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 155–158; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T6 1 Michael VIII and Andronikos II Palaiologoi (1272–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 216–218

Petty denomination issues 276 Principality of Achaïa 276 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 173 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä, small module 97 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Deniers tournois 9 Abbey of Tours 9 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

27

973

Kingdom of France 3 Philip II (1180–1223) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

18

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 12 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

3

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

3

6

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A Louis IX (1226–1270) 6 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

6

County of Provence 6 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 6 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS

2

Marquisat of Provence 2 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

93

Principality of Achaïa 53 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV101 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV102 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 13 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV122 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211

974

appendix i

10 5

5

10

5

4 1 23

5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 2 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA

Duchy of Athens 12 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Uncertain G.DVX 6 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

4

1

12

975

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 12 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 2 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOAvar3

4

Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 4 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 2 +GVIDVXATENES / +ThEBANICIVIS 2 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIVS

19

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 1 Of William of Villehardouin 2 Of Charles I or II of Anjou 1 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin 2 Of Philip of Savoy 2 Of Philip of Taranto / Achaïa 1 Of Achaïa 1 Of Athens 8 Of Philip of Taranto / Naupaktos 1 Of Louis VIII and / or IX / France

7

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of crude style and meaningless legends

1

Uncertain denier tournois

976

appendix i

Pennies 6 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II (1154–1189) – Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class uncertain, 1180–1247, uncertain/ uncertain 2 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5c, 1207–1210, London/Walter North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 971 1 Short Cross class 6b2, 1213–1215, London/Walter North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 975/2 3 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, Canterbury/ uncertain North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 1 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, uncertain/ uncertain North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979 1 Long Cross class 5a–b, 1256, Canterbury/Gilbert North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 991–992 1

County of Champagne 1 Thibaut III and/or Thibaut IV (1197–1253), minted until 1224 1 Travaini, “Provisini di Champagne”, p. 228

3

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258–1266) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 70 2 Charles I of Anjou (1266–1285) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 98 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 107

Quattrino 1 Republic of Ancona 1 CNI XIII, p. 33, nos. 58 and 61

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

977

Copper tank 1 Kingdom of Armenia 1 Hetoum I (1226–1271) 1 Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia, nos. 1294–1364 Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) Quartarolo 1 Republic of Venice 1 Lorenzo Tiepolo (1268–1275) Torneselli 22 Republic of Venice 4 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 6 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 2 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 6 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) 4 Uncertain doges 4.267 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds are from the ‘Central Area’, excavated during the 1940–1988 seasons (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 136 billon trachea; 232 petty denomination issues; 141 deniers tournois; three pennies; one quattrino; two grossi; 23 torneselli. Faithful Copies; Byzantium; Byzantine Empire at Nicaea; Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike; Achaïa; Athens; Counterfeits; Tours; France; Provence; Naupaktos; Catalan Company; Campobasso; England; Ancona; Venice. In addition to the coins listed here, these excavations also produced an eleventhcentury penny of Normandy and twelfth-century coppers of Sicily (1) and Antioch (3). See also the following Note on Byzantine-style issues. Note: I have included in this list all the material excavated between the last fully published season before World War II (see Harris, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the years 1936–1939” and my comments in the last entry) and the beginning of the excavations of the Frankish complex in 1989 (see the next entry). Excluded are a few coins already unearthed at the same complex in 1976, as well as single finds from locations outside of the ‘Central

978

appendix i

Area’ (see «270», «272», «273», «274», «275», «276», «278»), and the «37. Corinth 15–16 June 1960» hoard. I believe to be able to present a complete picture of all post-1200 billon trachea excavated in the ‘Central Area’ during 1940–1988, apart from one billon trachy of Alexios III which is not being listed here. I have made no attempt to study the twelfth- and thirteenth-century tetartera. Until 1939 the ASCSA excavated Ancient Corinth on an enormous scale and managed to produce a succession of useful coin lists. A last season in 1940, and some excavations in the later 1940s, were followed by an almost total halt in activities in the 1950s. Robinson’s campaigns from 1959, and particularly those of the early 1960s, managed in turn to produce a large number of relevant coins. Robinson published two longer excavation reports for 1959 and 1960, which also mention coins sporadically, whereas the subsequent seasons in the ‘Central Area’ are confined to brief summaries in AD (Robinson’s excavations in other parts of Ancient Corinth in the same years are the basis of entries «273»–«276» below). In 1965 the University of California excavated Frankish-period houses in the northwestern part of the ‘Central Area’ (see Anderson and the 1995 restudy of these materials). The great majority of the coins contained in the present entry were therefore unearthed between 1960 and 1965, and remained for all intents and purposes unpublished. This picture changed by the later 1960s: the first resident site numismatist, Joan Fisher, was appointed and produced very detailed annual coin reports (the first of which appearing in Hesperia for 1971). However, throughout the 1970s and 1980s the overall quantities of medieval coins were very low indeed. Another significant innovation of this period were the stratigraphic lists, which were appended to the coin reports from the 1975 season onwards. These form the basis of Appendix I.13. Bibliography: Robinson and Weinberg, “Corinth, 1959”; Robinson, “Corinth 1960”; Anderson, “Corinth: Temple E Northwest”; Williams and Fisher, “Corinth, 1970”; Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1971”; Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1972”; Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1974”; Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1975”; Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1976”; Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1977”; Zervos, “Coins Excavated at Corinth, 1978–1980”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1981”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1982”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1983”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1984”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1985”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1986”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1987”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1988”; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, pp. 34–36. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 79n477, 107 113, 115, 117, 160n339, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 472, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225, 1231, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1238, 1243, 1278, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1290, 1297, 1299n581, 1328, 1336, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1344n866, 1359, 1360n957, 1363, 1365, 1368, 1373, 1374, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1394, 1395, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1418, 1428, 1436, 1446, 1453, 1477, 1481, 1484, 1486, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1676, 1677, 1698, 1699, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1732, 1733, 1738, 1739, 1750, 1751

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

979

Content Billon trachea 4 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 3 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 111

Latin Empire 1204–1261 4 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 2, Constantinople large module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 11, Constantinople large module type K 1 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 3 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 60 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 14 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C 11 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 2 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 11 Uncertain small module type

11

Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 10 Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) 10 DOC IV, no. 5, type A; DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10 1 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 42, type H; DOS XII, type H, pl. 33.9

7

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 2 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 37.10–12 1 DOC IV, no. 7, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 38.3–4 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type C; DOS XII, type C, pl. 39.6 3 John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, series I, type D; DOS XII, series I, type D, pl. 40.4 1 DOC IV, no. 31, series III, type R 1 DOC IV, no. 35, series III, type V 1 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 42.1–2

980 3

appendix i

Byzantine Empire after 1261 2 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 46–51; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C1 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 186–190; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T16 1 Andronikos II and Michael IX Palaiologoi (1294–1320) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, nos. 600–603

Petty denomination issues 224 Principality of Achaïa 224 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 139 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 82 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 12, Clarentza 2

Lordship of Athens 2 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 2, G

5

Duchy of Athens 5 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 4, shield Counterfeit petty denomination issue 1 Of Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä

1

Deniers tournois 4 Abbey of Tours 4 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 17

Kingdom of France 4 Philip II (1180–1223) 4 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

9

981

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 5 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

4

4

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A Louis IX (1226–1270) 4 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

3

County of Provence 3 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 3 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

46

Principality of Achaïa 22 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV21 uncertain 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203

982

appendix i

5 4

1 2 2

19

Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Uncertain Philip of Savoy Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ

Duchy of Athens 9 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Uncertain G.DVX 7 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX

5

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 5 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2b uncertain

2

Counterfeits of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 2 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c 1 +GVIDVXATENS / +ThEBANICIS 1 Uncertain legend

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

983

4

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 1 Of Charles I or II of Anjou 2 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 Of Philip of Taranto / Achaïa

4

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of crude style and meaningless legends

1

County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

10

Uncertain deniers tournois

Pennies 3 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II (1154–1189) – Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class uncertain, 1180–1247, London/ uncertain 1 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, London/Willem North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b–c, 1222–ca. 1242, Canterbury/ Iohan Chic North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 979–980 Quattrino 1 Republic of Ancona 1 CNI XIII, p. 33, nos. 58 and 61 Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Contarini (1275–1280) 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289) Torneselli 23 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 11 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) 10 Uncertain doges

984

appendix i

4.268 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds are from the Frankish complex, excavated during the 1976 and 1989–1997 seasons. The complex is part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: 12 tetartera; 149 billon trachea; 165 petty denomination issues; one obol; 537 deniers tournois; four grossi; two double quartaroli; one soldino; 23 torneselli. Counterfeits; Faithful Copies; Latin Empire; Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike; Byzantium; Achaïa; Athens; France; Tours; Brittany; Provence; Poitou; Toulouse; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Karytaina; Sicily (Naples); Cyprus; Hungary; Arezzo; Déols; England; Venice; Serbia. In addition to the coins presented here, the excavations in this location unearthed 442 official tetartera and two official billon trachea of the period 1092–1204 (of which the following were identifiable: 53 + one of Alexios; 18 of John II; 244 + one of Manuel I; two of Andronikos; 16 of Isaac II), as well as nine counterfeit tetartera of Alexios I which must also be dated to before 1204. There were also two copper coins from Seljuq Syria dated AD 1085–1114, and other twelfthcentury Byzantine-style issues of Syrian or Trapezuntine origin: see Zervos, “Late Byzantine Copper”. Note: These coins have all been published in the various excavation reports, and only some of the information provided here relies on my own verifications. Some of the coins have been omitted from the present list as they were found in graves (see «218. Corinth»). All the other relevant coins from the period 1200–1500 have been included, so that the list is a representative sample of the coins of all traditions, Byzantine, Latin or otherwise. I have, however, omitted merchants’ tokens, which are treated systematically in a separate study by Saccocci and Vanni, “Tessere mercantile dei secc. XIII–XIV”: of the 22 Italian tokens excavated by the ASCSA at Corinth, more than half are from the Frankish complex itself, and none of the others are from outside the ‘Central Area’. The different Hesperia reports of Zervos should also be consulted for ulterior descriptions and photographs of some of the rarer issues, and for his comments on the state of preservation of a number of issues, particularly the concerted cancellation of a number of the coinages encountered at the complex. In this respect, see also Zervos, “Three unusual counterfeit Deniers Tournois” and Zervos, “Obols of Philip of Savoy”, for the pecking, cutting and bending of undesirable issues. Zervos’ stratigraphic coin lists for the complex have been reproduced in Appendix I.13. For the cancellation of coins in this period, see also Chapter 2, p. 171–173. Bibliography: Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1976”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”;

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

985

Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”; Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”; Williams and al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 246, n. 27. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 76n457, 79n477, 106, 107, 113, 115, 117, 160n339, 254n342, 345, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 453, 473, 1203, 1205, 1211, 1212, 1219, 1222, 1225, 1231, 1233, 1236, 1238, 1243, 1278, 1280, 1283n512, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1290, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1299, 1302, 1303, 1320, 1328, 1331, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1350, 1359, 1360n957, 1363, 1365, 1366, 1368, 1373, 1374, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1394, 1395, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1410, 1428, 1440, 1446, 1453, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1487, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1736, 1737, 1742, 1743 Content Tetartera 12 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 11 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 1 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ Billon trachea 7 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A 3 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 3 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 91

Latin Empire 1204–1261 3 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 4, Constantinople large module type D 1 DOC IV, no. 11, Constantinople large module type K 1 DOC IV, no. 15, Constantinople large module type O 2 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 25, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 42 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 12 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C 11 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 2 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 5 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F 4 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 2 DOC IV, nos. 35 or 36, small module types F or G 1 DOC IV, nos. 30 and 34, small module types A and F (mule)

986 41

appendix i

Uncertain Billon Trachea, Probably Latin Empire 1204–1261

5

Counterfeit Billon Trachea 2 Of Latin small module type A, Zervos, “Irregular copper coins of the early thirteenth century” 2 Of Latin small module type A, other 1 Large module, Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, pl. 9, no. 66

3

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 10, type G; DOS XII, type G, pl. 38.8–9 1 John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) 1 DOC IV, no. 18, series III, type E 1 John Komnenos Doukas (1237–1242/1244) or John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 Uncertain type

2

Byzantine Empire after 1261 2 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Constantinople?, DOC V, nos. 52–56; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C2 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4

Petty denomination issues 149 Principality of Achaïa 144 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 8, facing head 82 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä, small module 51 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 12, Clarentza 5 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 13

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

15

1 Obol 1

987

Duchy of Athens 10 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 4, shield 2 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 6, DVX.ACTñnAR / castle 3 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX.ACTñnAR / G Counterfeit petty denomination issue 1 Of Achaïa, Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Kingdom of France 1 Philip IV (1285–1314) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 224

Deniers tournois 8 Abbey of Tours 8 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 29

Kingdom of France 3 Philip II (1180–1223) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

21

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 5 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

6 10

5

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188

+TVRONV(I)S CIVI

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187–188; 193–193A Louis IX (1226–1270) 5 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

988

appendix i

1

Duchy of Brittany 1 In the name of Philip II (1206–1213) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 311

7

County of Provence 7 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 6 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3954 +K.FI.Rñ.F.COMESP. / +PROVINCIALIS

2

Marquisat of Provence 2 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

2

County of Poitou 2 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585

1

County of Toulouse 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3706

98

Principality of Achaïa 37 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV142 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV201 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

11 10

1 7

11

15

6

58

989

5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222–223 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–22 uncertain Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 11 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) or Charles I or II of Anjou (1278–1289) Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 2 Uncertain Florent of Hainaut Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 4 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 3 Uncertain Philip of Savoy Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ

Duchy of Athens 24 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 20 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104

990

appendix i

10 12

9

2

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 5 Uncertain GVI.DVX Uncertain deniers tournois of Athens

11

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 11 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1

1

Lordship of Karytaina 1 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

229

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 8 Of William of Villehardouin 2 Of Charles I or II of Anjou 1 Of Florent of Hainaut 38 Of Isabelle of Villehardouin 13 Of Philip of Savoy 1 Of Philip of Taranto / Achaïa 20 Of Achaïa

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

5 4 132 2 1 1 1 89

991

Of Athens, obv. legend G.DVX Of Athens, obv. legend GVI.DVX Of Philip of Taranto / Naupaktos Of Achaïa or Naupaktos Of Louis VIII and / or IX / France Of Philip II, Louis VIII and / or IX / France Of Achaïa / France

Uncertain deniers tournois, most probably counterfeits

Pennies 2 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258–1264) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 65 1 Charles I of Anjou (1266–1285) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 93 1

Kingdom of Jerusalem at Cyprus 1 Guy of Lusignan (1192–1194) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, no. 629

1

Kingdom of Hungary 1 Bela IV and Stephen (1235–1270) 1 Huszár, Ungarn, p. 40, no. 72 (with wrong date)

1

Rebublic of Arezzo 1 CNI XI, p. 5, no. 33, thirteenth – fourteenth century

1

Lordship of Déols 1 William I of Chauvigny (1207–1234) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 1963; Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 165, no. 683.

3

Kingdom of England 1 Richard (1189–1199) 1 Short Cross class 3, 1190–1194, Canterbury/Meinir North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 967 1 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, London/Ilger North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970

992

appendix i

1

Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b, 1222–ca. 1236, London/Gifre North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 979

Grossi 2 Counterfeit grossi 2 Kingdom of Serbia 2 Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321) 1 “De bandera”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 240, 3.1 1 “De cruce”, Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 241, 3.7 Double quartaroli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311) Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3 or 4 Torneselli 15 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 6 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) 2 Uncertain doges 8

Counterfeit torneselli

4.269 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds were excavated in 2007 in the Nezi field, south of the South Stoa, in a complex of the Byzantine and Frankish periods. It counts as part of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

993

Summary of content: Five tetartera; 12 billon trachea; 14 petty denomination issues; six deniers tournois. Counterfeits; Latin Empire; Achaïa; Tours; Athens. In addition to the listed coins, the excavations in 2007 yielded tetartera of the following emperors: Alexios I (8); John II (1); Manuel I (15); uncertain emperor (2). Note: This list is intended merely to give a preliminary taste of what is available from this complex, which has also yielded a great number of coins in 2008. All the coins listed were double-checked by me. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 107, 160n339, 202, 254n342, 360n957, 426, 429, 432, 433, 434, 483, 1203, 1222, 1233, 1285, 1365, 1377, 1391, 1399, 1428 Content Tetartera 5 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 4 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 1 Of uncertain or undefined prototype Billon trachea 11 Latin Empire 1204–1261 5 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 1 DOC IV, no. 32, small module type C 4 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 1 Counterfeit billon trachy 1 Of Latin small module type A Petty denomination issues 14 Principality of Achaïa 14 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS

994

appendix i

3

Principality of Achaïa 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin

2

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

4.270 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds were excavated in 1995– 2007 in the Panayia field, to the SE of the ‘Central Area’, at the location of the old village church and adjacent to the village school. A few coins have been added to this selection from Scranton’s excavation of 1947 (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: One tetarteron; five billon trachea; one hyperpyron; six petty denomination issues; five deniers tournois. Counterfeits; Faithful Copy; Latin Empire; Achaïa; Athens. In addition to the listed coins, the excavations at the Panayia field yielded tetartera of the following emperors: Alexios I (11); Alexios I counterfeits (3); John II (5); Manuel I (47); Isaac II (3); uncertain emperor (8). Note: On this location, see generally Sanders “Late Roman Bath”, and Slane and Sanders, “Corinth: Late Roman Horizons”. This field was initially believed to have been situated just within the late antique walls of the city. Judging from the graves found during the excavations, the excavator Guy Sanders now thinks it to be more likely that it was marginally outside of these walls. It is assumed, though not proven, that the medieval walls of Corinth followed the same course. All the coins listed were double-checked by me. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 247. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 254n342, 426, 429, 432, 433, 978, 1203, 1205, 1212, 1222, 1260, 1263, 1359, 1360n957, 1365, 1377, 1385, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1640, 1641

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

995

Content Tetarteron 1 Counterfeit tetarteron after 1204 1 Of other, uncertain or undefined prototype Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 4

Latin Empire 1204–1261 2 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D

Hyperpyron 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 507, no. 8 Petty denomination issues 5 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. ? 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX.ACTñnAR / G

Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223

996

appendix i

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Athens, obv. legend GVI.DVX, though not Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c–d

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

4.271 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The finds were excavated in the Kraneion basilica, which lies just inside the eastern Kenchreian Gate of the classical fortification, although the church would have been outside of the medieval walls (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth and Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 14 billon trachea; eight petty denomination issues; 18 deniers tournois; 11 torneselli; one tornese. Faithful Copies; Latin Empire; Achaïa; Tours; France; Provence; Athens; Catalan Company; Counterfeits; Venice; Byzantium. In addition to the listed material, the following tetartera were found at the site: Alexios I (13); Alexios I counterfeits (2); John II (3); Manuel I (35); Manuel I counterfeit (1) Isaac II (2); uncertain emperor (4). Note: The coins presented here were excavated in 1928 by Carpenter, de Waele, Pease, and in 1933–1934 by Shelley for the ASCSA, and in the early 1970s by Pallas for the Archaeological Society of Athens. The latter excavations are described in the issues of PAE for these years, while the AD documents the arrival of the coins in the NM. The American material was included in Edwards’ respective monograph and article for the years in question. Coulson points out that a number of coinage issues represented amongst the finds are attributed differently now than they had been at the time of the original excavation reports. She uses the numismatic evidence in support of her re-dating of the last phase of construction of the basilica, from what was believed to be the eleventh century to the thirteenth century. Bibliography: Edwards, Coins 1896–1929; Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”; AD, 26 (1971), NM, p. 10; AD, 28 (1973), NM, p. 7; AD, 31 (1976), NM, p. 4; AD, 32 (1977), NM, p. 2; Coulson, “Early Christian Basilica at the Cenchrean Gate”, p. 211. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 74n441, 113, 115, 117, 123, 202, 213, 254n342, 405, 426, 429, 432, 434, 435, 436, 689, 965, 971, 1205, 1212, 1222, 1269, 1271, 1285, 1287, 1289, 1290, 1328, 1365, 1377, 1385, 1395, 1408, 1428, 1481, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1642, 1643, 1760, 1761

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Content Billon trachea 3 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 1 DOC IV, no. 2, type B 2 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 11 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 7 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 1 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E Petty denomination issues 8 Principality of Achaïa 8 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Deniers tournois 2 Abbey of Tours 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 4

Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

3

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

1

Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

1

Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6

997

998

appendix i

6

Principality of Achaïa 4 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313)

1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ

1

Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA

3

Counterfeit deniers tournois, of good quality 1 Of Mahaut of Hainaut/John of Gravina 2 Of Achaïa

Torneselli 11 Republic of Venice 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Michele Morosini (1382) 4 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 1 Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501) Tornese 1 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 1 Manuel II (1391–1425) or John VII (1399–1403) Palaiologoi or later 1 DOC V, nos. 1391–1393 or 1603–1609; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 406

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

999

4.272 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. These finds were excavated in what would have been a northern suburban area of the medieval town, ca. 500m north of the ‘Central Area’, referred to according to the ancient topographical terms as the Asklepieion, the Lerna, the Gymnasium, and the Baths of Aphrodite (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Two petty denomination issues; one denier tournois; one tornesello. Achaïa and Athens. In addition to the coins which are listed here, the same excavations produced the following twelfth-century tetartera: Alexios I (8); John II (2); Manuel I (11). Note: The material presented here covers the following sites and seasons: Lerna; Asklepieion (both 1930–1932); and Baths of Aphrodite (1960). The Lerna and Asklepieion were actually excavated primarily during 1929–1934. The Gymnasium comprises a relatively large area which was excavated by Professor Wiseman and the University of Texas during 1965–1972. There are regular reports in Hesperia covering these campaigns, though there is hardly any mention there of medieval phases, let alone medieval coins. Dengate published four hoards from the Gymnasium, one of which was an early-twelfth-century hoard of coins of Lucca (see Dengate, “Corinth”, pp. 178–188; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 10). None of the Gymnasium coins are included in this list, and the publication of the single finds from these excavations remains desirable. Another twelfth-century hoard is reported from the nearby Baths of Aphrodite (1960), comprising 41 tetartera to Manuel I: see Robinson, “Corinth 1960”, pp. 130–133; Metcalf, “Brauron”, p. 254; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 235, no. 11. The coins from the Lerna and the Asklepieion were part of Edwards’ list. Bibliography: Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”; Zervos, “Obols of Philip of Savoy”. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 74n441, 254n342, 426, 429, 431, 432, 434, 436, 978, 1328, 1365, 1373, 1377, 1391 Content Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 13

1000

appendix i

Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge 4.273 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. These coins were excavated at the Great Roman Bath, immediately to the north of the square of the present-day village of Ancient Corinth, and just outside the course of the late Roman and medieval walls (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: One billon trachy; one petty denomination issue; one denier tournois; one tornesello. Latin Empire; Achaïa; Venice. In addition to the coins listed here below the 1965 excavations yielded the following tetartera: Alexios I (2); Manuel I (5). Note: The 1965 excavations were briefly published, without reference to any coins, by Robinson in AD, 21 (1966), B’, pp. 136–138. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 254n342, 426, 429, 432, 434, 436, 978, 1222, 1328, 1365 Content Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä Denier tournois 1 Uncertain denier tournois Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Uncertain doges

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1001

4.274 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. These coins were excavated at the site of the modern church of Agia Paraskevi, some 350m west of the Roman Odeion (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Thirteenth-century coins. Note: Our only available information derives from Robinson’s short report: at the site of this modern church, burials and other structures dating from the fifth to the thirteenth century were discovered. Bibliography: Robinson, “Church of Haghia Paraskevi”. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 254n342, 426, 429, 434, 436, 978 4.275 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. These coins originate from the site of an ancient shrine and a Roman villa, referred to as Kokkinovrysi, which lies ca. 1km west of the Theater (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: One billon trachy; two deniers tournois; one soldino. Faithful Copy; Achaïa; Counterfeit; Venice. In addition to the coins listed here, the following twelfth-century tetartera were unearthed in 1963: Alexios I (2); Manuel I (5) Note: This area was first excavated in 1925 (see the AJA for that year, p. 391), though the coins presented here are from Robinson’s 1963 season. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 432, 434, 435, 436, 978, 1212, 1285, 1320, 1484, 1486 Content Billon trachy 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1 Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Philip of Taranto/ Naupaktos

1002

appendix i

Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 4.276 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. These coins originate from the locality known as Anaploga, the site of a sanctuary and villa, ca. 800m SW of the Odeion (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: One petty denomination coin; four deniers tournois. Achaïa and Tours. In addition to coins listed here, the excavations produced the following twelfth-century tetartera: Alexios I (2); John II (1); Manuel I (4) Note: On the 1962–1964 excavations see Robinson in Hesperia (1969). Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 202, 254n342, 426, 429, 434, 436, 978, 1003, 1285, 1365, 1377, 1385, 1404, 1408 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 3

Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1003

4.277 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. The single coin was excavated in 1930 in the so-called Potters’ Quarter, the site of the ancient Greek kerameikos of the town, some 1.5km SWW of the Forum area and some distance past the Anaploga site (see «276») (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: One Venetian tornesello of Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423). Note: The coin is contained in Edwards’ catalogue for this season. Bibliography: Edwards, “Coins found in the excavations at Corinth during the Years 1930–1935”. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 74n441, 254n342, 426, 429, 434, 436, 971, 978, 1328 4.278 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese, Ancient Corinth. These coins come from the site of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, about 1km south of the ‘Central Area’ (Map 2). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Three twelfth-century tetartera and one petty denomination issue of Achaïa. Bibliography: Bookidis and Stroud, The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, p. 379, n. 1. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 254n342, 426, 429, 434, 978, 1365 4.279 Corinth Findspot: Peloponnese. The coin is said to be from an area towards the Isthmos (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One tornesello. Venice to Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501). Bibliography: AD, 21 (1966), NM, pp. 7–14. Discussed further pp.: 17n89, 426, 434, 1328 4.280 Daphniotissa Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The coin was excavated in the church of Panagia Daphniotissa, in the village of the same name in the demos of Amaliada (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One tornesello of uncertain doge of Venice. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 279. Discussed further pp.: 426, 446, 1328

1004

appendix i

4.281 Delos Findspot: Cyclades, Delos (Map 1). Summary of content: One tornesello. Venice to Anrea Contarini. Bibliography: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 82; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 479, 482, 1328 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4.282 Delphi Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The coins were found at nearby Chrisso (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 41 coins of the Komnenian emperors and Latin Greece. Bibliography: BCH, 74 (1950), p. 292; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 3 and passim. Discussed further pp.: 107, 122, 447, 465 4.283 Delphi Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi (Map 1, C). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Numerous deniers tournois. Note: These coins were handed by local inhabitants to Buchon during his travels. Their provenance and status as single finds are far from secure. Bibliography: Buchon, Grèce, p. 253; Caron, “Delphes”, p. 37; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 4(2) and passim. Discussed further pp.: 107, 122, 1377 4.284 Delphi Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi. The coins were excavated in 1894 by the EFA (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Seven deniers tournois; three torneselli. Tours; Achaïa; Athens; Venice. Bibliography: Svoronos, Έκθεσις των κατά το Ακαδημαïκόν έτος 1894–1895 πεπραγμένων, pp. 61–62. Discussed further pp.: 75n446, 107, 122, 202, 447, 465, 1285, 1328, 1377, 1399, 1408, 1418, 1428

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1005

Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 3

Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332)

3

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

Torneselli 3 Republic of Venice 3 Uncertain doges 4.285. Delphi Findspot: Mainland Greece, Delphi (Map 1, C). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One grosso of Raniero Zeno. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 177. Discussed further pp.: 107, 122, 447, 465, 1292 Content Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Raniero Zeno (1253–1268) 4.286 Drovolos Findspot: Peloponnese, Achaïa, village of Drovolos near Kalavryta (Map 1). Present status: Local collection. Summary of content: One soldino and one tornesello. Venice of Franceso Dandolo (1329–1339) and Antonio Venier (1382–1400) respectively.

1006

appendix i

Bibliography: A.G. Moutsali in AD, 46 (1991), B’1, pp. 175–176; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 132. Discussed further pp.: 426, 444, 446, 1320, 1328 4.287 Elassona Findspot: Thessaly, town in the northern part of the nomos of Larisa (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Billon trachea of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike. Note: No more information is presently available. Bibliography: Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 468, 469, 1236 4.288 Epiros Findspot: Epiros (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One billon trachy. Note: The coin entered the collection via the 12th EPKA, and a general Epirote origin can be supposed. Bibliography: AD, 50 (1995), NM, p. 10, n. 12. Discussed further pp.: 471, 1243 Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 180–181; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T14 4.289 Euboia Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia. The coin was apparently found somewhere on the island (Map 1). Present status: The coin was formerly in the collection of an inhabitant of Chalkida. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 249. Discussed further pp.: 204, 447, 466, 1365, 1366

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1007

Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 4.290 Eutresis Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. The site lies some 10km SW of Thebes and a bit less N of Livadostro (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One billon trachy; two fractional denomination issues; two deniers tournois; one tornesello. Latin Empire; Achaïa; Athens; Venice. In addition to these coins, the site yielded one tetarteron of Alexios I. Bibliography: Goldman, Eutresis, p. 8; Dunn, “Middle Byzantine Boiotia”, p. 765, n. 56; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 6. Discussed further pp.: 75n444, 107, 122, 204, 207n124, 255, 413, 447, 464, 1222, 1328, 1330, 1359, 1365, 1377, 1416 Content Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A Petty denomination issues 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä or type 10, CORIHTI

1

Duchy of Athens 1 Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 7, DVX.ACTñnAR / G

Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) – Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321)

1008

appendix i

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4.291 Gastouni Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, locality in the north-eastern part of modern Elis. The coins were excavated outside the church of the Dormition of the Virgin (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One tornesello of uncertain doge of Venice; one penny or tornesello, perhaps of Venice. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 279. Discussed further pp.: 419n1062, 426, 446, 1328 4.292 Glyki Findspot: Epiros, Thesprotia. The village of Glyki, on the Acheron river, lies in the southernmost part of the nomos (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One or two deniers tournois of Athens. Additionally, one trachy of Manuel I, fourth coinage, was found at this village. Bibliography: AD, 26 (1971), pp. 10 and 13; AD, 28 (1973), p. 6; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 157. Discussed further pp.: 203, 471, 427, 1211, 1428 Content Denier(s) tournois 1 or 2 Duchy of Athens 1 or 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 4.293 Gortys Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia. Ancient city in the former eparchy of Gortyna (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One billon trachy, Manuel I Komnenos, fourth coinage, or Faithful Copy, type A. Bibliography: BCH, 75 (1951), p. 133. Discussed further pp.: 426, 443, 1211, 1212

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1009

4.294 Ioannina Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. Metcalf refers to a private collection formed in this town (Map 1, A). Present status: Private collection. Summary of content: One billon trachy of Michael II of Epiros. Bibliography: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 134. Discussed further pp.: 471, 476, 1240, 1241 4.295 Ioannina Findspot: Epiros, Ioannina. The coin was found in the kastro, that is to say the walled medieval area of the town (Map 1, A). Present status: 8th EBA, Byzantine Museum of Ioannina. Summary of content: One billon trachy of Michael VIII. Bibliography: Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”. Discussed further pp.: 471, 476, 1243 Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 186–190; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T16 4.296 Isthmia Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. The archaeological site on the Isthmos, which comprises principally a sanctuary and fortification structures, has been extensively investigated by the ASCSA (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum; Archaeological Museum, Corinth; New Museum, Isthmia. Summary of content: Seven billon trachea; two petty denomination issues; three deniers tournois; one sterling penny; 21(62: see Note) torneselli. Latin Empire (?); Achaïa; Athens; England; Venice. Note: The coins gathered here and listed below are those that have been used by Gregory for the purposes of dating architectural structures and pottery. This information is highly sporadic and no systematic catalogue exists to date, although it is in preparation by Liane Houghtalin. Stahl was also communicated quantities of torneselli by Paul Clement, and Gregory’s and Stahl’s lists are given here separately.

1010

appendix i

Bibliography: BCH, 79 (1955), NM, p. 211; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83; Gregory, “Late Byzantine Pottery from Isthmia”, passim; Gregory, The Hexamilion, pp. 41, 89, 94, 104, 115, 123, 124, and 125; Stahl, Zecca, p. 432, no. 18. Discussed further pp.: 80n501, 107, 113, 115, 117, 405, 426, 430, 434, 1222, 1278, 1328, 1330, 1377, 1399, 1404, 1428 Content Billon trachea 7? Latin Empire 1204–1261 Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX

Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II to Henry III (1154–1272) 1 Short Cross classes 1–8, 1180–1247 Torneselli Gregory 20 Republic of Venice 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 11 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 2 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 5 Uncertain doges 1

Counterfeit tornesello

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Stahl 62

1011

Republic of Venice 6 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 34 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 8 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 5 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 9 Uncertain doges

4.297 Kalavryta Findspot: Peloponnese, nomos of Achaïa, town of Kalavryta (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: A moderate quantity of coins of all periods, some of medieval western type. Bibliography: AD, 58 (1934), p. 236; AD, 59 (1935), p. 244; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 133. Discussed further p.: 426 4.298 Kallipolis Findspot: Mainland Greece, Phokis, settlement near Amphissa (Map 1). Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Four torneselli of Venice. Additionally, one tetarteron of Manuel I was reported. Bibliography: Kravartogiannos, “Κατάλογος νομισματικών ευρημάτων Καλλιπόλεως”; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 83. Discussed further pp.: 75n452, 108, 413, 447, 466, 1328 Content Torneselli 4 Republic of Venice 3 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400)

1012

appendix i

4.299 Kaninë Findspot: Albania, Vlorë county and district; the coins were excavated in the fortress some 5km to the southeast of Vlorë (Map 1). Present status: Not disclosed. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois, two Venetian grossi; four billon trachea, only two of which are listed here below as having been reliably identified (issues of Manuel Komnenos Doukas and of Manfred of Hohenstaufen). The other two are respectively an issue of Manuel I or its ‘Bulgarian’ / Faithful Copy, and an entirely uncertain billon trachy. Additionally there are two copper coins bearing letters B (Pl. P, nos. 6–7), identified by Komata as Trapezuntine, though Simon Bendall has kindly informed me that the second of these looks curiously shaped, perhaps cast. A closer look at these two specimens would be of interest. Bibliography: Komata, Kanines, pp. 101–104, pls. P and Q; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 214, n. 62. Discussed further pp.: 81n512, 106n143, 123, 203, 206, 255, 331, 338, 471, 474, 1211, 1212, 1231n191, 1236, 1297, 1299, 1353, 1354n928, 1356, 1377, 1399, 1446, 1484, 1489 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Athens, obv. legend GVI.DVX, though not Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c–d

Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 1 Uncertain doge Billon trachea 1 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 39.4–5

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1

1013

Lord of Romania 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258/1259–1266) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25

4.300 Karditsa Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. The village of (Boiotian) Karditsa is located at the ancient site of Akraiphnion (Map 1). Present status: 1st EBA, probably in Athens. Summary of content: One hyperpyron of the Latin Empire: OberländerTârnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, pp. 506–509. A number of other coins of the thirteenth century. Bibliography: AD, 52 (1997), B’1, p. 128 and pl. 60.γ–δ; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 247, n. 36. Discussed further pp.: 108, 447, 463, 1260, 1263 4.301 Karditsa Findspot: Thessaly. The coins are said to be from the area of this town (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum and elsewhere. Summary of content: One grosso of Pietro Gradenigo (1289–1311); an unspecified number of billon trachea of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike; additionally, one earlier billon trachy of Emperor Manuel I has been described. Bibliography: AD, 50 (1995), NM, p. 10; Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 177; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 203, 468, 469, 1211, 1212, 1236, 1297, 1299 4.302 Karthaia Findspot: Cyclades, island of Kea, ancient city of Karthaia (Map 1). Present status: Possibly Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Four torneselli of Venice, beside some earlier Byzantine coins. Bibliography: Graindor, “Karthaia”, pp. 353–353; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 108, 479, 482, 1328 Content Torneselli 4 Republic of Venice 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413)

1014

appendix i

4.303 Karystos Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia, Karystos. The coins were excavated in 2007 in the castle of Karystos (Map 1). Present status: Chalkida storage of 23rd EBA. Summary of content: Five Venetian torneselli. Note: The excavation was conducted by Eugenia Gerousi. I was able to see these coins thanks to the kindness of Nikos Kontogiannis. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 106, 123, 447, 467, 1328 Content Torneselli 5 Republic of Venice 1 Michele Morosini (1382) 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 1 Uncertain doge 4.304 Kato Vasiliki Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Arkanania. Kato Vasiliki is a settlement of the Chalkeia demos, some 28km west of Naupaktos (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two Venetian torneselli. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 419, 471, 478, 1328 Content Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4.305 Kenchreai Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. Kenchreai is the ancient and medieval eastern harbour of Ancient Corinth, excavated by the ASCSA (Map 1). Present status: New Museum, Isthmia. Summary of content: Six deniers tournois and nine torneselli, Achaïa and Venice. Additionally, 27 tetartera of the twelfth century (nine of Alexios I, one of John II, 17 of Manuel I), were unearthed during the same excavations. Bibliography: Hohlfelder, Kenchreai. Discussed further pp.: 80n502, 107, 123, 207n1251, 405, 426, 430, 434, 1328, 1330, 1377, 1416, 1418

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1015

Content Deniers tournois 3 Principality of Achaïa 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 2 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 3

Uncertain deniers tournois

Torneselli 9 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Michele Morosini (1382) 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 3 Uncertain doges 4.306 Kiato Findspot: Peloponnese, town of Kiato in the nomos of Corinth. The coin was handed over to the Archaeological Service by an inhabitant of Kiato (Map 1). Present status: 4th EPKA, Nauplio. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue of Achaïa. Bibliography: AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 79. Discussed further pp.: 426, 443, 1365 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä or type 10, CORIHTI

4.307 Kladeos Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The coin was found near Kladeos village or river (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One denier tournois. Achaïa. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 279. Discussed further pp.: 426, 444, 1377, 1385

1016

appendix i

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 4.308 Kleitoria Findspot: Peloponnese, Achaïa. The village of Kleitoria lies in the southernmost part of this nomos, in historical Arkadia (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One soldino of Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361); one unspecified Venetian tornesello. Bibliography: AD, 19 (1964), NM, p. 14; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 84. Discussed further pp.: 420, 426, 444, 446, 1320, 1328 4.309 Kleonai Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. Ancient city between Corinth and Nemea, closer to the latter (Map 1). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Argos. Summary of content: One grosso of Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249). Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 177. Discussed further pp.: 426, 443, 1297 4.310 Krestena Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The coins were found in and around Krestena, a few km south of Olympia (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois, one tornesello. Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, Venice. In addition to these four coins, one billon trachy was recovered from the area, which might have been of Isaac II (1185–1195), or its Faithful Copy, type B (not listed below). Bibliography: M. Oikonomidou in AD, 18 (1963), B’1, pp. 104–106; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 280. Discussed further pp.: 203, 419n1062, 426, 444, 446, 1211, 1328, 1377, 1391, 1428, 1446

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1017

Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 4.311 Lakonia Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. This coin was picked up in the course of the Britanno-Dutch ‘Laconia Survey’, in the area to the SE of Sparta (Map 1). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Sparta. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue of Athens. Additionally, one tetarteron of Alexios I was found during the same survey. Bibliography: Overbeek, “Small Finds”, p. 196. Discussed further pp.: 107, 216, 426, 443, 1359, 1360n957 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 5, GVIOT 4.312 Lamia Findspot: Mainland Greece, Phthiotis. The listed coins were acquired on separate occasions by the Archaeological Museum at Lamia, and are presumably of local origin (Map 1). Present status: Possibly now with the 7th EBA, Larisa. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois; one soldino; one tornesello. Provence; Athens; Counterfeit; Venice.

1018

appendix i

Note: At Lamia, I was able to study this material, which has presumably now been passed on to the Byzantine authorities in Thessaly. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 108, 421, 447, 465, 1292, 1320, 1328, 1428, 1484, 1489 Content Deniers tournois 1 County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Achaïa

Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 4.313 Lepreo/Strovitzi Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, ancient city in the southwestern part of the nomos (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One denier tournois, two soldini, seven torneselli (the publication erroneously states eight). Achaïa and Venice. Note: These coins are described more extensively in the indicated publication. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 280. Discussed further pp.: 108, 123, 419n1062, 426, 444, 446, 1320, 1322, 1328, 1377, 1395, 1660, 1661, 1704, 1705

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1019

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 Soldini 2 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 fgra Torneselli 7 Republic of Venice 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 3 Uncertain doges 4.314 Ligourio Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis. The village of Ligourio is located near the site of the sanctuary of Asklepios of Ancient Epidauros, on the road leading from the Saronic Gulf to Nauplio. The coins were found in the castle (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois, one tornesello. Note: The two coin finds are the result of brief archaeological investigations at the site. Bibliography: Mitsos, “Λιγουριό”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 420, 426, 444, 446, 1328, 1377 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa or Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) or (1296/8–1314) Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413)

1020

appendix i

4.315 Livadeia Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. The coins were presumably found in or near this town (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois, one tornesello. Counterfeits and uncertain. Note: I was able to study these three coins. Bibliography: BCH, 55 (1931), NM, p. 454; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 7. Discussed further pp.: 447, 464, 1328, 1484, 1489 4.316 Mashkieza Findspot: Albania, Fier county, Mallakastër district, village of Cakran. The coins were found during excavations at the medieval castle of Mashkieza, known in medieval times as Mylon (see Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 23–24), near Cakran, just over 10km south of Fier (Map 1). Present status: Perhaps in the Numismatic Collection, Archaeological Institute, Tirana. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois and one penny. Achaïa and Athens; a twelfth-century crusader state (Antioch or Tripoli?), not listed below. Bibliography: Muçaj, “Qyteza mesjetare e Mashkiezës”, p. 260. Discussed further pp.: 106n143, 202, 338, 471, 475, 1328, 1344n867, 1377, 1399, 1428 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX

4.317 Mazi/Skillountia Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, village a few km southeast of Olympia (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois, one tornesello. France, Achaïa, Venice. Note: These coins are described more extensively in the publication. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 280. Discussed further pp.: 419n1062, 426, 443, 444, 446, 1285, 1287, 1328, 1377, 1408

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1021

Content Deniers tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

1

Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4.318 Melitaia Findspot: Mainland Greece, Phthiotis. Ancient site on the northern fringe of the nomos, due N of Lamia (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois, other Byzantine and Frankish coins. Note: One coin from this excavation is identifiable by virtue of being illustrated. Bibliography: Ioannidou, “Δοκιμαστική ανασκαφή”, p. 584, n. 74; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 108, 447, 465, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B or GR20Z 4.319 Messene Findspot: Peloponnese, Messenia, ancient city of Messene (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One Frankish coin. Note: It would appear that this site boasts a number of medieval coin finds, the subject of forthcoming studies by K. Sidiropoulos. A Byzantine-period settlement is attested at the site: Themelis, “Αρχαία Μεσσήνη”. Bibliography: AD, 25 (1970), p. 10. Discussed further pp.: xxiv, 108, 426, 444

1022

appendix i

4.320 Methoni Findspot: Peloponnese, Messenia, medieval town of Methoni. The coins were excavated in the church of Agios Onouphrios (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two Venetian torneselli. Additionally, two tetartera of Alexios I were found during the same excavations. Bibliography: AD, 23 (1968), NM, p. 12; Pallas, “Ο Άγιος Ονούφριος Μεθώνης”, pp. 160–161. Discussed further pp.: 108, 405, 426, 445, 1295n555, 1328 Content Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Uncertain doge 4.321 Nauplio Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis. The coins were excavated in the fortress of Akronauplia (Map 1). Present status: Probably Archaeological Museum, Nauplio. Summary of content: 122 coins, of which only one petty denomination issue was initially described. Galani-Krikou has now produced a comprehensive catalogue of the finds from this excavation, which reached me too late to be integrated into this appendix. Noteworthy is particularly the Lakonian tornese in the name of Manuel II Palaiologos. Bibliography: Papadakis, “Σπάνιον νόμισμα κοπής Γουλιέλμου”; Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”. Discussed further pp.: 79n476, 426, 428n7, 1273n444, 1351n907, 1365, 1366, 1367n981 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 11, Negroponte 4.322 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Chora, Evriaki area, Apeiranthitis plot (Map 1, H). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Nine torneselli. Venice to Michele Steno.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1023

Note: These coin finds were kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1328 Content Torneselli 9 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 6 Uncertain doges 4.323 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Chora, Mouda area, Gkizanis plot (Map 1, H). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: One tornesello of uncertain doge. Note: This coin find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1328 4.324 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Chora, Grotta area (Map 1, H). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Three torneselli of uncertain doges. Note: These coin finds were kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1328 4.325 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Chora, Grotta area (Map 1, H). Present status: Uncertain.

1024

appendix i

Summary of content: One copper coin of Kay Khusraw I, Seljuq sultan in Konya (1192–1196 and 1205–1211). Bibliography: Psarras, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 203, 255, 479, 1350, 1351 4.326 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Angidia, just east of Chora, church of Agios Stephanos (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: One tornesello of uncertain doge. Note: This coin find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1328 4.327 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Apeiranthos, church of Panagia Theotokos (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: One tornesello of Agostino Barbarigo (1486–1501). Note: This coin find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. 4.328 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Apeiranthos, church of Agia Kerykou (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: One denier tournois of uncertain attribution. Note: This coin find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 344, 479, 482, 1377

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1025

4.329 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Chalki, church of Panagia Drosiane (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Five torneselli of uncertain issuer. Note: These coin finds were kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1328 4.330 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, church of Panagia ton Arion (Map 1, H). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Three billon trachea. Faithful Copy and Latin Imitatives. Bibliography: G. Mastoropoulos in AD, 46 (1991), B’2, pp. 386–387; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 135; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 203, 216, 255, 479, 481, 1212, 1222 Content Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 2

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 24, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

4.331 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Plaka Tripodon, church of Agios Mathaios (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: Two tornesi of Naxos of Nicholas II Sanudo (1364–1371) or Nicholas III dalle Carceri (1371–1383). Note: These coin finds were kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1492

1026

appendix i

Content Tornesi 2 Lordship of Naxos 2 Nicholas II Sanudo (1364–1371) or Nicholas III dalle Carceri (1371–1383) 2 Baker, “Cicladi medievali” 4.332 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Apano Kastro (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: One tornesello. Venice of Andrea Contarini. Note: This coin find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, now Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Discussed further pp.: 106, 124, 479, 482, 1328 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4.333 Naxos Findspot: Cyclades, Naxos, Yria (Map 1). Present status: 2nd EBA. Summary of content: One tornesello. Venice of A. Venier. Note: This coin find was kindly communicated to me by Charalambos Pennas before his own publication. Bibliography: Baker, “Cicladi medievali”, Pennas and Samoladou, “Βυζαντινά και μεσαιωνικά νομισματικά ευρήματα Κυκλάδων”. Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Venier (1382–1400)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1027

4.334 Nemea Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia, archaeological site of Nemea. The coins originate from excavations conducted at Ancient Nemea by various American missions between 1924 and 1995 (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum and Nemea Archaeological Museum. Summary of content: 66 or 70 tetartera; four billon trachea; three petty denomination issues; 49 deniers tournois; one penny; one grosso; 14 torneselli. Counterfeits; Latin Empire at Constantinople; Achaïa; Athens; England; Venice. Note: The site of Nemea has yielded a number of tetartera, a good mix of genuine Byzantine pieces from Hendy’s so-called Greek mint, and counterfeit issues thereof. MacIsaac has designated the first of these ‘provincial’, but casts doubts even on the identity of their issuers (p. 188, n. 384). He then devises two more groupings which he explicitly terms imitative: a second “provincial” class (imitative class I), “issued on a very thin flan of regular shape that has each of the corners fairly neatly clipped”; and a third “provincial” class (imitative class II), which “employs a square flan but copies only the monogram and the cross-on-steps types, occasionally so badly that they can barely be recognized”. These observations, and the photographs which MacIsaac has kindly sent me, tie in with my own experience at nearby Argos. The main difference between MacIsaac’s approach, and my own at “Argos” and in the present book, is that I have not placed any emphasis on the actual shape of the counterfeit tetartera, but merely on their iconography. This is probably because the shapes I encountered were quite diverse, and sometimes unrecognisable, and could not easily form the basis of a typological system. As the study of counterfeit tetartera is merely in its infancy, any number of routes of classification might yield useful results in the future. I retain in the list below MacIsaac’s imitative classes I and II. Rather confusingly, his catalogue contains an additional four coins in the main catalogue section of Byzantine tetartera which are also termed “imitations” (pp. 219, 220, 224, 227). With regard to genuine Byzantine tetartera, of the successors of Manuel I, Andronikos I Komnenos (1183–1185) is represented with six specimens (DOC IV, type 8), and Isaac II Angelos (1185–1195) with four (DOC IV, types 5–6, ‘St. Michael’). The single English penny is described in Nemea III as long cross, whereas Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1973–74”, p. 39.g, identifies it as short cross, of no recognisable class, moneyer or mint. Bibliography: AD, 23 (1968), NM, p. 13; Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1973–74”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 264; Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1984–86”; Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III, pp. 187–189 and 219–235; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229, n. 36. Discussed further pp.: 80n500, 107, 113, 115, 117, 255, 426, 442, 968, 1203, 1204n44, 1222, 1278, 1297, 1328, 1365, 1369, 1370, 1377, 1385, 1391, 1395, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1428

1028

appendix i

Content Tetartera 66 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 50 Imitative class I (second provincial series), thin flans, regular shape, neatly clipped 31 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 15 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 18 and 23, ‘St. George’ 4 Of other, uncertain or undefined prototype 16 Imitative class II (third provincial series), thin flans, square shape 10 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 20 and 22, ‘Monogram’ 1 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ 5 Of other, uncertain or undefined prototype Billon trachea 4 Latin Empire 1204–1261 4 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A Petty denomination issues 3 Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 3 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. / Deniers tournois 23 Principality of Achaïa 7 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 5 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 4 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

9

17

1029

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Uncertain deniers tournois

Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II to Henry III (1154–1272) 1 Short Cross classes 1–8, 1180–1247 Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Jacopo Tiepolo (1229–1249) Torneselli 14 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 9 Uncertain doges 4.335 Nikopolis Findspot: Epiros, Roman and Byzantine site in the nomos of Preveza (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two billon trachea, one denier tournois, amongst a host of earlier material. Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike; Achaïa. Note: I was able to study this material, although I was unable to find the Venetian coin described in the publication. Bibliography: AD, 24 (1969), NM, p. 7. Discussed further pp.: 205, 471, 477, 1236, 1377, 1408 Content Billon trachea 2 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 39.3 1 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 42.1–2

1030

appendix i

Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 4.336 Olena Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis, village northeast of Pyrgos. The coins were excavated inside the metropolitan church of the Transubstantiation of Christ (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA, Chloumoutzi castle. Summary of content: One tetarteron, one denier tournois. Counterfeit and Athens. Note: These coins are described more extensively in the publication. The tetarteron is not the same variety as the counterfeits which are so common at Argos and Nemea, and also found at Ancient Corinth and the Athenian Agora. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 281. Discussed further pp.: 426, 443, 444, 1203, 1204, 1428, 1614, 1615 Content Tetarteron 1 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 1 Of uncertain or undefined prototype Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 4.337 Olympia Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The coins were found in the area of Ancient Olympia (Map 1). Present status: 6th EBA. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Additionally, two genuine twelfth-century tetartera, including one of Andronikos I (1183–1185), were reported. Note: These coins are described more extensively in the publication. Bibliography: M. Oikonomidou in AD, 18 (1963), B’1, pp. 104–106; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 281. Discussed further pp.: 108, 426, 444, 1377, 1416

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1031

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 4.338 Orchomenos Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, archaeological site of Orchomenos (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Seven Middle Byzantine and a smaller number of Frankish coins. Note: The above information is derived from the inventory books of the NM. Bibliography: JIAN, 8 (1905), NM, pp. 252–253; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 8. Discussed further pp.: 447, 464 4.339 Orchomenos Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia, archaeological site in the northeastern part of the nomos (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois and two torneselli. Achaïa and Venice. Additionally, four tetartera of the twelfth century were found during the same excavations conducted by the EFA. Bibliography: Blum and Plassart, “Orchomène d’Arcadie”, p. 88; Plassart, “Fouilles d’Orchomène d’Arcadie”, pp. 121–122; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 85. Discussed further pp.: 75n445, 412, 426, 444, 446, 1328, 1377, 1404 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1

Uncertain denier tournois

Torneselli 2 Republic of Venice 2 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4.340 Panakto Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, settlement of Panakto in the former eparchy of Dervenochoria. The excavated site lies a short distance above Panakto (Map 1).

1032

appendix i

Present status: Probably in the storage facilities of the 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: In addition to two earlier Byzantine coins, three deniers tournois, one petty denomination issue, two Venetian soldini, and eight Venetian torneselli. Note: The publication gives the findspots for the coins. They are evenly distributed amongst the church, the houses and test trenches. Coin 1992–172, identified in the publication as “possibly Thebes mint” appears to be a counterfeit issue. Bibliography: Gerstel et al., “Panakton”, pp. 227–228; Stahl, Zecca, p. 431, no. 13; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 19. Discussed further pp.: 80n506, 106, 113, 115, 117, 197, 207n124, 216, 413, 447, 464, 1320, 1322, 1328, 1330, 1359, 1377, 1408, 1484, 1489 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3 Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis “Εlis”, PTA 1 Uncertain prince 1

Counterfeit denier tournois

Soldini 2 Republic of Venice 1 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 1 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 Torneselli 8 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 2 Michele Steno (1400–1413)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1033

4.341 Pantanassa Findspot: Epiros, nomos of Arta. This thirteenth-century monastery lies 5km outside Philippiada, to the north of Arta (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois, one tornesello. Athens, Arta, Venice. Note: These coins derive from excavations. Bibliography: AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 14. Discussed further pp.: 106, 217, 419, 471, 472, 1328, 1428, 1466 Content Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX (?) 1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 4.342 Paos Findspot: Peloponnese, Achaïa. Paos is an ancient city and modern village south of Kalavryta and west of Kleitoria (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Frankish deniers tournois, one soldino and torneselli of Venice. Note: Only the soldino has been described more clearly. Bibliography: AD, 25 (1970), NM, p. 11. Discussed further pp.: 420, 426, 444, 1320 Content Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 4.343 Patra Findspot: Peloponnese, Achaïa, town of Patra (Map 1, G). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Patra.

1034

appendix i

Summary of content: One tornesello of Venice. Note: The above coin is the only known medieval one of the many coins discovered in the town over the years by the Archaeological Service. For an impression of the possibilities, see Callegher’s overview for an earlier period: “La circulation monétaire à Patras”. Bibliography: AD, 50 (1995), NM, p. 13. Discussed further pp.: 108, 420, 426, 446, 1328 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4.344 Petalia Findspot: Mainland Greece, Euboia. Petalia (or Petalioi) is a small island group off the south coast of Euboia, between the Euboian village of Marmari and the large island of Megalonisos (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One billon trachy, Faithful Copy type C or its Byzantine equivalent (Alexios III). Bibliography: AD, 18 (1963), NM, p. 8. Discussed further pp.: 203, 420, 447, 466, 1211, 1212 4.345 Peta Findspot: Mainland Greece, Attica. The coin was discovered during excavations in the church of Agioi Theodoroi, in this East Attica locality (Map 1). Present status: 1st EBA. Summary of content: One gigliato of the Kingdom of Sicily (Naples). Bibliography: E. Gini-Tsophopoulou in AD, 43 (1988), B’1, p. 87 and pl. 54; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 10; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 469, n. 37. Discussed further pp.: 447, 462, 1502 Content Gigliato 1 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Charles II of Anjou (1285–1309) 1 MEC, nos. 686–688

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1035

4.346 Pharsala Findspot: Thessaly, town of Pharsala in the nomos of Larisa. The coin was handed over to the Archaeological Service by a local inhabitant (Map 1). Present status: 15th EPKA, Larisa. Summary of content: One billon trachy of the Byzantine Empire. Bibliography: AD, 56–59 (2001–2004), B’1, NM, p. 80. Discussed further pp.: 468, 469, 1243 Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 93 4.347 Plakoti Findspot: Mainland Greece, Aitolia and Akarnania. The locality of Plakoti, to the east of the Ambracian Gulf, just south of Menidi, has been known since 1991 as Prophitis Ilias (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two billon trachea, Byzantium and Faithful Copy. Bibliography: Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”. Discussed further pp.: 203, 254, 471, 477, 1211, 1212 Content Billon trachea 1 Byzantine Empire before 1204 1 Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203) 1

Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A

4.348 Platykampos Findspot: Thessaly, nomos of Larisa, village just east of the town of Larisa (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Billon trachea of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike. Bibliography: Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 468, 469, 1236

1036

appendix i

4.349 Pylos in Elis Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. Ancient city, near the village of Agrapidochori in the northeastern part of the nomos, now submerged by the dam (Map 1). Summary of content: One tetarteron, one denier tournois. Counterfeit and Achaïa. In addition to these two coins, the excavations in these domestic structures brought to light two genuine twelfth-century tetartera of Manuel I (1143–1180), not listed here. Bibliography: Coleman, Pylos, p. 144, pl. 54; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, pp. 281–282. Discussed further pp.: 80n495, 106n144, 107, 426, 443, 444, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1377, 1391 Content Tetarteron 1 Counterfeit tetarteron after 1204 1 Of Manuel I, DOC IV, types 19 and 25, ‘Cross on Steps’ Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 4.350 Skotoussa Findspot: Thessaly, nomos of Larisa. Skotoussa is an ancient city and modern locality between Larisa and Pharsala. These coins were confiscated locally (Map 1). Present status: 7th EBA and 15th EPKA. Summary of content: Unspecified number of billon trachea. Latin and Byzantine Empires. Additionally, the site produced twelfth-century tetartera, and one billon trachy of John II. Bibliography: AD, 50 (1995), NM, p. 14; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 320, no. 13; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 203, 205, 216, 468, 469, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1231n191, 1236, 1243 Content Billon trachea yes Latin Empire 1204–1261 yes DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A yes DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1037

5

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 2 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 37.7–9 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 37.10–12 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOS XII, pl. 51.7–8 2 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 11, type I; DOS XII, type H, pl. 43.3–4 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type C, pl. 42.5–6

2

Byzantine Empire after 1261 2 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 106; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C20 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 136–143; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T2

4.351 Sparta Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. The coins were excavated by the BSA in 1906– 1910 and 1924–1928. The vast majority of these coins are from the akropolis of Sparta, with very few additional specimens, if any, from other sites excavated during the same seasons: a Roman bath to the west, or Artemis Orthia (see «352») to the east. The present list contains also the modest material from the modern excavations on the akropolis (1992–1997) (Map 1, F). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum and Sparta Museum. Summary of content: 16 billon trachea; 55 petty denomination issues; two pennies; one quattrino; 13 deniers tournois; one grosso; 12 torneselli; three tornesi. Faithful Copy; Latin and Byzantine Empires; Counterfeits Achaïa; Château-Meillant; Sicily; Tours; France; Venice. In addition to the coins listed here, an additional two dozen or so uncleaned specimens of the same modules are yet to be identified. Note: I have viewed all the numismatic material unearthed during the BSA’s historic excavations at Sparta, which had remained for the most part completely unknown since first being discovered. Two or three medieval hoards discovered in 1926 («50» and «194») have been separated into other headings. The Spartan coins will be the subject of a forthcoming independent study. Not all of them have retained their archaeological data, but none of the specimens listed here are explicitly from anywhere else than the Spartan akropolis. I have not seen the coins excavated during 1992–1997, although I thank Roger Bland for additional information on this material. The Florentine coin was published in his list and its identification was tentative. Quattrini were minted at Florence

1038

appendix i

from the first semester of 1332: Bernocchi, Monete, 2, p. 159. Since some of the old material is yet to be fully conserved, the present list remains provisional even for the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Bibliography: BCH, 48 (1924), NM, p. 541; Woodward, “Note on the Coins found in 1924–1925”; Bland, “Coins”; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”. Discussed further pp.: 75n443, 80n497, 107, 113, 115, 117, 202, 205, 255, 264, 330, 332, 405, 439, 440, 1041, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1225n156, 1233, 1236, 1243, 1272, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1289, 1297, 1328, 1330, 1331, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1341, 1342, 1365, 1368, 1377, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1416, 1489, 1622, 1623, 1650, 1651, 1666, 1667, 1672, 1673, 1676, 1677, 1692, 1693, 1720, 1721 Content Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type C 12

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 1, Constantinople large module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 6 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 2 Uncertain small module type

1

Counterfeit billon trachy 1 Of Latin Empire 1204–1261, DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

1

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 6, type D; DOS XII, type D, pl. 39.7

1

Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Constantinople, DOC V, no. 70; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, C9

Petty denomination issues 55 Principality of Achaïa 55 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 47 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä, small module

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

7

1039

Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 1 2 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4 4 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. /

Pennies 1 Lordship of Château-Meillant 1 Ebbes II of Déols (before 1218–1256) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 2063; Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 180, no. 742 1

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1197–1250) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 97; MEC, no. 544

Quattrino 1 Republic of Florence Deniers tournois 3 Abbey of Tours 3 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 5

Kingdom of France 2 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 2 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

3

Louis IX (1226–1270) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1040 5

appendix i

Principality of Achaïa 2 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3

Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Uncertain doge Torneselli 10 Republic of Venice 2 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 2 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 1 Uncertain doge 2

Counterfeit torneselli 2 Of uncertain prototypes

Tornesi 3 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 3 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 3 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” 4.352 Sparta Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. The coins were excavated during 1906–1910 by the BSA at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, to the east of the akropolis and to the northeast of the modern town, on the banks of the Eurotas river (Map 1, F). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Five petty denomination issues; one soldino; eight torneselli; one tornese. Achaïa; Venice; Counterfeits; Byzantium. Note: The coins excavated at Sparta during the early campaigns of the BSA have been viewed in their totality by me (see also entry «351»). Listed here are

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1041

those coins which were unmistakingly identifiable as originating in the said sanctuary. They match Woodward’s published list very accurately. The twelfthcentury follis of Tancred of Antioch referred to by Woodward might be Sparta coin no. 0340, although this particular specimen was found to be without any specific information regarding provenance. It remains possible that one or the other coin listed under «351». is in fact from Artemis Orthia, although this will never be verifiable. Bibliography: Woodward, “The Coins”; Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”. Discussed further pp.: 75n443, 107, 202, 405, 426, 439, 440, 1037, 1211, 1212, 1320, 1328, 1330, 1331, 1344n866, 1365, 1662, 1663 Content Petty denomination issues 5 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) Torneselli 6 Republic of Venice 4 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 1 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 2

Counterfeit torneselli 1 Of Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 1 Of uncertain prototype

Tornese 1 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 1 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 1 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” 4.353 Tegea Findspot: Peloponnese, Arkadia. The site of Ancient Tegea lies just to the south of Tripoli (Map 1).

1042

appendix i

Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 40 Byzantine and a certain quantity of Venetian coins. Bibliography: BCH, 59 (1935), NM, p. 243; Dugas, “Le sanctuaire d’Aléa Athéna à Tégée”, p. 433. Discussed further pp.: 420, 426, 444, 446 4.354 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. The coins were excavated in the Agia Triada district of town, to the west of the walled medieval town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: 48 billon trachea; five petty denomination issues; eight deniers tournois; four torneselli; two pennies. Faithful Copies; Latin and Byzantine Empires; Achaïa; Athens; Poitou; Arta; Venice; Sicily. In addition, the following tetartera were published for the site: Alexios I (13); John II (1); Manuel I (39); Isaac II (1). Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Αγία Τριάδα”; Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματικοί θησαυροί”. Discussed further pp.: 17n87, 79n475, 113, 115, 117, 204, 255, 330, 413, 447, 458, 459, 461, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1231, 1243, 1290, 1328, 1330, 1337, 1338, 1359, 1365, 1377, 1385, 1428, 1466 Content Billon trachea 3 Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 44

1

Latin Empire 1204–1261 19 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 5 DOC IV, no. 31, small module type B 2 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 1 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 1 DOC IV, no. 35, small module type F 16 uncertain small module type Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) 1 Thessalonike or Constantinople, DOC V, no. (729)

Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

3

1043

Lordship of Athens 3 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 2, G

Deniers tournois 1 County of Poitou 1 Alphonse of France (1241–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 2582–2585 2

Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313)

1

Duchy of Athens

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

3

Uncertain deniers tournois

Torneselli 4 Republic of Venice 3 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) Pennies 2 Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 2 Charles I of Anjou (1266–1285) 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 97 1 Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, no. 98 4.355 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. The coins were excavated in the plot of the cultural centre of the town, in the northern part of the walled area (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Nine billon trachea; one tornese; two deniers tournois. Latin Empire; Byzantine Empire; Achaïa. In addition, seven tetartera of Manuel I were published for the site.

1044

appendix i

Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Θήβα – Πολιτιστικό Κέντρο”; Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματικοί θησαυροί”. Discussed further pp.: 17n87, 79n475, 255, 447, 458, 460, 461, 1211, 1222, 1231, 1272, 1377 Content Billon trachea 9 Latin Empire 1204–1261 7 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 1 Uncertain small module type Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa 1

Uncertain denier tournois

Tornese 1 Byzantine Empire 1261–1453 1 Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) 1 Lakonian mint, Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” 4.356 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. The coins were excavated in the central area of the town, probably inside the Kadmeia, during the period 1973–1975 by the EPKA (Map /). Present status: 9th EPKA, Thebes Museum. Summary of content: Three billon trachea; one tornesello. Latin Empire; Venice. In addition, three uncertain twelfth-century tetartera were found during the same excavations. Note: These finds were compiled in 1977 by the EPKA, and the list was kindly given to me by Konstantinos Lagos. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 255, 413, 447, 458n73, 461, 1211, 1222, 1231, 1328, 1330 Content Billon trachea 3 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 1 DOC IV, no. 33, small module type D 1 Uncertain small module type

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1045

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 4.357 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. These coins were probably found in the area of the town (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Ca. nine tetartera; 12 billon trachea; two petty denomination issues; one denier tournois; one soldino; one tornesello. Counterfeits; Faithful Copy; Latin Empire; Achaïa; Athens; Venice. The following twelfthcentury tetartera were part of the same material: Alexios I (8); Manuel I (54); Isaac II (1); uncertain emperors (9). The anonymous coin of Chartres (Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1731–1735) has been dated by Duplessy to the period before 1150 (Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 108). Note: These coins were handed over to the Archaeological Service by Serapheim Papaïoannou in 1965. They have been studied by me. Bibliography: AD, 26 (1971), NM, p. 12; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 321, no. 14(3); Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466, n. 20. Discussed further pp.: 113, 115, 117, 204, 255, 330, 447, 458n73, 459, 460, 461, 1203, 1211, 1212, 1218n131, 1222, 1225n156, 1231n190, 1233, 1320, 1359, 1365, 1484, 1489 Content Tetartera ca. 9 Counterfeit tetartera after 1204 ca. 9 Of unrecorded prototypes Billon trachea 1 Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 1 DOC IV, no. 1, type A (obv.) / no. 3, type C (rev.) 10

1

Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 26, ‘Thessalonike’ large module type C 3 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A 2 DOC IV, no. 34, small module type E 2 DOC IV, no. 36, small module type G 2 Uncertain small module type Counterfeit billon trachy

1046

appendix i

Petty denomination issues 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate

Denier tournois 1 Counterfeit denier tournois Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4.358 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia. This coin was probably found in the area of the town (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One billon trachy of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike. Bibliography: AD, 21 (1966), NM, p. 13 and pl. 4, no. 50; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 321, no. 14(4). Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 458, 1211, 1236 Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 39.4–5 4.359 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coin was excavated in 2007 in a plot to the east of the Archaeological Museum, in an area located just inside the medieval walls (Map 4). Present status: Chalkida storage of 23rd EBA. Summary of content: One coin of the Latin Empire.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1047

Note: The excavation was conducted by Eugenia Gerousi and I was able to study this coin thanks to the kindness of Nikos Kontogiannis. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 458, 1211, 1222, 1231 Content Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 Uncertain small module type 4.360 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 2006 in a plot to the north of the Archaeological Museum, in an area located just inside the medieval walls (Map 4). Present status: Chalkida storage of 23rd EBA. Summary of content: One coin of the Latin Empire. Two late and base deniers tournois, probably of Chios. Note: The excavation was conducted by Eugenia Gerousi and I was able to study this coin thanks to the kindness of Nikos Kontogiannis. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 255, 413, 447, 458, 461, 1211, 1222, 1231n190, 1347, 1349 Content Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 Uncertain small module type Deniers tournois 2 Company of the Maona (Giustiniani) at Chios? 2 Anonymous, period, 1346–1428? 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIV, nos. 20–21; Mazarakis, “Chio”, pp. 892–893, period 1346–1428 4.361 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 1999 at a plot belonging to D. Matalas, between Amphion and Oidipos Streets, in the southeastern section of the walled area (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: One denier tournois each of Achaïa and France.

1048

appendix i

Bibliography: AD, 54 (1999), B’1, p. 131. Discussed further pp.: 255, 331, 447, 459, 460, 1211, 1287, 1377, 1385 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1

Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) or Louis IX (1226–1270)

4.362 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 1999 in the Moschopodi area of town, in a field belonging to S. Karatzas. To the southeast of the modern town (Map 1). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Two Frankish Greek coins. Bibliography: AD, 54 (1999), B’1, p. 134. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 460, 1211 4.363 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coin was excavated in 1998 in Osios Klimanta Street, in the southeastern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: One gros tournois. Although the coin cannot be read well from the plate, it would appear that it belongs to the varieties with double P on the obv. which can still be attributed to King Philip III of France (1270–1285) on the basis of the simple R, the dotted X, and the open M: compare Van Hengel, “Classification of gros tournois”, plate 5.5. Bibliography: AD, 53 (1998), B’1, p. 103, pl. 58. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 460, 1211, 1500, 1501 4.364 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 1996 in the church of Agios Gregorios the Theologian, which lies inside of the Kadmeia (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Coins of the Latin Empire and Frankish Greece. Bibliography: AD, 51 (1996), B’1, p. 82. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 458, 459, 460, 1211, 1222

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1049

4.365 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 1994 in the Karamagkiolis plot off Dirki Street, inside the Kadmeia (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Medieval coins. Bibliography: AD, 49 (1994), B’1, p. 120. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 459, 1211 4.366 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 1993 in the Gkogkos plot in Dirki Street, inside the Kadmeia but probably outside of the medieval walls (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Latin Imitatives; petty denomination issues of Achaïa (Corinth mint); Venetian torneselli. Bibliography: AD, 48 (1993), B’1, p. 83; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 204, 255, 447, 459, 461, 1211, 1222, 1231n190, 1328, 1365 4.367 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in 1993 in the Agios Nikolaos plot in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Two petty denomination issues; two deniers tournois. Athens and Naupaktos. Bibliography: AD, 48 (1993), B’1, pp. 83–84; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 459, 1211, 1359, 1428, 1446 Content Petty denomination issues 1 Lordship of Athens 1 Guy I de la Roche (1225–1263) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 1, Genoese gate 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate

1050

appendix i

Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

4.368 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated at the plot of the law courts, in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Billon trachea of the Latin Empire; deniers tournois of Frankish Greece; Venetian soldini and torneselli. Note: The same plot produced the three hoards «9»–«11». Bibliography: AD, 48 (1993), B’1, pp. 84–85; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 457, 458, 460, 461, 1211, 1222, 1231n190, 1320, 1328, 1377 4.369 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in the Liakos plot, Vryzakis Street, in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Five billon trachea of the Latin Empire; one petty denomination issue; one denier tournois of Frankish Greece. Bibliography: AD, 47 (1992), B’1, p. 73; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 457, 459, 460, 1211, 1222, 1359, 1365 4.370 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in the Koropoulis plot, Vryzakis Street, in the southern part of the modern town (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: 25 billon trachea of the Latin Empire; one petty denomination issue of Frankish Greece. Bibliography: AD, 47 (1992), B’1, p. 74; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 457, 459, 1211, 1222, 1231n190, 1359, 1365

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1051

4.371 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were found during building work for a shopping centre in Eteokleos Street and Loxis Phalangos, just to the south of the Kadmeia (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Numismatic material of the mid-thirteenth century. Bibliography: AD, 47 (1992), B’1, p. 77; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 458 4.372 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in the Segkos plot of Dagklaridos Street, just east of the Kadmeia (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: One billon trachy, one petty denomination issue. Bibliography: AD, 47 (1992), B’1, p. 81; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 458, 459, 1211, 1222, 1231n190, 1359, 1365 4.373 Thebes Findspot: Mainland Greece, Boiotia, Thebes. The coins were excavated in the plot of D. Lambros in Dirki Street, inside the Kadmeia (Map 4). Present status: 1st EBA, Athens. Summary of content: Billon trachea. Bibliography: AD, 47 (1992), B’1, p. 82; Baker and Hardwick, “Numismatic appendix”, p. 126. Discussed further pp.: 255, 447, 458, 1211, 1222, 1231n190 4.374 Thessaly Findspot: Thessaly. The coin was found in this region (Map /). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Volos. Summary of content: One grosso of Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289). Bibliography: Oikonomidou, “Μουσείου του Βόλου”. Discussed further pp.: 468, 470, 1297, 1299 4.375 Thessaly Findspot: Thessaly. The coin was found in this region (Map /). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One denier tournois of John II Orsini at Arta (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16).

1052

appendix i

Bibliography: BCH, 84 (1960), NM, p. 503. Discussed further pp.: 468, 470, 1466 4.376 Thessaly Findspot: Thessaly. The coin was found in this region, perhaps in or near Trikala, just like the other coins described by Oikonomidou (see also «381») (Map /). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Volos. Summary of content: One billon trachy of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike. Bibliography: Oikonomidou, “Θεσσαλία”, no. 22. Discussed further pp.: 468, 469, 1236 Content Billon trachy 1 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 38.6–7 4.377 Thessaly Findspot: Thessaly. The coin was found in this region (Map /). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Larisa. Summary of content: Two grossi of Venice. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 176. Discussed further pp.: 468, 470, 1297, 1299 Content Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Giovanni Soranzo (1312–1329) 1 Uncertain doge 4.378 Tigani Findspot: Peloponnese, Lakonia. The coins were excavated by Prof. Drandakis in a basilica on the Tigani peninsula in Mani, opposite the village of Mezapos (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Uncertain number of petty denomination issues and deniers tournois, one of which is of the Knights of St. John at Rhodes (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.1–5); Venetian soldini and torneselli.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1053

Bibliography: AD, 34 (1979), NM, p. 1; AD, 35 (1980), NM, p. 1; AD, 39 (1984), NM, p. 1; Drandakis, “Έρευναι”, pp. 200–201; Drandakis et al., “Τηγάνι”, p. 191; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 258, n. 117. Discussed further pp.: 80n496, 106, 210, 420, 426, 443, 444, 445, 1320, 1328, 1346, 1347, 1359, 1365 4.379 Tinos Findspot: Cyclades, Tinos. The coin was excavated at the sanctuary of Poseidon and Amphitrite, close to the modern island capital (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) / Achaïa. Note: This is the only post-fifth-century coin from this excavation. Bibliography: Etienne, Ténos, p. 266; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 108, 344, 479, 482, 1377, 1408 4.380 Trianta Zourtsas Findspot: Peloponnese, Elis. The coins were excavated in the church of Agios Nikolaos, in the locality of Trianta at the southern edge of the nomos (Map 1). Summary of content: One denier tournois counterfeit of good style. In addition to this coin, the excavations have brought to light a twelfth-century billon trachy, not listed here but illustrated #60. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 282. Discussed further pp.: 203, 426, 443, 444, 1211, 1489, 1614, 1615, 1766, 1767 4.381 Τrikala Findspot: Thessaly, Trikala (Map 1). Present status: Archaeological Museum, Volos, and unspecified. Summary of content: Ten billon trachea, one denier tournois, two grossi, one tornesello. Byzantium, Athens, Venice. Note: The majority of the coins – those described by Kiparissi-Apostolika – were excavated by Theocharis. This selection of coins cannot be used for statistical purposes since her article features only Byzantine-type coins. Bibliography: Oikonomidou, “Θεσσαλία”; Oikonomidou, “Μουσείου του Βόλου”; Kiparissi-Apostolika, “Βυζαντινά νομίσματα Τρικάλων”; Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 108, 123, 205, 256, 421, 468, 1052, 1231n191, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1243, 1297, 1299, 1328, 1330, 1428

1054

appendix i

Content Billon trachea 2 Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 2 John III Vatatzes (1221–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 37, type C; DOS XII, type C, pl. 33.3 1 Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, “type [M]”, p. 212, pl. 88, no. 5; cf. Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 390. 7

Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 1 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 37.10–12 1 Manuel Komnenos Doukas (1230–1237) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 39.3 1 Uncertain attribution, possibly Demetrios Komnenos Doukas (1244–1246) 1 DOC IV, no. 1; DOS XII, pl. 41.19 4 John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) 1 DOC IV, no. 3, type A; DOS XII, type A, pl. 42.1–2 1 DOC IV, no. 4, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 42.3–4 1 DOC IV, no. 7, type E; DOS XII, type D, pl. 42.7–8 1 DOC IV, no. 8, type F; DOS XII, type E, pl. 42.9–10

1

Byzantine Empire after 1261 1 Michael VIII Palaiologos (1261–1282) 1 Thessalonike, DOC V, nos. 147–150; Bendall and Donald, Billon trachea, T4

Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z Grossi 2 Republic of Venice 1 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228) 1 Giovanni Dandolo (1280–1289)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

1055

Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 4.382 Troizina Findspot: Peloponnese, Argolis, Troizina, though now in the nomos of Peiraias, in the medieval settlement of Damala or Damalas, renamed Troizina in modern times (Map 1). Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One Latin Imitative billon trachy, one petty denomination issue. Additionally, a number of tetartera of Manuel I are reported. Note: The above information is based on the inventory book of the NM. Bibliography: BCH, 43 (1988), NM, p. 7. Discussed further pp.: 108, 216, 426, 443, 1222, 1365 4.383 Tyrnavos Findspot: Thessaly, nomos of Larisa. The town of Tyrnavos lies at a short distance to the northwest of Larisa (Map 1). Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Billon trachea of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike. Bibliography: Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 468, 469, 1236 4.384 Ypati Findspot: Mainland Greece, Phthiotis. The ancient city and modern village of Ypati (medieval Neopatra) lies to the west of Lamia (Map 1). Present status: Formerly in the Archaeological Museum in Lamia, though now possibly with the Byzantine authorities in Larisa, or even at the new museum of Ypati itself. Summary of content: Two billon trachea, one denier tournois. Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike and Athens. Note: The list below is based on my observations at Lamia Museum. It should be noted that the new Byzantine Museum at Ypati (see the publication Βυζαντινό Μουσείο Φθιώτιδας, p. 15) has acquired the Kotsilis collection, which contains coinages of all periods and was assembled locally, though nothing precise has been published about its contents. Bibliography: Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 584, n. 74. Discussed further pp.: 108, 447, 465, 1236, 1428

1056

appendix i

Content Billon trachea 2 Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 2 Theodore Komnenos Doukas (1224–1230) 1 DOC IV, no. 5, type B; DOS XII, type B, pl. 37.10–12 1 DOC IV, no. 9, type F; DOS XII, type F, pl. 38.6–7 Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 4.385 Zaraka Findspot: Peloponnese, Corinthia. The coins were excavated in the Cistercian monastery of Zaraka, near the archaeological site of Ancient Stymphalos, modern village of Stymphalia (Map 1). Present status: Archaeological Museum of Ancient Corinth. Summary of content: Two ancient Greek coins; one middle Byzantine coin; one modern reckoning counter (all not listed below); one billon trachy; two petty denomination issues; six deniers tournois; three soldini; eight torneselli. Latin Empire; Tours; France; Achaïa; Counterfeits; Venice. Note: I shall discuss and interpret these coins in greater detail in a forthcoming publication. The site has two distinctive periods of settlement, a thirteenthcentury monastic one and a late-fourteenth-century one. As I shall argue, the latter came to a violent end at the hands of the Navarrese in 1381, or just thereafter. Two soldini and six torneselli from my list below might have been lost or abandoned on this occasion in a hoard-like context, only to be later distributed amongst the site, in two foundation trenches in particular, as earth was shifted in preparation for repairs of the architectural structures. Bibliography: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 252, n. 70; Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”. Discussed further pp.: 120, 149, 152, 216, 266, 398n980, 426, 442, 496, 1202, 1222, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1289, 1320, 1328, 1330, 1331, 1365, 1377, 1416, 1484, 1489, 1622, 1623, 1648, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1662, 1663, 1666, 1667, 1672, 1673 Content Billon trachy 1 Latin Empire 1204–1261 1 DOC IV, no. 30, small module type A

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS, 1200–1430

Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI Deniers tournois 2 Abbey of Tours 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 2

Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 177 +TVRONVS CIVI

1

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

1

Principality of Achaïa 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1–2

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

Soldini 3 Republic of Venice 3 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3 Torneselli 7 Republic of Venice 6 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 1 Uncertain doge 1

Counterfeit tornesello

1057

1058 5

appendix i

Deniers Tournois in Hoards in Italy (in Chronological Order)

5.386 Castelforte Findspot: Lazio region, Latina province. The town of Castelforte is located in the southernmost part of the province, near Minturno. The hoard was excavated and found in two pots. Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Thousands of deniers tournois. Note: No other information on the content of the hoard is available. I owe the reference for this hoard to the kindness of Andrea Saccocci. Date of concealment: Any time post ca. 1267. Bibliography: Fulvio, “Castelforte”, p. 410. Discussed further p.: 1377 5.387 Vibo Valentia Findspot: Calabria region, Vibo Valentia province. The hoard was excavated in 1970 in the Affaccio area of town, which is to the southwest of the medieval centre. Present status: Museo Archeologico Statale, Vibo Valentia. Summary of content: One denier tournois and 22 pennies of Frederick II and Manfred of Hohenstaufen (not listed below). Achaïa to William. Date of concealment: Last issue: William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278). The type in question suggests a 1270s dating. Bibliography: Arslan, Vibo Valentia (CZ) 1970/2; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 713; Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio”, pp. 606 and 608; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446, no. 9; MEC, p. 424, no. 110; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 34; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 267, nn. 8–9. Discussed further pp.: 208, 353, 1377, 1385, 1389 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV21 5.388 Filignano Findspot: Molise region, Isernia province. The town of Filignano lies to the west of the town of Isernia, towards the border with the Lazio region. The hoard was found in 1998 during excavations in the “le Mura” locality of Mennella.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1059

Present status: Filignano town hall. Summary of content: 29 deniers tournois. Achaïa and Provence. Note: See the publication for more information and discussion. Despite its size, the hoard makes an exceptional contribution to a number of questions, for instance the beginning of tournois minting at Thebes, and the early availability of French feudal tournois issues in the Mediterranean. Date of concealment: Last issue: Charles I or II of Anjou (1278–1289). The hoard dates to the mid to late 1280s. It is possible, as suggested in its publication, that it was concealed on the occasion of the death of Charles I in January 1285. Bibliography: Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”. Discussed further pp.: 208, 353, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1377, 1392, 1394, 1429, 1431 Content Deniers tournois 5 County of Provence 5 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 3 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3954 +K.FI.Rñ.F.COMESP. / +PROVINCIALIS 2

22

Marquisat of Provence 2 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 2 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6 Principality of Achaïa 9 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV133 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224

1060

appendix i

10 3

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 10 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203

5.389 Roca Vecchia Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. The locality of Roca Vecchia, by the sea, belongs to the town of Melendugno, to the southeast of Lecce. Present status: Once listed for the Museo Provinciale, Lecce, now apparently lost. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, perhaps other coinages (see Note). Note: This hoard has been variously known by the names of Roca Vecchia and Melendugno. It has also been argued that it was in fact two hoards, one containing tournois, and possibly two gigliati in the name of Robert, dating to the fourteenth century, and the other dating to the fifteenth and containing coins of northern Italy and the Regno. Even though the hoard(s) was/were properly excavated in the 1930s, there is apparently no solution to this problem: the publication of the hoard from Muro Leccese (see «403») indicates that a conservative element of Greek tournois can be found hoarded in the Salento as late as the mid to late fifteenth century. A few of the tournois have been recorded, and we note some discreet quantities for Philip of Taranto at Achaïa and Naupaktos, one specimen of Mahaut, and a few Athenian issues. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) or Robert I of Anjou (1309–1343), if we consider the existence of a fourteenth-century hoard of tournois, with possible gigliati. The overall quantity of Mahaut’s issues is rather low, suggesting concealment in the later 1310s. As for the possible fifteenth-century dating, the issues seem to converge in the 1470s and the Ottoman attacks on this coastline in 1480 provide an obvious historical context for concealment. Bibliography: Bernardini, “Melendugno – Scavi di Roca”, p. 198; Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, p. 170. Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 23; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 11; MEC, p. 418, no. 39; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221–222, n. 25; Libero Mangieri et al., Muro Leccese; Baker, “Denari tornesi”, p. 17, n. 52. Discussed further pp.: 208, 1377, 1416, 1428, 1498

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1061

5.390 Martano Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. The town of Martano lies to the south of Lecce, in the direction of Otranto. Present status: Museo Provinciale, Lecce. Summary of content: 161 deniers tournois, one gigliato (not listed below). Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos (?), Naples. Note: Libero Mangieri’s list combines the Achaïan and Naupaktos issues of Philip of Taranto (43 in total). The gigliato is identified as an issue of Robert I of Anjou (1309–1343). Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321). The overall quantity of her issues is rather low, suggesting concealment in the later 1310s. Bibliography: Libero Mangieri et al., Muro Leccese. Discussed further pp.: 1377, 1416, 1428, 1446, 1498 Content Deniers tournois 65+ Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 10 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 8 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 16 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 22 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) yes Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 3 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 48

Duchy of Athens 19 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287– 1308), obv. legend G.DVX 29 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

yes?

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos yes? Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

5.391 Gallipoli Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. Gallipoli lies on a promontory in the west of the Salento peninsula. The hoard is apparently in the town’s museum and is presumably of local origin.

1062

appendix i

Present status: Museo Civico, Gallipoli, though now difficult to locate. Summary of content: 47 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Mahaut of Hainaut; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Date of concealment: Last issue: Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321). Her issues appear to be slightly more mature than in the previous two hoards, and concealment in the late 1310s or early 1320s can be proposed. Bibliography: Travaglini, “Museo Civico di Gallipoli”, p. 225; Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, pp. 66–72; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446, no. 10; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221, n. 11; 223. Discussed further pp.: 1377, 1416, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 21 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 4 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 9 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 4 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 20

5

Duchy of Athens 9 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 11 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 5 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

5.392 Puglia Findspot: Puglia region. The hoard was probably found in this area. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Taranto. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa, in addition to 224 pennies of Frederick II Hohenstaufen. Note: Travaini is inclined to believe that the single tournois, dating to nearly a century after the remainder of the coins, is an intruder. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1063

Bibliography: Libero Mangieri, “Il tesoretto di denari rinvenuto in Puglia”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 423, n. 8; MEC, p. 423, no. 103. Discussed further p.: 1377 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 5.393 Bitonto Findspot: Puglia region, Bari province. The town of Bitonto lies a short distance west of Bari. Present status: Museo Archeologico, Bari. Summary of content: 41 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeits. Note: More information on the museological context of this hoard is given in my publication. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332) or counterfeits. The issues of Mahaut and John are not particularly plentiful to allow for detailed chronological conclusions, and concealment from the mid-1320s to the early 1330s seems likely. Bibliography: Siciliano, “Monete”, p. 201; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 445, no. 1; MEC, p. 415, no. 11; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 220; 223–226; 230; 242; 249–250. Discussed further pp.: 1377, 1419, 1428, 1446, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 27 Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1

1064

appendix i

4

2 7

3 3

8

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1–4 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX

2

2

1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 2 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2ai–ii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

4

1065

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Achaïa 1 Of William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), (G.DVX)/ Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne (1287–1311), (GVI.DVX)/ Athens 1 Rough style

5.394 Cosa Findspot: Tuscany region, Grosseto province. Archaeological site in southwestern Tuscany. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois; 31 pennies. Athens to Guy II. The remainder of the hoard (not listed below) is constituted by pennies of Lucca, Perugia, Florence, and Montefiascone. Date of concealment: 1329 is suggested by Rovelli. Bibliography: Rovelli, “The Medieval Coins”; Baker, “Denari tornesi”, p. 15, n. 32. Discussed further p.: 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 5.395 Paracopio di Bova Findspot: Calabria region, Reggio di Calabria province. The hoard was found near Bova, in the southern part of the province. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Reggio di Calabria, and Bova town hall. Summary of content: Large hoard, of which 101 + two + eight + 421 deniers tournois, and two pennies, are extant. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Corfu; France; Toulouse; Counterfeits. Roman Senate and Pisa. Note: The hoard was found by shepherds before the Second World War. It was then dispersed and only gradually re-constituted. For details see the two articles by Castrizio. The original nucleus of 101 coins was published by Carroccio and Castrizio. Based on the photographs reproduced in this publication, I reattributed some of the individual specimens. This had some implications for the dating of the hoard, though it provoked a robust rebuke from Castrizio. Since 1995, two + eight further coins have been identified and attributed to this

1066

appendix i

hoard within the museum in Reggio. The catalogue reproduced below is based on my autopsy of these 111 coins, which vindicated my previous comments on typology and dating. 423 coins from the same hoard were more recently acquired by the town of Bova. These have already been inspected by me and confirm the impressions gained from the 111 coins, though I do not list them here since the hoard in its entirety will be the subject of a future monograph authored by Castrizio and myself. The 423 coins will go on permanent display in the town hall of Bova. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364). His issues, which have a terminus ante quem of 1353, are contained in the hoard in moderate quantities though at a relatively advanced stage of their typology. Concealment from the mid-1330s onwards is likely. Bibliography: Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 445, no. 3; MEC, p. 420, no. 63; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221, n. 14; 226; 242; 261–262; Castrizio, “Ancora sul tesoretto di Paracopio”; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 279, n. 82 and p. 283, n. 101; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 23. Discussed further pp.: 1377, 1423, 1428, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1446, 1453, 1484, 1736, 1737 Content Deniers tournois 63 Principality of Achaïa 5 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV101 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 6 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 13 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

11

1 8

11

2

33

3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB-Γ uncertain Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1–4 uncertain 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA2

Duchy of Athens 8 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 7 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 10 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 7 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 8 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

1067

1068 10

appendix i

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 10 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii

1

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 1 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1

4

Counterfeit deniers tournois

5.396 S. Vito Dei Normanni Findspot: Puglia region, Brindisi province. This locality lies a short distance due west of Brindisi. Present status: Museo Provinciale F. Ribezzo, Brindisi. Summary of content: 40 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Counterfeit. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364). His issues are present at more advanced proportions than in the previous hoard, but are not entirely mature either. The absence of gigliati, which are contained in the following two Pugliese hoards, might be another element for a relatively early dating. Concealment from the late 1330s to ca. 1350 can be proposed, subject to future verifications. Note: Coin identifications were reviewed in the last item in the bibliography. Bibliography: Travaglini, “Il Medagliere del Museo di Brindisi”, p. 243; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446, no. 6; MEC, p. 421, no. 82; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221, n. 17; 228; 242; 262–263. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1446, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 27 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

2 2 4 8

4

3

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 Robert of Taranto 1332–1364 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAB

9

Duchy of Athens 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

2

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 2 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d

1

Uncertain denier tournois

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

1069

1070

appendix i

5.397 Manduria 1916 Findspot: Puglia region, Taranto province. This town lies ca. 20km to the southeast of Taranto. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Taranto. Summary of content: 652 deniers tournois, in addition to 37 gigliati of Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) or posthumous, and one denarius (not listed below). Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Chios; Counterfeits. Note: This hoard was studied by me, and the relevant publication needs to be consulted for further typological and museological information. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) or Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) or posthumous. It is very likely that the last issues to be contained in the hoard are gigliati of Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 3. The fact that the latter have a very wide chronological range indeed, in addition to the lack of any obvious successors to the tournois and gigliati present in this hoard, make it difficult to determine a terminus ante quem. The present hoard appears to be more mature than the previous hoard, and less so than the following one. Concealment in ca. 1360 may provisionally be proposed. Bibliography: Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446, no. 8; MEC, p. 423, no. 105; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 220–221; 228; 242; 250–255; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 18; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 179; Baker, “Denari tornesi”. Discussed further pp.: 210n144, 351n748, 422, 1074, 1377, 1391, 1421, 1423, 1428, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1464, 1466, 1473, 1484, 1498 Content Deniers tournois 414 Principality of Achaïa 16 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 14 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 14 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

4

20

54

55

68

2 77

75

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 1 Uncertain Florent of Hainaut Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 25 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 9 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA or Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 29 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 16 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 32 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 19 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 uncertain 26 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3

1071

1072

appendix i

29

162

8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1–4 uncertain 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3–4 uncertain Robert of Taranto 1332–1364 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA2 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA3 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAB 3 Uncertain Robert of Taranto

Duchy of Athens 21 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 19 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 38 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 19 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 15 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 59 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 19 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 20 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 2 Mule of Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A and GR20Γ 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 43 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 43 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

68

1073

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 68 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 28 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 11 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 2 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

2

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 2 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 2

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOΓvar1 Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

1

3

Counterfeit deniers tournois

1

Uncertain denier tournois

5.398 Taranto Celestini Findspot: Puglia region, Taranto province. The hoard was found in the grounds of the Celestine monastery in the old city of Taranto. It probably reached the museum in the nineteenth century, although no record exists. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Taranto.

1074

appendix i

Summary of content: 852 deniers tournois (of which 740 are listed below). Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Neopatra; Arta; Counterfeits; Provence. Additionally, one Hohenstaufen penny, 21 gigliati of Robert of Anjou, two imperial Roman bronze denominations, and one fifteenth-century cavallo were found. Note: See my publication for additional typological and museological details. Degasperri’s more recent contribution discusses the religious significance of the inclusion of the Roman coins. Date of concealment: Last issue: Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) or Robert of Anjou (1309–1343) or posthumous. The comments made with regard to the previous hoard also apply here. If anything, the hoard from Taranto appears to be a little bit more mature on the basis of the overall quantities of John of Gravina, and might well date later than «397». Bibliography: Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 70; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446, no. 7; MEC, p. 423, no. 104; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 220; 227–228; 230; 242; 255–260; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 28; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 179; Baker, “Denari tornesi”; Degasperri, “Tesoretto trecentesco dei Celestini di Taranto”. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1292, 1377, 1391, 1421, 1423, 1428, 1437, 1446, 1453, 1466, 1473, 1484, 1498 Content Deniers tournois 1 County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3952–3 +K.COMES.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PROVINCIALIS 472

Principality of Achaïa 22 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV134 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV221–4 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV222 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV224 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

17 5

23

44

64

77

1 1 69

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 17 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 uncertain Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, F5 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVΓ 14 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA or Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 25 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 26 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 46 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 17 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMB Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 28 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 8 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1 uncertain 13 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB uncertain 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 2 Uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut

1075

1076

appendix i

118

29

2 173

John of Gravina (1321–1332) 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 28 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 12 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1–4 uncertain 14 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 7 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB2 5 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB3 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1–3 uncertain 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ2 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGΓ3 3 Uncertain John Gravina Robert of Taranto 1332–1364 24 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAB Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa

Duchy of Athens 16 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 14 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 42 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 24 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 14 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 71 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 21 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 22 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 16 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, f 43 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 42 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1

87

1077

Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 87 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1a 34 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1d 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 11 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 2 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1f 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2a uncertain 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii 7 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b uncertain

2

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 2 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 2 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOB

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

5.399 Naples 1886 Findspot: Campania region. The hoard was discovered in the Piazza del Municipio, in the centre of Naples, adjacent to the Castel Nuovo. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Napoli, although when requested could not be located.

1078

appendix i

Summary of content: 2494 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Corfu; Neopatra; Arta; Sulmona, Tocco, French royal and/or feudal; Counterfeit. Additionally, six Roman pennies and their imitations were contained in the hoard (not listed below). Note: The coin that is listed as a counterfeit here had originally been attributed to Avella, a proposal which was rejected by Travaini. Some of the many unreadable coins might equally have been counterfeits. Date of concealment: Last issue: perhaps Ladislas (1386–1414). The Roman pennies have the potential of dating this hoard, though not according to our present state of knowledge. Concealment a decade either side of 1400, or even later, may be proposed. Bibliography: De Petra, “Tesoretto di tornesi”; Ruggiero, “Napoli”; Metcalf, “Pylia”, pp. 220–222; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 718; Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 150; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 445, no. 2; MEC, p. 419, no. 54; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221, n. 12; 223; 228; 230; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, p. 415, no. 20. Discussed further pp.: 73n427, 422, 1287, 1292, 1377, 1423, 1428, 1437, 1441, 1443, 1446, 1453, 1466, 1477, 1478, 1484 Content 948 Principality of Achaïa 52 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 38 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 38 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 12 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 12 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 44 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 118 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 175 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 231 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 5 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 147 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 113 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 12 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1079

503

Duchy of Athens 201 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104 300 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1

215

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 215 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

3

Lordship of Corfu 3 Philip of Taranto (1294–1331) 3 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.24

6

Sevastokrator in Thessaly at Neopatra 6 John II Angelos (1303–1318) 5 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1 1 Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 2

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOAvar1?

6

French royal and/or feudal issues

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

799

Uncertain deniers tournois

1080 6

appendix i

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) yes Charles III of Durazzo (1382–1386) yes Sulmona, MEC, p. 238 yes Ladislas (1386–1414) yes Sulmona, MEC, p. 243 1 Tocco, p. 244

5.400 Sicily Findspot: Sicily region. Presumably the hoard was found on the island. Present status: Presumably dispersed. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Tours and Achaïa, amongst contemporary Sicilian pennies. Note: The coins presented by Woodhead and Wilson include at least one later medieval hoard of petty coinages, of the Aragonese and perhaps the earlier Angevin and Hohenstaufen rulers of the island. Whether or not the two tournois were part of this hoard cannot be ascertained with certainty. Date of concealment: Last issue: perhaps John of Aragon (1458–1479). Bibliography: Woodhead and Wilson, “A Medieval Sicilian Group”. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1285, 1377 Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 5.401 Santa Croce Di Magliano Findspot: Molise region, Campobasso province. This town lies in the northeastern part of the province, close to the border with the most northerly part of Puglia. Present status: Dispersed, although the rare specimen of Campobasso is now at the Museo Nazionale, Naples. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, including issues of Achaïa, the common type from Campobasso, and one specimen of the type reading on obv. and rev. ŒC0ÓPIb0SSIŒ (D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, p. 291, no. 10).

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1081

Note: The hoard was found in the walls of the castle. Date of concealment: Last issue: Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467), with a dating of the coins after 1459–1462/3. Bibliography: Di Palma, “Una moneta inedita di Campobasso”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446, no. 5; Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero, p. 64; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 221, n. 16; Baker, “Denari tornesi”, p. 16, n. 39. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1377, 1477, 1480 5.402 Sant’Agata De’ Goti Findspot: Campania region, Benevento province. This town lies in the western part of the province, close to the city of Caserta. Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois, presumably including those of Campobasso. Note: This hoard was discovered in the early eighteenth century. Date of concealment: Last issue: perhaps Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450– ca. 1467), with a dating of the coins after 1459–1462/3. Bibliography: Ruotolo, “Conte Nicola II di Monforte”, pp. 47–48, n. 40. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1477 5.403 Muro Leccese Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. The town of Muro Leccese lies to the south of Lecce. Present status: Museo di Borgo Terra, to be exhibited. Summary of content: 21 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II; Counterfeits; Campobasso. The hoard also contained 190 gigliati and three pierreali (Kingdom of Sicily/Naples to Robert of Anjou and posthumous; and Kingdom of Sicily to Alfonso the Magnanimous, not listed here). Note: The story of this hoard – its finding and its voyage through the various institutions of the state – is narrated by Libero Mangieri in his monograph, which also contains my analysis of the deniers tournois, upon which the list below is based. He also discusses the gigliati (not reproduced here), which are of some interest since the great majority of them are, stylistically speaking, a development on the late and posthumous Baker, “Casálbore”, Group 3. Whereas this new grouping ‘Group 3bis’ appears to be a genuine but late product of the Naples mint, the hoard also contains at least one gigliato in the name of Robert which might very well be of local Pugliese manufacture, official or otherwise. Date of concealment: Last issue: Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467), with a dating of the coins after 1459–1462/3.

1082

appendix i

Bibliography: Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, pp. 177–178, n. 200 and pp. 236–237; Libero Mangieri et al., Muro Leccese; Baker, “Denari tornesi”; Baker, “Tipologia ed epigrafia”; Testa “Trois monnaies medievales”. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1060, 1377, 1419, 1428, 1477, 1480, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1503 Content Deniers tournois 14 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA-Γ uncertain 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 4 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 2 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1–3 uncertain 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) or John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3 or Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA1–4 2 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa 3

Duchy of Athens 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7

1

County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN ITALY

1

Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of John of Gravina/ Achaïa

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

6

1083

Deniers Tournois in Graves in Italy (in Alphabetical Order)

6.404 Capaccio Vecchia Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The site lies a short distance inland from Paestum. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Athens to William or Guy II, and Corfu. Date of concealment: Last issue: either coin, suggesting in combination a relatively early concealment date, perhaps around 1300. Bibliography: Travaini, “Le monete di Capaccio Vecchia”, p. 367; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 3; MEC, p. 426, S9; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 221, n. 10; 223. Discussed further pp.: 150, 363, 1089, 1428, 1442, 1443 Content Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1

Lordship of Corfu 1 Philip of Taranto (1294–1331) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.24

6.405 Monopoli Findspot: Puglia region, Bari province. This grave find was excavated in 1982 in Piazza Vittorio Emanuele, central Monopoli, which lies in the southern part of the province. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Catalan Company at Athens and Campobasso.

1084

appendix i

Date of concealment: Last issue: Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467), with a dating of the coins after 1459–1462/3. Bibliography: Carrieri, “Rinvenimento di un sepolcreto tardomedievale a Monopoli”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 7; MEC, p. 428, no. 26; Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221, n. 13; 232, n. 95; Baker, “Denari tornesi”, p. 16, n. 40. Discussed further pp.: 150, 1477, 1482 Content Deniers tournois 1 Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA 1

County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

6.406 Policoro Findspot: Basilicata region, Matera province. The ancient city of Policoro lies in the coastal plain in the southern part of the province. Present status: Probably Museo Nazionale della Siritide, Policoro. Summary of content: Eight deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche; Naupaktos. Note: Coin identifications were reviewed in the last item in the bibliography. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). The single issue suggests a date from the mid-1320s, though concealment might equally have occurred in the early 1330s. Bibliography: Hänsel, “Policoro”, p. 429; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 445, no. 4; MEC, p. 420, no. 69. Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 221, n. 15; 226; 242; 261. Discussed further pp.: 150, 1378, 1419, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 5 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

2 1

Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA

2

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c

7

1085

Deniers Tournois and Greek Petty Denomination Issues as Excavation and Single Finds in Italy (in Alphabetical Order)

7.407 Alezio Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. This material was excavated at the village of Alezio, which lies a few km east of Gallipoli. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Taranto. Summary of content: Unspecified denier(s) tournois. Bibliography: Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 19. Discussed further pp.: 1378 7.408 Alezio Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. Alezio lies a few km east of Gallipoli. Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: One denier tournois (?) of William of Villehardouin. Note: Information about this coin was found in the inventory of the Rasci collection, and its present location is unknown. Bibliography: Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, p. 178; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 24; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 11. Discussed further p.: 1378

1086

appendix i

7.409 Apigliano Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. Apigliano is a deserted medieval village in close proximity to Martano, southeast of Lecce. The coins were excavated by the University of Lecce. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Unspecified number of deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos. Bibliography: Degasperi, “Le monete”. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1385, 1404, 1408, 1416, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois yes Principality of Achaïa yes William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) yes Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) ? Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) yes Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) yes

Duchy of Athens yes Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

yes

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos yes Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

7.410 Bagnoli Del Trigno Findspot: Molise region, Isernia province. This locality lies in the northeast corner of the province, on the borders with the Campobasso province and the Abruzzo region. Present status: Filignano town hall. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Note: The publication had erroneously specified “Bagnoli sul Triono” as the findspot. Bibliography: Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 291. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1404

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1087

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 7.411 Barletta Findspot: Puglia region, Barletta-Andria-Trani province. Present status: Museo Civico, Barletta. Summary of content: 49 deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, Campobasso. Note: I owe this entry to the kindness of G. Libero Mangieri, who will publish this material. He informs me that, despite their appearance, these coins do not emanate from a hoard but are genuine single finds. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391, 1395, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1428, 1446, 1477 Content Deniers tournois 22 Principality of Achaïa 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 5 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 10 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 15

Duchy of Athens 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 13 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

2

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 2 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

County of Campobasso 1 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

9

Uncertain deniers tournois

1088

appendix i

7.412 Bitonto Findspot: Puglia region, Bari province. The coins were excavated in the church of St. Paul of Bitonto, which lies a few km west of the provincial capital. Present status: Possibly the Museo Civico, Bitonto. Summary of content: Four or five deniers tournois, two of which from Athens. Note: The total quantities, and the tentative identifications given for some of the pieces, are not always consistent across the bibliography. The original publication was unavailable to me. Bibliography: Cardamone and Palmieri, “Chiesa di S. Paolo Apostolo a Bitonto”, p. 13; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714, n. 15; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 1; MEC, p. 424, S4; Baker, “denari tornesi”, p. 16, n. 41. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1428 7.413 Brindisi Findspot: Puglia region, Brindisi province. The coin was excavated in the S. Pietro degli Schiavoni area of the old town, at the site of the present Teatro Verdi. Present status: Museo Provinciale ‘F. Ribezzo’, Brindisi. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Campobasso. Bibliography: Cocchiaro and Marinazzo, “Scavi di Brindisi (1984–1988)”, p. 109, no. 41; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 2; MEC, p. 424, S5. 7.414 Brindisi Findspot: Puglia region, Brindisi province. The coins are museum pieces with presumed local provenance. Present status: Museo Provinciale ‘F. Ribezzo’, Brindisi. Summary of content: Ten deniers tournois. Achaïa and Athens. Bibliography: Travaglini, “Il Medagliere del Museo di Brindisi”, pp. 238 and 242; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 72, n. 25. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391, 1399, 1404, 1408, 1428 Content Deniers tournois 6 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 3 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

4

1089

Duchy of Athens 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

7.415 Campobasso Findspot: Molise region, Campobasso province. These museum pieces are presumably of local origin. Present status: Museo Provinciale Sannitico, Campobasso. Summary of content: Four deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens. Bibliography: Sogliano, Museo Provinciale Sannitico, pp. 105–109; Colonna, “Saepinum”, p. 103; Cuozzo and Martin, Santa Cristina di Sepino, p. 36, n. 33; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, pp. 272–273, nn. 41 and 46. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1385, 1399, 1428 Content Deniers tournois 3 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

7.416 Capaccio Vecchia Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The site lies a short distance inland from Paestum. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Six deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens, Counterfeit. Note: This entry combines the two sets of data presented by Delogu and Travaini. Two coins from the same excavations have been listed under grave finds «404». Delogu’s coins have been re-attributed on the basis of his line drawings. Bibliography: Delogu, “Le monete”, pp. 99–100; Travaini, “Le monete di Capaccio Vecchia”, pp. 357–374; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 713; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 3; MEC, p. 426, S9; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 232. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391, 1416, 1428, 1484

1090

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 3 Principality of Achaïa 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B

1

Counterfeit denier tournois

1

Uncertain denier tournois

7.417 Capo Colonna Findspot: Calabria region, Crotone province. Capo Colonna is a promontory and archaeological area to the southeast of Crotone. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Athens and uncertain. Note: Information about these coins derives from Professor Arslan’s unpublished list of Calabrian coin finds. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further p.: 1428 Content Deniers tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1

Uncertain denier tournois

7.418 Castel Fiorentino Findspot: Puglia region, Foggia province. Castel Fiorentino is a site which lies some 10km from the town of Torremaggiore, near San Severo, in the northern part of the province. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1091

Bibliography: Rovelli and Gourdin, “Le monete”, p. 48, n. 7; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio”, p. 607; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 4; MEC, p. 426, S10. Discussed further p.: 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 7.419 Castello Di Scarlino Findspot: Tuscany region, Grosseto province. The coin was excavated in the castle of the town of Scarlino, which lies in the coastal plain opposite the island of Elba. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: Rovelli, “Monete del Castello di Scarlino”, p. 239; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 275, n. 61. Discussed further p.: 1428 7.420 Cavallino Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. This locality lies just to the south of the provincial capital. Present status: Museo Provinciale, Lecce. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, p. 166; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 22; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 11. Discussed further p.: 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX

1092

appendix i

7.421 Collecorvino Findspot: Abruzzo region, Pescara province. The coins were found in the 1860s during work on a road in this locality, which lies a short distance due west of the provincial capital. Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: Two or three deniers tournois, of which Tours and Sulmona are certified. Note: Cherubini calls this collection of coins a “ripostiglio”, though it is pointed out by Travaini that, apart from a hoard of Hohenstaufen pennies, most of these pieces are to be considered single finds. Bibliography: Cherubini, “Ripostiglio di monete dei bassi tempi”; Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, p. 131; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 448, no. 5; MEC, p. 416, no. 25; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 276, n. 67. Discussed further pp.: 422, 1285, 1477, 1478 Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples) 1 Charles III of Durazzo (1382–1386) 1 Sulmona, MEC, p. 238

7.422 Cosenza Findspot: Calabria region, Cosenza province. These museum pieces are presumably of local origin. Present status: Museo Civico, Cosenza. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Athens and Achaïa or Naupaktos (not listed below). Note: One of the tournois is said to be of Philip of Taranto, though it is not specified from which of his two mints. Bibliography: Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio”, p. 606, n. 22. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1428, 1446

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1093

Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 7.423 Crotone Findspot: Calabria region, Crotone province. The coins were unearthed at the excavations for the Banca Popolare, in the heart of the old town. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Crotone. Summary of content: Three uncertain deniers tournois. Note: Cuteri’s report and Professor Arslan’s private notes have added some information to the generic reference contained in MEC. Bibliography: MEC, p. 426, no. S13; F. Cuteri in AM, 25 (1998), p. 172. Discussed further p.: 1378 7.424 Crotone Findspot: Calabria region, Crotone province. The coin was excavated in the town’s castle. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Crotone. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Note: Professor Arslan’s private notes have added some information to the generic reference contained in MEC. Bibliography: MEC, p. 426, no. S13. Discussed further p.: 1378 7.425 Gerace Findspot: Calabria region, Reggio di Calabria province. Gerace lies inland from Locri, on the Ionian coast of Calabria. The coins were excavated in the church of St. Theodore, also known as “Nunziatella”. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Four deniers tournois. Achaïa, Naupaktos, Catalan Company at Athens. Bibliography: Barello, “Gerace 1990”, pp. 626–631; Carroccio and Castrizio, “Ripostiglio”, p. 606; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 6; MEC, p. 426, S17; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 232, n. 94. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1385, 1404, 1446, 1482

1094

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

1

Counterfeit of the Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. d +GVIDVXATENES / +DECLARENCIA

7.426 Gravina Findspot: Puglia region, Bari province. The town of Gravina lies in the west of the province, on the border with Basilicata. These museum pieces are presumably of local origin. Present status: Fondazione E. Pomarici-Santomasi, Gravina. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois of Achaïa. Bibliography: Libero Mangieri, Pomarici-Santomasi, p. 136, nos. 634 and 635. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1419 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 7.427 Guardiano Findspot: Puglia region, Brindisi province. The locality of Guardiano belongs to the town of Mesagne, which lies to the southwest of Brindisi. Present status: Museo Civico, Mesagne. Summary of content: One deniers tournois of Achaïa. Bibliography: Travaglini, “Museo Civico ‘U. Granafei’ di Mesagne”, p. 280, no. 25; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 21. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1416

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1095

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 7.428 Ischia Findspot: Campania region. The town of Lacco Ameno lies on the north coast of the island of Ischia, in the Gulf of Naples. The coins were excavated in 1957 in the church of S. Restituta. Present status: Antiquarium della Chiesa di S. Restituta. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Achaïa and uncertain. Bibliography: Pedroni, “Chiesa di S. Restituta”, p. 175. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1408 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ 1

Uncertain denier tournois

7.429 Lagopesole Findspot: Basilicata region, Potenza province. Lagopesole is a castle on the northerly route out of Potenza, and is administratively part of the town of Avigliano. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two to three deniers tournois, two of which are reported to be of Philip of Taranto (Naupaktos), amongst many other medieval coins. Bibliography: P. Peduto in AM, 25 (1998), pp. 159–161; Di Muro et al., “Lagopesole in Basilicata”, pp. 129–131; Fiorillo, “La discarica angioina del castello di Lagopesole”, pp. 353–354. Discussed further p.: 1446 7.430 Loreto Findspot: Marche region, Ancona province. The coin was excavated in the Basilica of the Santa Casa, which was erected after 1294 around the house in which the Virgin received the Annunciation.

1096

appendix i

Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: Grimaldi, “S. Casa di Loreto”; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 426; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 275, n. 64. Discussed further pp.: 442, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 7.431 Mesagne Findspot: Puglia region, Brindisi province. The town of Mesagne lies to the southwest of Brindisi. Present status: Private collection. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Naupaktos. Bibliography: Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, p. 16, no. 18; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 20; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 11. Discussed further p.: 1446 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 7.432 Mileto Findspot: Calabria region, Vibo Valentia province. The coin was excavated in the old town of Mileto, which lies south of the provincial capital. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois(?). Bibliography: Fiorillo and Peduto, “Mileto Vecchia”, pp. 232–233.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1097

7.433 Ordona Findspot: Puglia region, Foggia province. The archaeological site of Ordona, excavated by a Belgian mission, lies south of the city of Foggia. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Five deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens, Counterfeits. Note: This material has been presented and re-interpreted on a number of occasions. The attributions given here are based on the various descriptions and illustrations. Bibliography: De Boe, “Les monnaies découvertes en 1962 et 1963”, pp. 82–84; Scheers and Bex, “Les monnaies trouvées durant la campagne de 1964 à 1970”; Scheers and Van Heesch, “Les monnaies trouvées durant les campagnes de 1972 à 1986”, p. 277; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71; Scheers, “La circolazione monetaria”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 8; MEC, p. 428, S33; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 232. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391, 1395, 1428, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois 1 Of Achaïa 1 Of uncertain prototype

7.434 Ostuni Findspot: Puglia region, Brindisi province. The town of Ostuni lies a short distance northwest of the provincial capital. Present status: Presumably Museo di Civiltà Preclassiche, Ostuni. Summary of content: One unspecified denier tournois. Note: I was provided with information on this coin by G. Libero Mangieri. Bibliography: Unpublished.

1098

appendix i

7.435 Otranto Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. These coins were excavated in Otranto, which lies at the easternmost point of the Salento peninsula. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Eight deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens, Counterfeits(?). Note: Travaglini’s list summarises finds from a number of locations in and around Otranto. Bibliography: Travaglini, “Le monete”; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 18; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 9; MEC, p. 429, S34; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 232. Discussed further pp.: 1238n223, 1378, 1385, 1416, 1419, 1428, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 3 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 3

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

2

Uncertain or counterfeit deniers tournois

7.436 Paestum Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The archaeological site of Paestum lies south of Salerno. This is a museum piece of presumed local provenance. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Paestum. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Note: This coin used to be in the private collection of F. Sallusto. G. Libero Mangieri kindly informed me about its existence. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1404

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1099

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 7.437 Paestum Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The archaeological site of Paestum lies south of Salerno. These are museum pieces of presumed local provenance. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Paestum. Summary of content: Ca. five to nine deniers tournois. Achaïa(?), Athens, Naupaktos(?). Note: These coins have only been described briefly. Not listed below are four coins of Charles I or II of Anjou, which might be pennies of the Regno or deniers tournois, and two coins of Philip of Taranto, which are either from the Naupaktos or Clarentza mints. Bibliography: Sallusto, “Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Paestum”; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 10; MEC, p. 429, S35. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 3 Duchy of Athens 3 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 7.438 Paestum Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The archaeological site of Paestum lies south of Salerno. This coin was excavated at the extra-mural Sanctuary of Aphrodite, in the locality of Santa Venera. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Paestum. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Bibliography: Buttrey, “The Coins”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 10; MEC, p. 429, S35. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391

1100

appendix i

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 7.439 Piedimonte Matese Findspot: Campania region, Caserta province. Town in the northeast of the province, close to the border with Molise. Present status: Museo Civico, and Museo Alifano, Piedimonte Matese. Summary of content: Five deniers tournois. Achaïa and Campobasso. Note: It is possible that the coins of Campobasso and that of Philip were in fact not single finds. The coin of Charles, on the other hand, was part of the old stock of the Museo Alifano, and might no longer be extant. Bibliography: Nassa, Catalogo del Museo Alifano, p. 15; Nassa, “Medio Volturno”; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 271, n. 27 and p. 273, n. 47. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391, 1404, 1477 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη A’”, KA201–203 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 3

County of Campobasso 3 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

7.440 Quattro Macine Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. Quattro Macine is a medieval castle close to Giuggianello, southeast of Lecce. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Deniers tournois are the most significant thirteenth- and fourteenth-century numismatic finds from this excavation. The Achaïan series ends in the early fourteenth century. Bibliography: Arthur, “Quattro Macine”, pp. 210 and 228. Discussed further p.: 1378

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1101

7.441 Ripafratta Findspot: Tuscany region, Pisa province. Ripafratta is a castle in the town of S. Giuliano Terme, 8km to the north of the city of Pisa. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One counterfeit denier tournois. Note: This coin, which reads +G.DVXø0TIIeIIS / +TñB0NI:CIVeS, displays a legend without parallel and a neat but wholly unorthodox style of lettering. Of particular interest are the renderings of the obv. and rev. S, the obv. X and the rev. V. This coin suggests that there was an indigenous Italian counterfeiting activity of Frankish Greek deniers tournois. Bibliography: Vanni, “Le monete di Ripafratta”, p. 433 and pl. 1, no. 1; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 715; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 446; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 232; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 275, n. 61. Discussed further p.: 1484 Content Denier tournois 1 Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Athens 7.442 Roca Vecchia Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. The locality of Roca Vecchia, by the sea, belongs to the town Melendugno, to the southeast of Lecce. The coin was found during excavations. Present status: Museo Provinciale, Lecce. Summary of content: one denier tournois of Athens. Bibliography: Travaglini, Inventario dei rinvenimenti monetali del Salento, p. 169; Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 71, n. 17. Discussed further p.: 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1102

appendix i

7.443 Roca Vecchia Findspot: Puglia region, Lecce province. The locality of Roca Vecchia, by the sea, belongs to the town Melendugno, to the southeast of Lecce. The coins were excavated during 1987–1995. Present status: Presumably Museo Provinciale, Lecce. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue; 39 deniers tournois. Athens, Achaïa, Naupaktos, Campobasso, Counterfeits. Bibliography: Auriemma and Degasperi, “Roca (LE)”, pp. 78–80, 83–86, 94–98. Discussed further pp.: 205, 1359, 1360n957, 1378, 1385, 1391, 1404, 1408, 1428, 1446, 1477, 1484 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 3, fleur de lis / Genoese gate Deniers tournois 10 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1–21 uncertain 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 2 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 2 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 3 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa 17

Duchy of Athens 2 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 13 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 William (1280–1287), Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311) obv. legend G.DVX or GVI.DVX

4

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 4 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

2

Uncertain deniers tournois

4

County of Campobasso 4 Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte (1450–ca. 1467)

2

Counterfeit deniers tournois

1103

7.444 Rome Findspot: Vatican City. The coins were excavated in the confessionary of St. Peter’s Basilica. Present status: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Achaïa and Naupaktos. Bibliography: Serafini, “Appendice numismatica”, p. 237; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 425, n. 20. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1419, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

7.445 Salerno Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The coins were excavated in the castle. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Unspecified number of deniers tournois of Achaïa and Athens. Chronologically these coins are said not to go beyond 1308. Bibliography: Peduto, “La turris maior di Salerno”, p. 351. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1428 7.446 Salerno Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. The coins were excavated in the castle. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa.

1104

appendix i

Bibliography: Libero Mangieri, “Castello di Salerno”, p. 225; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 449, no. 12; MEC, p. 430, S42. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1416 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1a 7.447 Santa Severina Findspot: Calabria region, Crotone province. This town lies ca. 20km inland from Crotone. The coins, from the De Luca collection, were of local origin. Present status: Museo Diocesano, Santa Severina. Summary of content: Six deniers tournois. France, Achaïa and Naupaktos. Bibliography: Castrizio, “Ancora sul tesoretto di Paracopio”, p. 237, n. 17. Content Deniers tournois 1 Kingdom of France 4

Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332)

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

7.448 Santa Severina Findspot: Calabria region, Crotone province. The coins were found at the castle of this town, which lies ca. 20km inland from Crotone and. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens, another is perhaps of John of Gravina for Achaïa.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1105

Note: Information about these coins derives from Professor Arslan’s unpublished list of Calabrian coin finds. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1428 7.449 Satriano Findspot: Basilicata region, Potenza province. The coin was excavated at a deserted medieval village near Satriano, a small town to the southwest of the provincial capital. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Bibliography: Kent, “The Coins”, p. 212; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 713; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 450, no. 13; MEC, p. 430, S43. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1391 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 7.450 Scolacium Findspot: Calabria region, Catanzaro province. This ancient seaside city lies immediately to the south of the city of Catanzaro. The archaeological area is administratively part of the town of Borgia. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One uncertain denier tournois. Note: Information about this coin derives from Professor Arslan’s unpublished list of Calabrian coin finds. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 1106, 1378 7.451 Scribla Findspot: Calabria region, Cosenza province. Scribla is a medieval castle in the northern part of the province, in a position which dominates communications between the Ionian and Tyrrhenian Seas. It belongs to the town of Spezzano Albanese. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One unidentified denier tournois.

1106

appendix i

Bibliography: Rovelli and Gourdin, “Le monete”, p. 47; Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, p. 714; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 450, no. 14. Discussed further p.: 1378 7.452 Squillace Findspot: Calabria region, Catanzaro province. This inland village, which takes its name from the ancient city of Scolacium (see «450»), lies south of the provincial capital. The coin was found in the castle. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens. Note: Information about this coin derives from Professor Arslan’s unpublished list of Calabrian coin finds. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further p.: 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 7.453 Squillace Findspot: Calabria region, Catanzaro province. This inland village, which takes its name from the ancient city of Scolacium (see the previous entry), lies south of the provincial capital. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Reggio di Calabria. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa. Note: This coin was studied by me. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1385 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV1

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN ITALY

1107

7.454 Sepino Findspot: Molise region, Campobasso province. This village lies due south of Campobasso, on the border with Campania. The coins were excavated at the hilltop akropolis, known as Castrum Vetus or Terravecchia. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois. France, Athens, Naupaktos. Bibliography: Colonna, “Saepinum”, pp. 101–102; Cuozzo and Martin, Santa Cristina di Sepino, p. 36, n. 32; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, pp. 271–272, nn. 28–37. Discussed further pp.: 1287, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b

7.455 Taranto Findspot: Puglia region, Taranto province. These are museum pieces which were presumably found in the area of this city. Present status: Museo Nazionale, Taranto. Summary of content: Uncertain number of deniers tournois. Bibliography: Travaglini, “S. Vito dei Normanni”, p. 72, n. 26. Discussed further p.: 1378 7.456 Tropea Findspot: Calabria region, Vibo Valentia province. The coins were excavated in the square in front of the cathedral of this town, which lies on the coast to the southwest of the provincial capital.

1108

appendix i

Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Achaïa, possibly as many as three more. Bibliography: Barello, “Prime osservazioni sui rinvenimenti di monete”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 450, no. 15; MEC, p. 430, S47. Discussed further pp.: 1378, 1399 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 7.457 Tufara Findspot: Molise region, Campobasso province. This town lies in the extreme east of the province, towards the city of Foggia. The coins were found in the area of the castle. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois of Campobasso, of the usual type. Bibliography: Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero, p. 67. Discussed further p.: 1477 7.458 Velia Findspot: Campania region, Salerno province. This ancient coastal city lies in the southern part of the province. The coins were excavated in different parts of the city. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Six deniers tournois of largely uncertain identification. Note: These coins were originally published as royal and feudal French tournois, but it has since been suggested that they were in fact Frankish Greek. Of the three illustrated deniers tournois, only one can be read off the plates and is indeed identifiable as Greek. On the other hand, Libero Mangieri suggests that he can fully read another specimen as being of Tours. Only these two coins of the six are listed below. Bibliography: Libero Mangieri, “Scavi di Velia”; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 450, no. 16; MEC, p. 430, S48. Discussed further pp.: 1285, 1446

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE EAST

1109

Content Deniers tournois 1 Abbey of Tours 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 + TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

7.459 Venice Findspot: Veneto region, Venice province. The coin was found on the island of Lazaretto, to the south of the city. Present status: Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Venice. Summary of content: One unidentified denier tournois. Note: I owe the information about this coin to the kindness of Andrea Saccocci. Bibliography: Fazzini and Asolati, Monete in Laguna; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 275, n. 63. Discussed further p.: 1378 8

Deniers Tournois, Sterling Pennies, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli in Hoards in the Eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, and Crete (in Chronological Order) (For Crete, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli Have Not Been Listed)

8.460 Belmont Castle 1987 Findspot: Israel, Jerusalem District. The castle lies some 10km west of Jerusalem, near Suba village. The hoard was excavated. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: Four sterling pennies of England. Date of concealment: Last issue: the sterling pennies. These were inspected by Metcalf, who noted that any attempt to classify the coins according to classes was futile. The hoard must therefore be dated generically to the period 1180–1247. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 317; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 152; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further p.: 1278

1110

appendix i

Content Pennies 4 Kingdom of England 4 Henry II to Henry III (1154–1272) 4 Short Cross classes 1–8, 1180–1247 8.461 ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard Findspot: Turkey, presumably from somewhere in Anatolia or further east on account of the Syrian coins, on the route of the Third Crusade. Present status: Dispersed. Summary of content: 18 sterling pennies of England amongst ca. 7700 coins of the western Empire and merely eight coins of feudal France, four of Lucca, eight of Antioch. Two English coins are Tealby pennies of Henry II of the period 1158–1180, 16 are short cross classes 1b and 1c, dating respectively 1180– ca. 1185, and ca. 1185 – ca. 1189. Note: This hoard has received a good deal of attention from numismatists and historians alike – and continues to do so. I have kept the bibliographical references here to a minimum. Date of concealment: Last issue: the most secure numismatic dating can be gained from the short cross penny class 1c specimens. A 1189–1190 dating can established according to historical considerations. Bibliography: Klein, “Barbarossa”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 8–9; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 148; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 154. Discussed further pp.: 157, 1278, 1280, 1333n803, 1334n810 8.462 Lindos 1902 Findspot: Greece, Dodecanese islands, Rhodes island, town and archaeological site of Lindos. Present status: Royal Collection of Coins and Medals in Copenhagen (the entire hoard bar 105 electrum trachea) and Archaeological Museum, Istanbul (53 of the latter). Summary of content: Two sterling pennies of Henry II amongst 14 earlier Byzantine solidi, one twelfth-century North African dinar, 309 Byzantine electrum trachea of Manuel I (none of the latter listed below). Note: The hoard was found during excavations in an earthenware jug. The hoard is of quite unusual composition. Date of concealment: Last issue: Henry II (1154–1189), pennies of ca. 1170–1180. The hoard might have been concealed during this period, or perhaps later (in 1191 or even beyond), especially as electrum trachea of Manuel had a fairly prolonged circulation pattern.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE EAST

1111

Bibliography: Mosser, Byzantine coin hoards, p. 51; Balling, “Byzantine Double Hoard”; DOS XII, p. 361; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 107, n. 15; Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards”, p. 62, no. 233; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 352, n. 4, p. 354, nn. 18–21, p. 358; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 154. Discussed further pp.: 1249n302, 1278, 1281, 1334 Content Pennies 2 Kingdom of England 2 Henry II (1154–1189) 2 Cross and Crosslets or ‘Tealby’ coinage, Bust F, ca. 1170–1180 North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 961 8.463 Paphos ca. 1995 Findspot: Cyprus, Paphos district. The hoard was said to have been found in the village of Tera, due north of the town of Paphos. Present status: Undisclosed, but probably dispersed. Summary of content: Seven sterling pennies of England, one sterling penny of Scotland. This small hoard has a very regular spread of classes – all listed in the publication – from class 1 (three specimens) to class 3 (one specimen), with the remainder dating to ca. 1200. Date of concealment: Last issue: short cross penny class 4b, dating the hoard to 1200–1204. Bibliography: Pitsillidis and Metcalf, “Paphos”; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 149; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 1278, 1280 8.464 Samos 1932 Findspot: Greece, Northern Aegean islands. The hoard was handed to members of the German Institute, who were conducting survey and excavation work in the area. It was said to have been found in a position to the “east of Tigani”, the medieval and modern name for ancient Samos, now known as Pythogoreio. Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum (44 coins of the total). Summary of content: 435 pennies, of which 111 deniers tournois (the only coins listed here). Gien-Donzy, Burgundy, Auxerre, Tonnerre, Troyes, Provins, Meaux, Anjou, Penthièvre, Souvigny, Bourbon, Vienne, Suse, Melgeuil, Jerusalem, Antioch, Genoa. Abbey of Tours. Note: Duplessy and Metcalf published and analysed the hoard without knowledge of Schwabacher’s previous study, and not realising that a substantial part

1112

appendix i

of the original hoard was unavailable to them, particularly the bulk of deniers tournois. The overall quantities were subsequently rectified by Metcalf, though he did not further comment on this hoard and its dating in the light of the new figures. Date of concealment: Last issue: presumably the deniers tournois, with a terminus ante quem of 1204 (Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 101). Any number of other coins might actually constitute the last issues, though one cannot be certain at this point in time. Duplessy and Metcalf dated a substantial number of coins contained in the hoard, arriving at a possible concealment date of ca. 1182. Such an interpretation rested not merely on their ignorance of the tournois (see above), but also on their idea that this is a ‘traveller’s hoard’, which sits rather uncomfortably with the fact that some of the coins are actually from further east, as in the case in the Izmir hoard (see «468»). Even without further knowledge of some of the uncertain types, which might date the hoard somewhat later, if one were to accept the described coins as an integral part of the local currency over a certain period of time one would have greater leeway in dating its concealment. A date beyond 1200 remains possible, and in fact Schwabacher had proposed 1247 and the re-conquest of the island under Emperor John III Vatatzes. Ca. 1225–1226 is perhaps a more reasonably timeframe for concealment, on the occasion of a large Nicaean venture against the local potentate Leon Gavalas: see Savvides, Βυζαντινά στασιαστικά και αυτονομιστικά κινήματα, p. 309. Bibliography: Schwabacher, “Zwei Denarfunde”; Duplessy and Metcalf, “Trésor de Samos”; Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence and Antioch”, p. 470; Tölle-Kastenbein, Kastro Tigani, p. 178; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 8; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 354, n. 22, p. 355, p. 361, n. 57. Discussed further pp.: 202n103, 231n241, 1285, 1286, 1334, 1342n850 Content Deniers tournois 111 Abbey of Tours 111 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos. 1642–1646 +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS 8.465 Ras Shamira 1966 Findspot: Syria, Latakia Province. Present status: The coins passed through the hands of Bedoukian and are now presumably dispersed.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE EAST

1113

Summary of content: 52 sterling pennies of England (of which 45 were identifiable), amongst a few hundred other twelfth- and thirteenth-century coins. Moneyers, mints and classes are listed in Metcalf’s publication. Apart from two early class 1c coins dating 1189–1199, there is a strong preponderance of class 5 (dating 1205–1207), with far fewer classes 6 and 7. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Ras Shamra”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 317–318; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 151; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Date of concealment: Last issue: class 7a–b short cross penny (to ca. 1242), although Allen dates the hoard to ca. 1230. Discussed further p.: 1278 8.466 Plakes before ca. 1971 Findspot: Greece, Crete. Plakes is the name of an area 700m southeast of Patsos village (see the following hoard), in the nomos of Rethymnon, due south of Rethymnon town. Present status: Not disclosed, but probably largely in local hands. Varoucha was able to publish merely one coin from this hoard (see plate 1, no. 14, the coin listed below). Summary of content: A large number of short and long (?) cross pennies. Note: Varoucha likens this hoard to that from nearby Patsos (see «467» below). She says that local inhabitants have been gathering precisely these types of coins in this location for a number of years. Date of concealment: Last issue: the only known issue is John (1199–1216). No doubt concealment took place some time later, though when cannot be presently ascertained. Bibliography: Varoucha, “Αγγλικά νομίσματα”, pp. 9, 13. Discussed further pp.: 78n471, 1278, 1279 Content Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5c, 1207–ca. 1213, Canterbury/Iohan North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 971 8.467 Patsos ca. 1968 Findspot: Greece, Crete. Patsos is a village in the nomos of Rethymnon, due south of Rethymnon town. The hoard was found during building work.

1114

appendix i

Present status: Not disclosed. Varoucha informs us that casts were taken, which might now be in the Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: 31 short and long cross pennies and one grosso, possibly as part of a larger find. England to Henry III, Venice to Pietro Ziani. Note: As I point out under the relevant entry, «58. Naxos ca. 1969» and the present Cretan hoard are to be considered separate finds. The reason is that the circumstances of both finds are sufficiently well documented, and very precise findspots can be given. Stewartby has re-attributed some of Varoucha’s original identifications, and I have repeated these in this catalogue. Date of concealment: Last issue: Henry III (1216–1272). The last securely dated long cross issue of this king is 1248, although some imprecisely defined issues might date as late as ca. 1265. In view of this, a precise point of concealment between 1248 and 1265, or beyond, cannot presently be given. Re-publication of the long cross issues in particular would be desirable, should these be accessible. Bibliography: Varoucha, “Αγγλικά νομίσματα”; Stewartby, “The ‘Naxos’ hoard”, pp. 165–166; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 341, no. 161; Allen, “Hoards and circulation”, p. 124, no. 155; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 209 and 228; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 78n471, 690, 1113, 1278, 1279 Content Pennies 31 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II (1154–1189) 1 Short Cross class 1b, 1180–ca. 1185, Winchester/ Clement North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 963 6 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, Canterbury/Arnaud North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 3 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, Lincoln/Tomas North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, London/Ilger North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, Winchester/ Richard North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 6 John (1199–1216) or Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 6, ca. 1210–ca. 1217, London/Abel North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 974–975

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE EAST

2

18

Short Cross class 5b–7c, 1205–ca. 1242, London/ Adam North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 970–980 3 Short Cross class 5b–7b, 1205–ca. 1236, London/ Ilger North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 970–979 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7, 1217–1242, Canterbury/Simon North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 978–980 1 Short Cross class 7, 1217–1242, Canterbury/Tomas North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 978–980 1 Short Cross class 7, 1217–1242, Canterbury/Willem North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 978–980 6 Short Cross class 7, 1217–1242, London/Nichole North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 978–980 2 Short Cross class 7c–8, ca. 1236–1247, London/ Nichole North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 980–981 2 Short Cross class 8, ca. 1242–1247, Canterbury/ Iohan North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 981 1 Long Cross class 1b–5c, 1247 ca. 1256, Nichole/ London North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 984–993 1 Long Cross class 2, 1248, Nichole/London North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 985 1 Long Cross class 2, 1248, Ricard/London North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 985 1 Long Cross class 3a–5g, 1248–ca. 1265, Henri/ London North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 986–997 1 Long Cross class 3c–5g, 1248–ca. 1265, Ricard/ London North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 988–997

Grosso 1 Republic of Venice 1 Pietro Ziani (1205–1228)

1115

1116

appendix i

8.468 Izmir 1968 Findspot: Turkey, Izmir. The hoard first appeared in this town and its original findspot is unknown, though it may be from the area. Present status: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and dispersed (?). Summary of content: 46 pennies and one denier tournois. French feudal of Valence and Melle (Poitou). Empire at Lucca. Antioch. Athens to William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308). Note: Metcalf argues that the Frankish Greek coin is an intrusion. It is said to be of the G.DVX variety with ‘2 annulets’ (corresponding presumably to Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 or Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8), and was not amongst the coins purchased by the Ashmolean. Date of concealment: Last issue: William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308). The last possible dating for the variety in question, should it have been A8, is just after 1300. The remainder of the hoard dates firmly to the twelfth century, with the helmet penny of Antioch dating perhaps the latest. However, we must bear in mind the time needed for these issues to travel to Asia Minor from the West and the East. They were also all more or less alien to the Anatolian context and might have been gathered and hoarded in a freer fashion than more regular coinages. It is therefore not entirely inconceivable that all 47 coins were in fact deposited together at some date shortly after ca. 1300. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence and Antioch”, p. 459, pl. 18.1–6; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 10; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 355, n. 23, p. 361, n. 57. Discussed further pp.: 100, 209, 353, 1112, 1334, 1335n817, 1428 8.469 Rhodes ca. 1927 Findspot: Greece, Dodecanese islands, Rhodes. The hoard is said to have been found by farm labourers on the island, and the island is a more or less likely findspot for the hoard (see below). Present status: 1935: in the hands of a F. Guiol in Athens. The more recent history of this hoard is unknown. Summary of content: 100 deniers tournois. Achaïa to John of Gravina; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos. Note: Schwabacher was inclined to think that the hoard was not originally from Rhodes (without however giving any reasons for this assumption). This seemed to me a reasonable statement, given the predominantly seafaring occupation of the inhabitants of the island (personal comment by A.-M. Kasdagli; see also Baker, “Thessaly”) and the usual hoarding area of such coins. However, the fact that the hoard was in fact offered by people working the land makes it possible that the hoard was indeed found in Rhodes. Schwabacher’s fashion of listing

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE EAST

1117

the coins, despite an attempt at including some of the mint marks and other distinctive features of the individual issues, does not allow the various subvarieties to be determined. Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). Given the relative maturity of these issues, concealment in ca. 1330 may be postulated. Bibliography: Schwabacher, “Zwei Denarfunde”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 349, no. 192; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 295, n. 8; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 361, n. 53. Discussed further pp.: 73n429, 100, 209, 351, 1378, 1419, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 64 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 5 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 9 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 18 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 8 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 19 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 27

Duchy of Athens 9 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 18 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

6

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 6 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 5 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1–2a 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2b

3

Uncertain deniers tournois

8.470 Tel Akko Findspot: Israel, North District. Tel Akko (Arabic: Tell el Fukhkhar) is a hill to the east of the town of Acre/Akko. Present status: Department of Coins, Israel Antiquities Authority.

1118

appendix i

Summary of content: 30 torneselli. Venice to Antonio Venier. Note: This hoard was said to have been found in the indicated area in the 1960s, and donated to the IAA some years later. I owe the details regarding this find to the kindness of Robert Kool. Date of concealment: Last issue: Antonio Venier (1382–1400). Concealment presumably occurred during these years or shortly after. Bibliography: Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”. Discussed further pp.: 421, 496, 1328, 1330 Content Torneselli 30 Republic of Venice 2 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 28 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 9

Deniers Tournois, Greek Petty Denomination Issues, Sterling Pennies, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli as Excavation and Single Finds in the Eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, and Crete (in Alphabetical Order) (For Crete, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli Have Not Been Listed)

9.471 Acre Findspot: Israel, North district, town of Acre/Akko. The coins which were published on separate occasions are to be considered local stray finds rather than excavated material. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue, three deniers tournois, one sterling penny. Achaïa, France, Athens, England. Note: I thank Robert Kool for drawing my attention to these finds. Bibliography: Rahmani and Spaer, “Acre”, p. 72; Metcalf, “Some hoards and stray finds from the Latin East”, pp. 144 and 149; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 360; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 204, 209, 421, 1278, 1287, 1365, 1369, 1378, 1400 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE EAST

1119

Deniers tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

1

Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1

1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z

Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry II to Henry III (1154–1272) 1 Short Cross classes 1–8, 1180–1247 9.472 Antioch Findspot: Turkey. The modern town of Antakya lies in Hatay province. The coin was excavated in the 1930s. Present status: Firestone Library, Princeton University. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue of Achaïa. Note: I was able to inspect this coin and confirm the attribution. Bibliography: Waage, Antioch on-the-Orontes, p. 171, no. 2327; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 356; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 204, 1365, 1369 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 10, CORIHTI 1 Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, n. 47, no. 4

1120

appendix i

9.473 Caesarea Maritima Findspot: Israel, Haifa district, archaeological site near the modern town of Caesarea. The coins presented here, with the exception of the two Corinth issues published by Lampinen, were found in various local collections and are not the product of the systematic American excavations. Present status: Local public and private collections. Summary of content: Two petty denomination issues, five deniers tournois, four sterling pennies, one soldino. Achaïa, France, Athens, England, Venice. Note: I thank Robert Kool for drawing my attention to these finds. Lampinen notes that the Achaïan petty denomination issue which is identified as type 9 has a silvery appearance. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin East: some new hoards and site finds”, pp. 101, 103, 104; Lampinen, “The coins”, p. 171, no. 121; Metcalf and Holland, “Crusader Coins from Caesarea Maritima (Part 2)”, pp. 158, 161, 162; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 358–359; Lampinen, “Preliminary coin report”, p. 45; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, pp. 155–156. Discussed further pp.: 204, 209, 421, 1278, 1285, 1287, 1320, 1365, 1369, 1378, 1400 Content Petty denomination issues 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä or type 10, CORIHTI

Deniers tournois 4 Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176 +SCS MARTINVS

3

Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 3 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 187 +TVRONVS CIVI

1

Principality of Achaïa 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE EAST

1121

Pennies 4 Kingdom of England 1 John (1199–1216) 1 Short Cross class 4b, ca. 1200–1204, Canterbury/ Goldwine North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 968/2 1 Short Cross class 5a–b, 1204–1207, London/Ricard North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 968/4–970 1 Short Cross class 5b, 1205–1207, York/Thomas North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 970 1 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b–c, 1222–ca. 1242, London/ Ledulf North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 979–980 Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 9.474 Ephesos Findspot: Turkey, İzmir province, archaeological site near the town of Selçuk. Present status: British Museum, London; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; Arkeoloji Müzesi, Selçuk; perhaps Arkeoloji Müzesi, Istanbul. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Naupaktos amongst a discrete number of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Byzantine coins, and some other western-style material, and later Turkish coins. Note: The area of the ancient city of Ephesos, and the sites closer to the town of Selçuk to the northeast (the Ayasoluk hill with its fortifications and church of St. John; the Artemesion; the İsa Bey mosque and bath) have been scientifically investigated for well over a century by a number of different institutions. Very little indeed is known about the thirteenth- to fifteenth-century coins unearthed in these locations. Wood’s coins from the Artemesion, now in London and Oxford, have been published, as have a number of hoards of western-style silver coins, Venetian gold ducats, and issues of the beyliks. The bibliography given here below is, however, limited to those items which give some indications about single finds from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. The mass of the coins excavated over the last century and a half by the Austrians remains almost totally unknown, and most of these would appear to be extant

1122

appendix i

in Turkish collections, since at the Kunsthistorisches Museum I was able to find merely a handful of coins of Ephesian provenance. The “Numismatische Kommission” of the Austrian Academy of Sciences has launched a new programme to catalogue and publish the coin finds from Ephesos. Recent articles by Matthias Pfisterer covered mostly earlier historical periods. The two publications cited here for Ursula Schachinger (one in collaboration with Schindel) are more diachronic, although the presence or not of Greek tournois do not become entirely obvious from these. The single denier tournois I list here below was found at Selçuk. Bibliography: Milne, “J.T. Wood’s Coins from Ephesos”, p. 391; Vetters, “Ephesos Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1975”, p. 504; Foss, Ephesus, pp. 197–198; Karwiese, “Fundmünzen 1983–1985”, pp. 132–134; Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 353, 359, 360, 361, n. 57; Schachinger and Schindel, “Münzen und Siegel”; Schachinger “Münzumlauf in Ephesos”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1266n401, 1446 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 9.475 Irakleion Findspot: Greece, Crete. The coin was excavated in Agios Petros, a sea front area of Irakleion, lying within the Arab, Byzantine and medieval town. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Athens amidst Byzantine tetartera and later Venetian torneselli. Bibliography: Miles, “Ag. Petros”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 351, 1295n555, 1330n798, 1428 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 9.476 Jaffa Findspot: Israel, Tel Aviv-Yafo municipality. The coin was excavated at the Kishleh, the old Ottoman police station.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE EAST

1123

Present status: Department of Coins, Israel Antiquities Authority. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue of Achaïa. Note: I thank Robert Kool for informing me about this find. Bibliography: Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 204, 1365, 1369 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä or type 10, CORIHTI

9.477 Jerusalem Findspot: Israel, Jerusalem district. The coin was excavated in the citadel in the 1930s. Present status: Undisclosed Summary of content: One sterling penny of England. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 360; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further p.: 1278 Content Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7b–c, 1222–ca. 1242, Canterbury/ Osmund North, English Hammered Coinage, nos. 979–980 9.478 Khirbet Bureikut Findspot: Palestine National Authority, West Bank. The coin was excavated in this southeastern suburb of Jerusalem. Present status: Department of Coins, Israel Antiquities Authority. Summary of content: One Venetian soldino of Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361). Note: I owe the information regarding this find to the kindness of Robert Kool. Bibliography: Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 156. Discussed further p.: 1320

1124

appendix i

9.479 Kyzikos Findspot: Turkey, Balıkesir province, archaeological site in the north of the province, lying between the towns of Erdek and Bandırma. The coins were excavated in the 1950s. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: In addition to the two listed Frankish Greek coins, the excavations revealed Byzantine coins until the late eleventh century and Turkish coins of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The only contemporary coin was a Venetian grosso of Raniero Zeno (1253–1268). Bibliography: Köker, “Cyzicus”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1385, 1400 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV221 1 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis “Εlis”, IVB1 9.480 Nabi Samwil Findspot: Palestine National Authority, West Bank. The coin was excavated in this locality, 4km north of Jerusalem. Present status: Department of Coins, Israel Antiquities Authority. Summary of content: One petty denomination issue of Achaïa. Note: I thank Robert Kool for informing me about this find, which will be published by Berman. Bibliography: Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 204, 1365, 1369 Content Petty denomination issue 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä or type 10, CORIHTI

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE EAST

1125

9.481 Nahariyya Findspot: Israel, North district. The coins are in the town’s museum and are presumably of local origin. Present status: Museum of Nahariyya Summary of content: Three deniers tournois. Achaïa and Arta. Note: I thank Robert Kool for informing me about these unpublished coins. Bibliography: Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 209, 421, 1369, 1378, 1408, 1466 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa 1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

9.482 Paphos Findspot: Cyprus, Paphos district, archaeological site of Saranda Kolones in Nea Paphos. The coins were excavated between 1957 and 1984. Present status: Cyprus Museum, Nicosia. Summary of content: In addition to the single listed Venetian coin, the excavations revealed ample coins of Byzantium, France, Crusader Jerusalem, Cyprus, Sicily, Armenia and the Islamic world. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 360; Metcalf, “Paphos”, p. 132; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 156. Discussed further pp.: 421, 1328, 1330 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 A. Contarini (1368–1382) 9.483 Pergamon Findspot: Turkey, İzmir province, archaeological site near the modern town of Bergama. The coins were excavated by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) in different parts of the ancient city (see Note).

1126

appendix i

Present status: Arkeoloji Müzesi, Bergama. Perhaps some material is also in Istanbul and Berlin. Summary of content: Three and 13 deniers tournois respectively (see Note). Achaïa, Athens, Provence, Naupaktos, amongst large quantities of Byzantine coins (to ca. 1300), other western and western-style coins, and Islamic coins (Seljuqs, a few specimens of the local beyliks, and Ottoman coins from the mid-fourteenth century onwards). Note: Regling published a brief list of the coins excavated during 1904–1908 in unspecified areas of Pergamon. The coins presented in the later monograph were all found in the so-called “Stadtgrabung” after 1973. It is evident, therefore, that the great mass of coins unearthed by the DAI at Pergamon remains unpublished. Bibliography: Regling, “Münzfunde aus Pergamon”, p. 5681; Voegtli et al., Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon. Discussed further pp.: 100, 203, 209, 1206n63, 1234n209, 1251, 1290, 1378, 1385, 1392, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 2 1

1

8

Regling Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX Voegtli et al. Marquisat of Provence 1 Alphonse of France (1249–1271) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3734–6 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE EAST

4 1 1

1127

Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 Uncertain deniers tournois of Achaïa

2

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b

1

Uncertain denier tournois

9.484 Pilgrim’s Castle Findspot: Israel, Haifa district, near the town of ‘Atlit, ca. 20km south of Haifa. The coins were excavated in the castle and the surrounding area in the 1930s. Present status: Department of Coins, Israel Antiquities Authority. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois, one sterling penny. France and England. The site also produced a later billon trachy of the Latin Empire (types Dff). Note: The site has a very limited lifespan and was probably abandoned too early to have received any consignments of Frankish Greece coins or Venetian soldini and torneselli. Bibliography: Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 357–358; Metcalf, Kool, Berman, “‘Atlit”, pp. 117, 120, 123; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 155. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1278, 1287

1128

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 3 Kingdom of France 1 Philip II (1180–1223) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 177 +TVRONVS CIVI

1 1

Philip II (1180–1223) or Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 188 +TVRONIS CIVI

Penny 1 Kingdom of England 1 Henry III (1216–1272) 1 Short Cross class 7a, 1217–1222, Bury St. Edmunds/ Rauf North, English Hammered Coinage, no. 978 9.485 Priene Findspot: Turkey, Aydın province, archaeological site near the modern town of Söke. The coins were excavated by the German Archaeological Institute. Present status: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Summary of content: One English short cross or long cross penny, amongst other material dating to the period before and after 1200. Regling identifies the coin as “Henry III”, which makes it slightly more likely that he had the long cross variety in mind. Bibliography: Regling, Die Münzen von Priene, p. 186; Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 353, 354, 355, 359; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. Discussed further pp.: 203, 1278, 1279 9.486 Safed Findspot: Israel, North district. Safed lies to the north of the Sea of Galilee. The coin was excavated in the southwest section of the old town, known as the Harat al-Watta neighbourhood. Present status: Undisclosed. Summary of content: One Venetian soldino of Franceso Dandolo (1329–1339) amongst ca. 290 coins. Note: I owe this reference to the kindness of Robert Kool. Bibliography: Kool and Berman, “Safed”; Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, p. 156. Discussed further p.: 1328

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE EAST

1129

9.487 Sardis Findspot: Turkey, Manisa province. The archaeological site of Sardis lies near the modern town of Salihli. Present status: Arkeoloji Müzesi, Istanbul, and Arkeoloji Müzesi, Manisa. Summary of content: Seven deniers tournois. Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, amongst good quantities of Byzantine coins (to the late thirteenth century) and Islamic coins (from the late fourteenth century). Note: At Istanbul I was able to inspect the single Theban tournois excavated during 1910–1914. Bibliography: Bell, Sardis, p. 109; Bates, Byzantine Coins ; Buttrey, “Byzantine, Medieval, and Modern Coins and Tokens”, p. 225. Discussed further pp.: 100, 209, 1234n210, 1241, 1378, 1408, 1419, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 4

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GGVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 2 Uncertain GVI.DVX

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

9.488 Troy Findspot: Turkey, Çanakkale province. Present status: Arkeoloji Müzesi, Istanbul. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois. Achaïa and Athens, amongst two Byzantine coins of the thirteenth century. Note: At Istanbul I was able to inspect and re-attribute the Frankish Greek coins. Bibliography: Bellinger, Troy. The Coins, p. 183. Discussed further pp.: 100, 209, 1206n63, 1378, 1395, 1428

1130

appendix i

Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHΓ 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105

10

Deniers Tournois, Medieval Greek Coins, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli in Hoards in the Balkans (in Chronological Order)

10.489 Dolna Kabda 1961 Findspot: Bulgaria, Tărgovište province, village of Dolna Kabda, a few km due west of the town of Tărgovište. Present status: Tărgovište Museum. Summary of content: One possible Frankish Greek coin amongst ca. 2800 billon trachea (of which 1638 identifiable), and one tetarteron. The single westernstyle penny (see Jordanov, “Dolna Kabda”, pl. X, no. 153) is a small cut fragment. The large and central obv. cross protrudes through the legend in the manner of the Achaïan petty denomination issues Metcalf, Ashmolean, type 9, CORIHTVä, though it should be borne in mind that other western European coinages (e.g. of the Kingdom of Sicily) had similar designs. Additionally, the hoard contained imitative issues of the years around 1200, and issues of the Thessalonican, Nicaean and Bulgarian Empires. Date of concealment: Last issue: probably Theodore II Laskaris (1254–1258) at Nicaea, though the western-style penny might be the last piece. The absence of issues of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261) provides a firm terminus ante quem. If the penny were to be of Corinth, this would constitute an interesting piece of information regarding the chronology of that mint. Bibliography: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 128; Jordanov, “Dolna Kabda”; Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 159, no. 60; Metcalf, “Amorgos and Thira hoards”, p. 49, n. 5. Discussed further pp.: 203n109, 1202n27, 1232n202, 1235n214, 1246n269, 1365 10.490 Kărdžali Findspot: Bulgaria, Kărdžali province. The hoard was excavated around a church in this southern Bulgarian town of the Eastern Rhodopes, which lies between Plovdiv and the Greek border.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE BALKANS

1131

Present status: Kărdžali Museum. Summary of content: 28 deniers tournois. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Chios. Note: Jurukova’s description of this hoard allows it to be transcribed into the more modern systems of classification to some extent. Previous writers have commented on the rather early presence of the Chiot coin in this hoard. Metcalf writes furthermore that Chiot coins “were so scarce in the currency of the mainland that the presence of one among thirty here is enough to raise a question whether the Kardzali finds are not a sample of the currency of Phocaea and Chios rather than of Greece. They may be connected in some way with the diplomatic or commercial activities of the Zaccaria”. However: this is a rather small hoard, and hence a single specimen can make a large statistical impact. Further, because of its small size the termination of the Achaïan series in the issues of Philip of Taranto (to 1313) is less significant than it might have been. Recently Mazarakis has also put an earlier date on the Chiot denier tournois issues. There is therefore only a small gap between the Achaïan and Chiot issues. All of this suggests that this hoard is more normal than previously thought. It is possible that Gerasimov is rather erroneously referring to the present hoard in his early overview of the coins of John II Orsini on Bulgarian territory. Date of concealment: Last issue: The Chiot coin with a terminus post quem of 1320/1322. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 33, n. 11; Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires découverts en Bulgarie en 1962 et 1963”, p. 245; Jurukova, “Po-važni otkritija”, p. 79; Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans, p. 269. Jurukova, “Moneti na latinski feodalni vladeteli v Gărcija”; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 305, n. 81; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 289; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”, no. 9. Discussed further pp.: 209, 210, 1378, 1408, 1428, 1429, 1446, 1447, 1464, 1465 Content Deniers tournois 10 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV111 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA203

1132

appendix i

1 3 2 14

Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) (1) Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA?

Duchy of Athens 3? William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 3? Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 7? Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 1? Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 3? Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ 3 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX

3

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 3 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain

1

Lordship of Chios 1 Martin Zaccaria alone (1320/1322–1329) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, p. 49, period Δ.2–3; Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117 (dating)

10.491 Istanbul 1871 Findspot: Turkey, Istanbul. The hoard was found, according to De Vogüé’s own information, “dans les environs” of the imperial capital. Present status: Uncertain. Summary of content: 220 deniers tournois and 15 grossi. Achaïa to John of Gravina, Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. Venice to uncertain doge.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE BALKANS

1133

Note: De Vogüé provides only one figure for the issues of Philip of Taranto in Achaïa and at Naupaktos (25 specimens). Date of concealment: Last issue: John of Gravina (1321–1332). On account of the relatively small quantities of specimens of this prince concealment in the early to mid-1320s may be postulated. Bibliography: De Vogüé, “Monnaies et sceaux”, p. 195; Metcalf, “Pylia”, pp. 220– 221; Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 295, n. 8; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 213, n. 50; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”, no. 10. Discussed further pp.: 73n428, 209, 1378, 1419, 1428, 1446 Content Deniers tournois ca. 95 Principality of Achaïa 20 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 4 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 4 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 4 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 19 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 13 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) ca. 13 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 14 Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 3 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 112

ca. 12 1

Duchy of Athens 62 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 50 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Despot of Romania at Naupaktos ca. 12 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) Uncertain denier tournois

Grossi 15 Republic of Venice

1134

appendix i

10.492 Tărnovo Findspot: Bulgaria, Veliko Tărnovo province. The hoard was excavated in the old town. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Veliko Tărnovo. Summary of content: Ten deniers tournois of Arta. Note: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, believes that ten of the tournois of Arta discovered at Tărnovo – apparently those initially published by Gerasimov – constituted a hoard. Date of concealment: Between 1323 and 1336/1337 or later, but actually most likely between the early and the later 1330s. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, pp. 29–33, nos. 1–10; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 118ff and 285–286; Dočev, Tărnovo, pp. 159–162, 263; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 295. Discussed further pp.: 210, 1154, 1466, 1473 Content Deniers tournois 10 Despot in Epiros at Arta 10 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 10 IOΓvar2, featuring no decorations around the rev. castle and semi-comprehensible legends 10.493 Prilep Findspot: Macedonia, Prilep. The find is said to come from this town. Present status: In the Bertelè collection in the 1970s, now in the BnF. Summary of content: 27 billon trachea, one denier tournois. Byzantine Empire to Andronikos III. Achaïa. Note: It is not certain whether these coins constitute a single hoard, nor whether the tournois was part of it, though as a whole the coins look very much like contemporary hoards from the area (see DOC). Date of concealment: Last issue: Andronikos III alone (1328–1341). Bibliography: Morrisson, “Monnaies de l’époque des Paléologues provenant de Prilep”; DOC V, pp. 15 and 60. Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278)

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE BALKANS

1135

10.494 Thessalonike Findspot: Greece, said to have been found near the city. Present status: The hoard passed through the hands of a friend of Longuet’s, some time later it became available again for study by Bendall, and then more recently it was acquired by DO. Summary of content: 70 billon trachea and ‘assaria’ (not listed below); 4 deniers tournois. Byzantine Empire to Andronikos III; Arta. Note: In addition to the four Artan specimens, the hoard contained a number of so-called assaria overstruck on the same deniers tournois of the Arta type. Shea made a number of revisions to the numbers, but these reached me too late to be taken into account. Date of concealment: Last issue: Andronikos III alone (1328–1341). Bendall dates the hoard to the Zealot revolt in 1342. Bibliography: Longuet, “Une trouvaille de monnaies des Paléologues”; Bendall, “Longuet’s Salonica Hoard”; PCPC, p. 16; DOC V, p. 16; Bendall, “An Update on Palaeologan Overstrikes”, p. 203; Bendall, “Palaeologan Notes”, pp. 305–306; Shea, “Longuet’s ‘Salonica hoard’”. Discussed further pp.: 210, 1244n258, 1274n51, 1466, 1472, 1473 Content Deniers tournois 4 Despot in Epiros at Arta 4 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOB 3 IOΓvar1? 10.495 Vidin 1962 Findspot: Bulgaria, Vidin province. The hoard was discovered during roadworks in 1962 in B. Čonos Street in Vidin. Present status: Numismatic Collection, Historical Museum, Vidin (No. 598). Summary of content: 1213 billon and copper coins, and unstamped disks. The majority of coins are Bulgarian and Byzantine (post-1261). A much smaller quantity are Byzantine and Imitative from around 1200, of the Nicaean and Thessalonican empires (to 1261); as well as Serbian and Islamic. The hoard contains 132 deniers tournois of John II Orsini at Arta (Penčev “Vidin”, pp. 146, 156, 159, pls 61–62, nos. 409–425) and 38 local counterfeits of the latter (Penčev “Vidin”, pp. 149, 157–158, 159, pls 68–69, nos. 526–543). Note: Penčev used the evidence of this hoard in an earlier article before finally publishing it in 2003. He observes that counterfeit issues such as those found in this hoard are unknown from any other Bulgarian location.

1136

appendix i

Date of concealment: Penčev dates the hoard to the capture of Vidin by the Hungarians during the early 1360s. Bibliography: Penčev, “Imitacionni monetosečenija”; Penčev, “Vidin”. Discussed further pp.: 210, 1235n214, 1244n258, 1466, 1473, 1474, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 132 Despot in Epiros at Arta 132 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1+? IOAvar1 1+? IOAvar2 1+? IOB majority IOΓvar1 and 2 38

Counterfeits of the Despot in Epiros at Arta of NW Bulgaria In the name of John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337)

10.496 Balkan 1987 Findspot: Turkey or Bulgaria, Thrace or Istanbul. Present status: Dispersed. Summary of content: Some 50 silver and billon coins, including six deniers tournois and fragments thereof, two of which are listed below (the remaining four could not be identified). Also included are two Byzantine stavrata of John V and Andronikos IV; 25 Byzantine eighth stavrata of John V; three counterfeit Venetian grossi in the name of Lorenzo Tiepolo; and 15 Bulgarian grossi of Ivan Aleksandăr with Michail IV Asen (1331–1355). Athens and Achaïa. Note: The hoard reached the market in 1987 and 1988. Four further Byzantine coins, also discussed by Bendall, might have formed part of the same hoard, though this is doubted in DOC. The Athenian denier tournois is of note since it is a rare type which is only contained in hoards, if at all, in very small proportions. Date of concealment: Last issue: Most likely the issue of Andronikos IV (1376– 1379). Bendall notes that the stavraton of the latter was unworn, suggesting a concealment just after 1376. The dating of John’s eighth stavrata, on the other hand, has been the subject of some recent speculation (see Lianta and my comments on the Belgratkapı 1987 hoard below, «497»), though it appears most likely that the present hoard, and its Constantinopolitan counterpart, were both concealed in the period 1376–1379.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE BALKANS

1137

Bibliography: Bendall, “Late 14th Century Hoard”; DOC V, p. 17; Lianta, “Some ‘Stavraton’ Hoards Re-examined”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenthcentury Thrace and Constantinople”, no. 22. Discussed further pp.: 53n303, 209, 423, 1138, 1378, 1428 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) or Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVIOT.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR104

10.497 Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987 Findspot: Turkey, Istanbul. The hoard was found during works carried out at the Belgrade Gate, more precisely near the base and at a depth of 1.5m, on the inside of the arch of the south tower. Present status: Arkeoloji Müzesi, Istanbul. Summary of content: 2280 silver and billon coins (of which only the 218 deniers tournois and 201 soldini are listed below): 1257 stavrata and eighth stavarata of Byzantium, to John V and Andronikos IV; 134 akčes of uncertain beylik and Ottoman Empire to Murad I; 331 Bulgarian grossi of Ivan Aleksandăr with Michail IV Asen (1331–1355); 118 Venetian grossi to Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339– 1342); one Provençal gigliato of Robert of Anjou (1309–1342); three Anatolian imitative gigliati of Provençal prototype; 11 Rhodian gigliati to Raymond Berenger (1365–1374); two anonymous Chiot gigliati; three Lesbian soldini of kneeling ruler/lamb type (see Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 257, for the denomination, though with erroneous information regarding the content of the present hoard); one denaro of the same Francesco I Gattilusio (1355–1384) (Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio, p. 414). Achaïa to Robert of Taranto; Athens to Guy II or Walter; Naupaktos; Venice to Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). Silver medical and devotional objects were also contained in the hoard, and are treated separately in an exhibition catalogue and by Pitarakis. Note: The restoration works carried out on the city walls and gates unearthed two hoards in close vicinity to one another (ca. 2m apart) in 1986 and 1987. Both were presumably placed there by the same person concurrently. The 1987 hoard was contained in a clay pot, that of 1986 in a cloth bag. The 1987 hoard

1138

appendix i

of silver and silver-based coins was first announced briefly by Gökyıldırım in his publication of the 1986 hoard, which itself consists of contemporary copper and silver-washed issues. Gökyıldırım’s very comprehensive listing of the content of the 1987 hoard was not used in DOC V, and the important evidence the hoard provides for the dating of the stavraton issues of John V (see below) is ignored by Lianta. Baker et al. now offer a very detailed die and typological study of the Byzantine issues in the hoard. Date of concealment: Last issue: Most likely the issues of Andronikos IV (1376– 1379), or perhaps those of Murad I (1359–1389), or of Andrea Contarini (1368– 1382), soldino type 3 (dating up to 1379). Regarding the Byzantine issues, in the past Gökyıldırım had proposed 1391 as the latest possible concealment date of the two hoards, that is to say John V’s death. Even at the time in the early 1990s this begged the question of whether any of his issues contained in the hoards could be securely dated to the period of his restored reign (1379–1391). In fact the opinions which had been voiced on the stavraton coinage and its fractions for these years, particularly by persons without knowledge of the present hoard, are based on very few data indeed and are therefore open to revision. The scheme proposed in DOC, in terms of style, sigla, and legends, suggested that we were dealing with a pre-1379 hoard. Lianta (p. 122 and n. 5), basing herself on an opinion expressed by Bendall, stated on the other hand that John’s eighth stavrata are to be dated after his re-taking of the city in 1379. This ignored Bendall’s previous comments with regard to the Balkan 1987 hoard (see «496» above), which place it and the eighth stavrata in a pre-1376 context. A late dating of these stavrata would also require too many typological developments to be placed in the confined period 1379–1391. Non-Byzantine coins, including Ottoman, can support a dating of this hoard to 1379 or earlier: the Rhodian gigliati close in the issues of Raymond Berenger (1365–1374) and the Venetian soldini in the issues of Andrea Contarini (1368–1382). In both cases, issues of the respective successors of these rulers are usually widely available. This impression is compounded by the strong tailing off of the soldini towards Contarini, and the fact that his type 4 (of 1379 and later) is absent. Most recently, in Baker et al., it has been shown that the issues of John V contained in the two hoards constitute a compact unit which can be dated from this emperor’s reform in ca. 1372 to 1376. Concealment and non-retrieval of the two hoards may perhaps be seen in the context of the re-entry of John V with his son Manuel (later: II) through what was then the Xylokerkos Gate on 1 July 1379. Bibliography: Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1986”, p. 39; Gökyıldırım, “Belgratkapı definesi – 1987”; DOC V, pp. 16–17; Stahl, Zecca, p. 453, no. 96; Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Medical Exhibition from Past to Present, pp. 16–17; Baker, “Later medieval monetary life in Constantinople”; Pitarakis, “Objects of Devotion”, pp. 178–179, 235, n. 30, pl. I; Lianta, “Some ‘Stavraton’

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE BALKANS

1139

Hoards Re-examined”; Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”, no. 24. Discussed further pp.: 53n303, 56n316, 157n319, 209, 423, 1136, 1270n426, 1320, 1325, 1352, 1378, 1423, 1428, 1435, 1437, 1446, 1484, 1497, 1646, 1647, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1660, 1661, 1666, 1667, 1682, 1683 Content Deniers tournois 131 Principality of Achaïa 11 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV112 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV113 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV131 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV134 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV223 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 uncertain 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA202 5 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA1 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHA2 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FHB 17 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA2 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, Y3 1 Uncertain Isabelle of Villehardouin 37 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 15 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSΓ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSB-Γ 27 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 8 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTB 9 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ

1140

appendix i

1 1 15

8

3 1 62

Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, LBA Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, FMA Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321) 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1b 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA1c 6 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, MHB2 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3a 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, MA3b 1 Uncertain Mahaut of Hainaut John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA2 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA3 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGA4 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IGB1 Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, RAA1 Uncertain denier tournois of Achaïa

Duchy of Athens 11 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR101–103 9 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 18 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A3 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 10 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 2 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX / rev. legend ThEBANI CIVIS 2 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A7 (obv.) and Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A (rev.) 18 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend GVI.DVX 3 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20A 10 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20B 4 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Γ 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Δ

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE BALKANS

12

1

24

1

Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 11 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, GR20Z 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 24 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 6 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1c 4 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR1b–d uncertain 1 Baker, “Apulia”, DR1e 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aii 3 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2aiii 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2a uncertain 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bi 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii Counterfeit denier tournois 1 Of Achaïa

Soldini 201 Republic of Venice 64 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 7 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 23 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 5 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 1 18 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 2 2 Marino Falier (1354–1355) 15 Giovanni Gradenigo (1355–1356) 55 Giovanni Dolfin (1356–1361) 24 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 8 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 3 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 3 Stahl, “Cephalonia”, type 3

1141

1142

appendix i

10.498 Silistra 1932 Findspot: Bulgaria, Silistra province. This town on the Danube, in northeastern Bulgaria, belonged to Romania at the time of the hoard’s discovery. Present status: A number of public and private collections, principally Romanian, though one Bulgarian. Summary of content: 18 deniers tournois of Achaïa and Arta, amongst coins of 17 other issuing authorities of central Europe, the Balkans and the Orient, fourteenth / fifteenth century (total: ca. 8000 pieces). Note: This hoard, for all intents and purposes unpublished, has been reconstituted by Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu and its contents will be extensively listed in his forthcoming monograph. I thank him for making this information accessible to me now. Bibliography: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 285. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1466 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 17

Despot in Epiros at Arta 17 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 17 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

11

Deniers Tournois, Medieval Greek Coins, Venetian Soldini and Torneselli as Excavation and Single Finds in the Balkans (in Alphabetical Order)

11.499 Agathopolis Findspot: Bulgaria, Burgas province. The coin was found during salvage excavations for a block of flats in the modern town of Ahtopol, the site of the ancient and medieval Aulaioteichos-Agathopolis, on the Black Sea coast in southeastern Bulgaria. Present status: Not indicated. Summary of content: One Venetian tornesello amongst mostly Turkish and perhaps one Bulgarian/Byzantine specimen of the fourteenth / fifteenth century. Note: The tornesello is not further identifiable.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1143

Bibliography: Kojčev and Mumafov, “Agatopolis”, p. 29, no. 29. Discussed further pp.: 1328, 1330 11.500 Agios Achilleios Findspot: Greece, Western Macedonia. Agios Achilleios is an island in Small Lake Prespa, which lies within the nomos of Florina. The medieval structures there were excavated by Professor Moutsopoulos and during subsequent campaigns. Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum and 11th EBA, Veroia. Summary of content: One Venetian soldino amongst a large quantity of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century material. Note: The coins found during the campaigns have been extensively presented by the staff of the Numismatic Museum, and not all the relevant bibliography has been provided here, though the single soldino was found more recently. Bibliography: Oikonomidou, “Saint-Achilée”; Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 155; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, pp. 107–116; Païsidou, “Άγιο Αχίλλειο”, p. 361, no. 15. Discussed further pp.: 421, 1235n215, 1241, 1244n261, 1246n270, 1275, 1320 Content Soldino 1 Republic of Venice 1 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 11.501 Ainos Findspot: Turkey, Edirne province, archaeological site of Ancient Ainos, just west of the modern town of Enez. Present status: Edirne Museum. Summary of content: Deniers tournois amongst other late medieval material. Note: The brief summary given here is based on the first cited article and on the presentation given by Prof. Oğuz Tekin, “Excavation coins from Aenus in Thrace” to the Royal Numismatic Society on 16 October 2007. My own more recent publication features a number of medieval single finds, but deniers tournois are only contained in a hoard deposited in 1307 (though not given an entry in these appendices). Bibliography: Tekin, “Ainos”; Baker, “Ainos”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378

1144

appendix i

11.502 Baniska Findspot: Bulgaria, Ruse province, Dve Mogili municipality. The village of Baniska lies some 30km due south of Ruse town, in the central northern area of Bulgaria (see «504»). Summary of content: One denier tournois of Arta. Note: I thank Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu for pointing me to this find. Bibliography: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 298. Discussed further p.: 1466 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 11.503 Čerenča Findspot: Bulgaria, Šumen province, a village to the northwest of Šumen, in northeastern Bulgaria. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Šumen. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Arta. Bibliography: Žekova, Šumen, p. 154, no. 1398. Discussed further p.: 1466 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 presumably IOΓvar1–2 11.504 Červen Findspot: Bulgaria, Ruse province, a fortress some 35km south of Ruse, in northern central Bulgaria. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Arta. Note: I owe the reference to this coin to the kindness of Ženja Žekova. Bibliography: Dimova, “Monetite ot citadela”, p. 282. Discussed further pp.: 1144, 1466

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1145

Content Denier tournois 1 Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 11.505 Drobeta-Turnu Severin Findspot: Romania, Mehedinţi county. This town lies in the southwestern part of the country, on the Danube, towards the Serbian border. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Arta. Note: I thank Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu for pointing me to this unpublished find. Bibliography: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate. Discussed further p.: 1466 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 11.506 Edirne Findspot: Turkey, Edirne province. The coins, formerly in the collection of the town’s Greek high school, were presumably of local origin. Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Frankish Greek specimens amongst other later medieval coins. Bibliography: BCH, 48 (1924), NM, p. 451. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378 11.507 Istanbul Findspot: Turkey, Istanbul. The coins were excavated in the hippodrome, and the surrounding area, in the 1920s. Present status: Arkeoloji Müzesi, Istanbul. Summary of content: Ca. 20 western and / or western-style coins, including deniers tournois (of which one is specified as Achaïan), amongst a good quantity of late Byzantine coins Bibliography: Jones, “The Coins”; Gray, “The Coins”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378

1146

appendix i

11.508 Istanbul Findspot: Turkey, Istanbul. The coins were excavated in the Kalenderhane mosque in 1966–1978. Present status: Arkeoloji Müzesi, Istanbul. Summary of content: One denier tournois, amidst – as far as the thirteenth century and later is concerned – trachea and tetartera of Alexios III, Faithful Copies, Latin Empire, Byzantine emperors at Nicea and Constantinople. The later period is dominated by tornesi of the John V and Manuel II. Kingdom of France of Louis IX. Bibliography: Hendy, “Coins (Kalenderhane Camii)”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 128; DOC IV, pp. 83–84; Hendy, “Roman, Byzantine and Latin Coins”, pp. 178–179 and 271. Discussed further pp.: 203, 1211n97, 1234n211, 1271, 1287 Content Denier tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193 +TVRONVS CIVIS

11.509 Jantra Findspot: Bulgaria, Veliko Tărnovo province. These coins were found during excavations. Summary of content: Two or more deniers tournois. Achaïa and Arta, perhaps Counterfeits (not listed below). Note: I thank Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu for pointing me to these finds, published in a monograph by Băčvarov, though inaccessible to me. Bibliography: See Note and Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 296. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1419, 1467 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 John of Gravina (1321–1332) 1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1147

11.510 Kasrici Findspot: Bulgaria, Varna province. The coins were excavated in this fortress, in the immediate vicinity of Varna, on the Black Sea. Summary of content: Western-style coins, amongst which perhaps deniers tournois. Note: I owe the information about this unpublished material to the kindness of Ženja Žekova. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1467 11.511 Košarica Findspot: Bulgaria, Burgas province. The coin was found in Košarica village, near the town of Pomorie on the Black Sea coast some 20km north of Burgas. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Burgas. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Arta. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 33, no. 2; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 291. Discussed further pp.: 210, 1467 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 probably IOΓvar1 11.512 Ljutica Findspot: Bulgaria, Haskovo province. The coins were excavated in this fortress, which is to be found near Ivajlovgrad, in the southeast of the country, on the border with Greece. Summary of content: Western-style coins, amongst which perhaps deniers tournois. Note: I owe the information about this unpublished material to the kindness of Ženja Žekova. Bibliography: Unpublished. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1467 11.513 Nesebăr Findspot: Bulgaria, Burgas province. The coins were excavated in the old town of Nesebăr, the medieval site of Mesembria, on the Black Sea coast between

1148

appendix i

Burgas and Varna. The two coins listed by Gerasimov originate from a cemetery, while the third specimen was excavated in the position “Fortification wall south – beneath the church of St. J. Aliturghetos”. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Burgas. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois of Arta. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 33, n. 10; Theoklieva-Stoytcheva, Mesemvria, pp. 34 and 56, no. 139; OberländerTârnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 292. Discussed further pp.: 1235n215, 1467 Content Deniers tournois 3 Despot in Epiros at Arta 3 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 3 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 11.514 Ohrid Findspot: Macedonia. Medieval coins originate from the general area of this town, as well as from more recent excavations in the castle area. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Ohrid; Numismatic Collection, National Bank of Macedonia, Skopje. Summary of content: Ca. five deniers tournois of Arta and one billon trachy of Manfred of Hohenstaufen, amongst a very large collection of later medieval numismatic material. Note: Late medieval stray finds and hoards from Ohrid and its area have been systematically presented over the years, principally by Danica Razmovska-Bačeva, though none of her publications cover any Frankish Greek specimens. She has, however, very kindly informed me that the single such piece known to her from the Ohrid region is a tournois of Arta, the only specimen for which a more precise identification is given below. It was found in 1975 at the archaeological site of St. Erasmus, a Christian basilica and medieval settlement located on the road to Struga. More recently I was very generously shown some excavation material from the castle of the town, now being studied by Katerina Hristovska at the National Bank of Macedonia. I saw a handful of tournois which were either of Arta or unreadable, as well as the issue of Manfred. A comprehensive publication is in preparation by Hristovska. Bibliography: Razmovska-Bačeva, “Numizmatičkata zbirka vo Ohrid”; Razmovska-Bačeva, “Docnovizantiskite moneti”; Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, pp. 104–105, n. 15; Razmovska-Bačeva,

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1149

“Circulation of Coins of the Paleologi in the Ohrid Region”; Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coin Circulation in the Ohrid region”; Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coins of the Palaeologians”; Razmovska-Bačeva, Numizmatičkite naodi, passim. Discussed further pp.: 1235n215, 1467 Content Deniers tournois ca. 5 Despot in Epiros at Arta ca. 5 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) (1) IOAvar2 Billon trachy 1 Lord of Romania 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258/1259–1266) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25 11.515 Olynthos Findspot: Greece, Central Macedonia, Chalkidiki. The coin was excavated at this archaeological site. Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: One Venetian tornesello amongst a handful of other late medieval coins. Bibliography: Robinson, The Coins found at Olynthus in 1928; BCH, 58 (1935), NM, 243; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 324, n. 45; DOC V, p. 203. Discussed further pp.: 1328, 1330 Content Tornesello 1 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 11.516 Păcuiul Lui Soare Findspot: Romania, Călăraşi county. Păcuiul lui Soare is an island in the Danube identified as the medieval site of Vicina. It lies some 130km to the southeast of Bucharest, close to the town of Călăraşi. Present status: Coin Room, “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Academia Română, Bucharest.

1150

appendix i

Summary of content: Two deniers tournois of Arta amongst a good quantity of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Byzantine (especially gold) and Serbian coinages. Note: I thank Ernest Oberländer-Târnoveanu, who saw the two tournois himself, and who kindly informed me that they were neither Achaïan nor French, as stated in the previous literature, but in fact the coppery issues of Arta. Bibliography: Iliescu, “L’hyperpère byzantin au Bas-Danube”; Iliescu, “Păcuiul lui Soare”; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 128; 284; 285; 286; 287; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, nn. 278–284. Discussed further pp.: 1237n221, 1265n391, 1467 Content Deniers tournois 2 Despot in Epiros at Arta 2 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 11.517 Pepelina Findspot: Bulgaria, Ruse province, Dve Mogili municipality. The village of Pepelina lies some 30km due south of Ruse town, in the central northern area of Bulgaria. Present status: Not indicated. Summary of content: One denier tournois of Arta. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 33, n. 12; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 297. Discussed further p.: 1467 Content Denier tournois 1 Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16 11.518 Perperikon Findspot: Bulgaria, Kărdžali province. This ancient site lies some 15km northeast of the town of Kărdžali, in south-central Bulgaria. Summary of content: Different coins used locally in the fourteenth century, amongst which five deniers tournois.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1151

Note: I owe the information about this material prior to its publication to the kindness of Ženja Žekova. Bibliography: Dočev, “Perperikon”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 210, 1378, 1467 11.519 Plovdiv Findspot: Bulgaria, Plovdiv province. The listed coins were found in the region of this town. Present status: Perhaps one of the three is in the Archaeological Museum of Plovdiv or Burgas (Gerasimov provides conflicting information). Summary of content: Three deniers tournois of Arta. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na franskija vladetel Joan II Orsini”, p. 33, nos. 1, 3, 4; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 293. Discussed further pp.: 210, 1467 Content Deniers tournois 3 Despot in Epiros at Arta 3 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 IOΓvar1 2 IOΓvar2 11.520 Rahovec Findspot: Bulgaria, Veliko Tărnovo province. The fortress of Rahovec is situated in the village of Gorna Orjahovica, to the northeast of Veliko Tărnovo. Summary of content: Two deniers tournois of Arta. Note: These finds were kindly communicated to me by Ženja Žekova. They had been published in a monograph by I. Băčvarov, unavailable to me. Bibliography: See Note. Discussed further p.: 1467 Content Deniers tournois 2 Despot in Epiros at Arta 2 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1152

appendix i

11.521 Rentina Findspot: Greece, Central Macedonia, village and castle in the eastern part of the Thessalonike prefecture. The fortification has been excavated by Prof. Moutsopoulos since 1976. Present status: 9th EBA, Thessalonike. Summary of content: 11 deniers tournois and one tornesello amongst a good quantity of other coins of the late medieval period. While the tornesello remains unattributed, two each of the tournois are of Achaïa, Athens, and unattributed, five are of Naupaktos. Bibliography: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, p. 176; Galani-Krikou and Tsourti, “Μακεδονική Ρεντίνα”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 350, 1211n97, 1263n391, 1328, 1330, 1378, 1428, 1446 11.522 Seuthopolis Findspot: Bulgaria, Stara Zagora province. The ruins of this ancient city now lie beneath the Koprinka reservoir, to the west of the town of Kazanlăk. Present status: A local collection? Summary of content: One denier tournois amongst well in excess of 600 late medieval coins, principally Byzantine and Bulgarian. Bibliography: Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 132–134; Dimitrov and Penčev, Sevtopolis, p. 159, no. 3. Discussed further pp.: 203n109, 1232n202, 1235n215, 1287 Content Denier tournois 1 Kingdom of France 1 Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX (1226–1270) 1 Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos. 187 or 193 +TVRONVS CIVI(S) 11.523 Shkodër Findspot: Albania, Shkodër county and district. There is speculation that the coin was found in this northern part of Albania, even though Valentini states a generic Albanian provenance. Present status: Formerly in the collection of Valentini, now unknown. Summary of content: One billon trachy of Manfred of Hohenstaufen amongst other late medieval coins which Valentini describes.

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1153

Bibliography: Valentini, “Manfredi”; Valentini, “Albania”, p. 122; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 202. Discussed further pp.: 1353, 1354n928, 1356 Content Billon trachy 1 Lord of Romania 1 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (1258/1259–1266) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25 11.524 Šumen Findspot: Bulgaria, Šumen province. The coins were found in the area of the castle. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Šumen, and the private Haralanov collection (the specimen presented by Gerasimov). Summary of content: 17 deniers tournois, one of uncertain issuer, the remaining 16 of Arta. Note: Prior to Žekova’s monograph and more recent archaeological activities in the castle area, Gerasimov published a single, fragmentary specimen with the same provenance. Žekova states that coins in the name of John II Orsini are imitated in Bulgaria, but implies that all of the specimens she publishes are genuine. In view of their description as copper coins, and the one illustrated specimen, they are probably mostly of the variety indicated below. Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 33, no. 5; Žekova, Šumen, pp. 47 and 153–154 and pl. XV.1386; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 294. Discussed further pp.: 210, 1235n215, 1263n391, 1467, 1474, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 16 Despot in Epiros at Arta 16 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) most IOΓvar1 11.525 Tărnovo Findspot: Bulgaria, Veliko Tărnovo province. The coins were excavated in the old town. Present status: Archaeological Museum, Veliko Tărnovo.

1154

appendix i

Summary of content: 120 deniers tournois amongst a vast number of later medieval Byzantine and Bulgarian coins. Achaïa, Athens, and Arta. Note: Some of the denier tournois finds from Tărnovo were extensively discussed and illustrated by Gerasimov. These coins are however probably those which Oberländer-Târnoveanu considers a hoard (see «492»). Bibliography: Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, pp. 29–33, nos. 1–10; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 118ff and 285–286; Dočev, Tărnovo, pp. 159–162, 263; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, Monedă şi societate, n. 295. Discussed further pp.: 209, 210, 1232n202, 1235n215, 1251, 1263n391, 1378, 1413,1428, 1467, 1473, 1474 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316) 2

117

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX Despot in Epiros at Arta 117 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 2 IOΓ

11.526 Thasos Findspot: Greece, Northern Aegean islands. The coins were excavated by the EFA at Ancient Thasos, located to the east of the modern capital of Thasos, in the northwest corner of the island. Present status: Formerly Athens Numismatic Museum, recently transferred to the Archaeological Museum, Thasos. Summary of content: 24 deniers tournois, six soldini, 92 torneselli. Provence, Achaïa, Athens, Naupaktos, Arta, Karytaina, Counterfeits, Venice, in addition to a good quantity of late medieval coins, amongst which the Byzantine and Lesbian series are the best represented. Note: The medieval numismatic finds from the long-standing French excavations have been mentioned sporadically in the literature, though the complete catalogue, on which the list below is exclusively based, is only to be found in Saulnier’s unpublished doctoral thesis. A more up-to-date catalogue of the

COIN FINDS: EXCAVATION AND SINGLE FINDS IN THE BALKANS

1155

French finds from Thasos is now in preparation by me, which will include notably a hoard of so-called Rhodian coins which can most likely be re-attributed to Thasos itself, and a Lakonian tornese in the name of Manuel II Palaiologos. Bibliography: BCH, 58 (1934), NM, p. 236; BCH, 74 (1950), NM, pp. 292, 364, plates 41 and 42; BCH, 79 (1955), NM, p. 211; Saulnier, Thasos à l’époque paléochrétienne et byzantine; Saulnier, “Époque byzantine”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. Discussed further pp.: 209, 350, 1237n221, 1271, 1272, 1273n444, 1292, 1320, 1328, 1330, 1349, 1378, 1385, 1392, 1400, 1408, 1428, 1440, 1446, 1467 Content Deniers tournois 1 County of Provence 1 Charles I of Anjou (1246–1285) 1 Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos. 3947–8 +K.CO.P.FI.RE(ñ).F. / +PVINCIALIS 10

2

Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV211 3 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 3 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203 3 Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVA1 2 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, IVB1 2 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTA 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PTΓ Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GR105 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX 1 Uncertain GVI.DVX

1156

appendix i

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314) 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, DR2bii

1

Despot in Epiros at Arta 1 John II Orsini (1323–1336/1337) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.16

1

Lordship of Karytaina 1 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 1 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

8

Uncertain or Counterfeit deniers tournois

Soldini 6 Republic of Venice 2 Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339) 1 Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342) 1 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 2 Uncertain doges Torneselli 92 Republic of Venice 1 Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) 2 Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1365) 2 Marco Corner (1365–1368) 26 Andrea Contarini (1368–1382) 4 Michele Morosini (1382) 28 Antonio Venier (1382–1400) 6 Michele Steno (1400–1413) 3 Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) 20 Uncertain doges 11.527 Thessalonike Findspot: Greece. The coins were excavated outside the basilica of Agios Demetrios. Present status: Athens Numismatic Museum. Summary of content: Three deniers tournois amongst a few middle and late Byzantine specimens. Achaïa, Athens, Counterfeit. Note: I was able to study these tournois in Athens.

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE WEST AND NORTH

1157

Bibliography: Sotiriou and Sotiriou, Αγίου Δημητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης, pp. 244–245. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1200n18, 1271, 1378, 1404, 1428, 1484 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 1 Tzamalis, “Εlis”, PSA 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX 1 Metcalf, Ashmolean, A8 1 Counterfeit denier tournois 12

Greek Deniers Tournois in Hoards in Western and Northern Europe (in Chronological Order)

12.528 Skrivergade Findspot: Denmark, Hovedstaden region, Bornholm municipality. Bornholm is an island some distance to the east of the rest of Denmark, between Poland and southern Sweden. Summary of content: 13 Greek tournois, amongst 2173 Danish, Swedish, English, Irish, Scottish, Brabançon, French, German coins. Achaïa to Charles I or Charles II of Anjou. Note: I was kindly communicated the existence of this hoard by Jørgen Steen Jensen. Date of concealment: The hoard is dated by its editors to 1280–1285. Bibliography: Steen Jensen et al., Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund, pp. 32– 36, no. 96. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1392, 1394, 1429 Content Deniers tournois 13 Principality of Achaïa 6 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 6 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, GV22 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 5 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 5 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA201–203

1158

appendix i

12.529 Dieuze Findspot: France, Lorraine region, Moselle department, Château-Salins arrondissement. Content: Four Greek tournois amongst five pounds in weight of coins. Achaïa to Charles I of Anjou. Date of concealment: Duplessy proposes 1291–1295. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 148, no. 1; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 62–63, no. 125. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1392, 1429 Content Deniers tournois 4 Principality of Achaïa 2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 2 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 2 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 12.530 Aurimont Findspot: France, Midi-Pyrénées region, Gers department, Auch arrondissement. Summary of content: Five Greek deniers tournois amongst 3614 coins. Achaïa to Charles I or II of Anjou; Athens to William or Guy II. Date of concealment: Duplessy proposes 1298–1301. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 148, no. 2; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 30–31, no. 22. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1289n532, 1378, 1392, 1428, 1429 Content Deniers tournois 4 Principality of Achaïa 3 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 William (1280–1287) or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), obv. legend G.DVX

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE WEST AND NORTH

1159

12.531 Saint-Marcel-De-Felines Findspot: France, Rhône-Alpes region, Loire department, Roanne arrondissement. Summary of content: Two Greek deniers tournois amongst 907 coins. Achaïa to Florent. Date of concealment: Duplessy proposes 1311–1322. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 148, no. 3; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 135–136, no. 336. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1395 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 12.532 Puylaurens Findspot: France, Midi-Pyrénées region, Tarn department, Castres arrondissement. Summary of content: Two Greek deniers tournois amongst 2686 coins. Achaïa to Charles of Anjou. Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. Date of concealment: Duplessy proposes 1315–1322. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 148, no. 4; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 117–119, no. 284. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1289n532, 1378, 1428 Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) 1 Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, KA101 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

12.533 Saint-Maixent Findspot: France, Poitou-Charentes region, Deux-Sèvres department, Niort arrondissement.

1160

appendix i

Summary of content: One Greek denier tournois amongst 4200 coins. Achaïa to Charles I or II of Anjou. Date of concealment: Duplessy dates the hoard to 1315–1322. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 148, no. 5; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, p. 134, no. 333. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 12.534 Villeneuve Findspot: France, Auvergne region, Puy-de-Dôme department, Issoire arrondissement. Summary of content: One Greek denier tournos amongst 1100 coins. Athens. Date of concealment: Duplessy suggests 1315–1322. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 148, no. 6; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 160–161, no. 418. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1428, 1437 Content Denier tournois 1 Duchy of Athens 1 Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) 1 DVX.ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b 12.535 Manderen Findspot: France, Lorraine region, Moselle department, Thionville arrondissement. Summary of content: 41 Greek tournois amongst 17588 described coins. Achaïa to Philip of Savoy; Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne; Naupaktos; Karytaina. Note: The hoard is known alternatively as the “Sierck hoard” (after nearby Sierck-les-Bains, see Metcalf). The Frankish coins might constitute a

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE WEST AND NORTH

1161

self-contained parcel within the hoard, which dates also considerably earlier. However, as pointed out by Metcalf, the relative proportion of Achaïan to Athenian tournois is such that separate movements of coins from Greece to France cannot be ruled out. Date of concealment: Duplessy dates the hoard to 1327–1328. Bibliography: Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, p. 59; Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 149, no. 7; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, p. 88ff, no. 197. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1404, 1428, 1429, 1440, 1446, 1447 Content Deniers tournois 34 Principality of Achaïa 10 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 18 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 2 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 4 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 4

Duchy of Athens 4 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1

Despot of Romania at Naupaktos 1 Philip of Taranto (1296/8–1314)

2

Lordship of Karytaina 2 Helena Angela (1291–1299 or later) 2 Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.28

12.536 Riec-Sur-Belon Findspot: France, Bretagne region, Finistère department, Quimper arrondissement. Summary of content: One Greek tournois amongst 611 coins. Achaïa of Philip of Savoy. Date of concealment: Duplessy dates the hoard to 1340–1341. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 149, no. 8; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 120–121, no. 294. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1429

1162

appendix i

Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) 12.537 Mairé Findspot: France, Poitou-Charentes region, Vienne department, Châtellerault arrondissement. Summary of content: One Greek tournois amongst 264 coins. Achaïa to William of Villehardouin. Date of concealment: Duplessy proposes 1342–1348. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 149, no. 9; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, p. 87, no. 193. Discussed further pp.: 209, 1378, 1429 Content Denier tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) 12.538 Champagne-Mouton Findspot: France, Poitou-Charentes region, Charente department, Confolens arrondissement. Summary of content: Uncertain number of Frankish Greek tournois amongst 700 coins. Athens of interregnum. Date of concealment: Duplessy proposes 1350–1351. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 149, no. 10; Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 49–50, no. 85. Discussed further pp.: 209, 422, 1429, 1437 Content Denier(s) tournois yes Duchy of Athens yes Anonymous issue of interregnum between Guy II de la Roche and Walter of Brienne (Oct. 1308–April 1309) yes DVX.ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b

COIN FINDS: HOARDS IN THE WEST AND NORTH

1163

12.539 Weissenthurm Findspot: Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate state, Mayen-Koblenz district. Summary of content: Two Greek tournois amongst 406 coins. Achaïa to Philip of Taranto. Date of concealment: The hoard was dated to ca. 1360 by the original publisher. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 149, no. 11. Discussed further pp.: 209, 422, 1378 Content Deniers tournois 2 Principality of Achaïa 1 Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) 1 Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) 12.540 Limerle Findspot: Belgium, Luxembourg province, Bastogne arrondissement. Summary of content: Two Frankish Greek tournois amongst 176 coins. Achaïa to Charles I or II of Anjou, Athens to Guy II de la Roche or Walter of Brienne. Date of concealment: Haeck dates the hoard to 1382. Bibliography: Duplessy, “Les trouvailles de monnaies de l’Orient Latin en Europe occidentale”, p. 149, no. 12; Haeck, Middeleeuwse Muntschatten Gevonden in België (750–1433), pp. 194–195, no. G.12. Content Deniers tournois 1 Principality of Achaïa 1 Charles I of Anjou (1278–1285) or Charles II of Anjou (1285–1289) 1

Duchy of Athens 1 Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) or Walter of Brienne (1309–1311), obv. leg. GVI.DVX

1164 13

appendix i

Medieval Coins in Stratigraphical Fills at Ancient Corinth

Note: The following two appendices feature thirteenth- to fifteenth-century stratigraphical fills or layers, respectively at Ancient Corinth and the Athenian Agora. The fills or layers have been chosen for these two lists on the basis of the coins which they contained, that is to say the kinds of coins discussed in this book which had been lost separately, in constellations which are deemed revealing for our analyses. None of these coins constitute obvious hoards. None of the fills are from graves. In fact, all the coins contained in Appendix I.13 and Appendix I.14 have been previously listed in our lists of single coins (Appendix I.4), with the exception of Byzantine and Byzantine-style coins at the Athenian Agora: see Appendix I.14 and «238». With respect to these fills, in addition to the coins which they contained, I have tried to convey some of the other information which can be given about location and content. Regarding dating, however, more often than not the coins themselves provide the best idea of the timeframe represented by the materials of the fill and the final closure of the latter. In fact, in the relevant reports for Ancient Corinth the excavators themselves refer more frequently to coins than for instance to pottery in their attempts to date developments at the site. Bearing in mind therefore the obvious risk of a circular argumentation, and also the vexed question of whether a coin retained its monetary properties or not at a temporal distance from its issue, these fills provide an invaluable source for the longevities, at a local and everyday level, of some of the coinages of medieval Greece. Joan Fisher began the Corinthian tradition in the 1970s of appending the yearly excavation reports for coins with such lists of coins from single stratigraphical fills. Those that are listed here have been lifted directly from the publications spanning the excavation period 1976–1997. 1. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1976”, p. 13, “Frankish Columned Hall, Bothros”. The excavators date the pottery contained in this bothros to the middle of the thirteenth century: 1 Ancient 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, France, Louis VIII and/or Louis IX 2. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1976”, p. 13, “Frankish Columned Hall, Over marl-coated floor”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1165

3. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1982”, p. 34, “Area of Shops. I. Pit 1982–5 in floor of Byzantine Room. 12th to 13th c. after Christ. Lot 1981–1”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 4. Fisher, “Coins: Corinth Excavations 1977”, p. 226, “Frankish level. Garbage pit”. The excavators date the pottery contained in this fill to the middle of the thirteenth century: 1 Early Byzantine 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 3 billon trachea, Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives 9 billon trachea, Latin Imitatives 5. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1987”, p. 133, “North of Decumanus. Pit 1987–2. 13th century after Christ. Lot 1987–7”. The excavators relied on the coins to date this fill to the mid-thirteenth century: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 8 billon trachea, Latin Imitatives 3 billon trachea, uncertain issues 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 6. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1987”, p. 133, “North of Decumanus. Pit 1987–4. 14th century after Christ. Lot 1987–18”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 3 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I or Alexios III 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Florent of Hainaut 7. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 358, “Trench A (Grid 75:E). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket A22)”. The other materials referred to by the excavators for 7.–12., notably pottery, suggest late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century datings: 1 Byzantine or Roman 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos

1166

appendix i

8. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 358, “Trench B (Grid 75:D). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Lot 1989–9B (Basket B12)”: 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX or GVI.DVX 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of uncertain prototype 9. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 358, “Trench B (Grid 75:D). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket B25)”: 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I of Anjou 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of uncertain prototype 1 grosso, Serbia 10. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 358, “Trench B (Grid 75:D). Underlying Fills. Pocket (Basket B30)”: 1 Anonymous follis 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 11. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 359, “Trench D (Grid 75:B). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket D4)”: 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 13, Philip of Savoy 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Savoy 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX 10 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos 10 denier tournois counterfeits, of uncertain prototype 12. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 359, “Trench D (Grid 75:B). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket D5)”: 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 13, Philip of Savoy 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Charles I of Anjou (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of uncertain prototype

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1167

13. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 42, “Trench A (Grid 77:B, 77:C). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket A5)”. The other materials referred to by the excavators for 13.–21., notably pottery, suggest late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century datings: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 14. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 42, “Trench A (Grid 77:B, 77:C). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket A9)”: 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Poitou, Alphonse of France 3 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer 15. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 42, “Trench A (Grid 77:B, 77:C). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Basket A74)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 16. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 42, “Trench A (Grid 77:B, 77:C). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Lot 1990–46 (Baskets A84; A 86)”: 1 Late Roman 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Florent of Hainaut 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Savoy 4 deniers tournois, Athens, G.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 1 grosso, Serbia 17. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 42, “Trench A (Grid 77:B, 77:C). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Lot 1990–47 (Baskets A87)”: 1 billon trachy, Michael VIII Palaiologos 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I and/or II of Anjou 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer

1168

appendix i

18. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 43, “Trench B (Grid 76:C). Bottom Road Metal. Lot 1990–1 (Baskets B45; B46)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 19. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 43, “Trench C (Grid 76:B). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Baskets C35; C50)”: 1 petty denomination issue, uncertain type 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Philip of Savoy (Achaïa) 3 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos 4 deniers tournois, uncertain issuer 20. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 43, “Trench C (Grid 76:B). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Pocket (Baskets C36; C51)”: 3 Byzantine tetarera, uncertain emperor 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Taranto 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX or GVI.DVX 3 denier tournois counterfeits, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Philip of Savoy (Achaïa) 4 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos 7 deniers tournois, uncertain issuer 21. Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 43, “Trench C (Grid 76:B). Upper Fills and Road Metals. Lot 1990–6 (Baskets C37)”: 3 Late Roman and Early Byzantine 1 billon trachy, uncertain type 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 22. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 179, “Road going NorthSouth along East wall of church court. Ia Destruction Debris and Fills on Top of Road. Pocket (Baskets 1, 2, 3)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1169

23. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 180, “Road going NorthSouth along East wall of church court. Ib Topmost Roadmetal. Pocket (Basket 10)”: 1 Early Byzantine 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I of Anjou 2 deniers tournois, Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin 2 deniers tournois, Naupaktos 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of William of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer 24. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 180, “Paved East Court of Church. II. Destruction Debris above Paving Stones. Lot 1990–140 (Baskets 72, 73)”: 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX 25. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 180, “Area West of Church Narthex. VIIIb Topmost Floor. Lot 1991–29 (Basket 26)”: 1 Greek coin 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 13, Philip of Savoy 26. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 180, “Hall Built against South Wall of Church. IX. Topmost Floor and Fill Directly Beneath. Lot 1991–91 (Baskets 79, 80, 81, 82)”. The relevant pottery is mentioned by the excavators on p. 137: 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos 10 deniers tournois, uncertain issuer 27. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 181, “Unit 2. X. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 2. Lot 1991–42 (Baskets 104, 105)”: 1 billon trachy, uncertain type 1 petty denomination issue, Athens 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Savoy 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, Athens, GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer

1170

appendix i

28. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 181, “Unit 2. XII. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 1. Pocket (Basket 65)”: 1 Late Roman 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 29. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 181, “Unit 1. XVI. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 4. Lot 1991–52 (Baskets 42, 43, 81, 109)”: 1 Greek 1 Anonymous follis 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 12, Clarentza 30. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 182, “Unit 1. XVII. Well 1991–1. Sealed by East Wall of Room 4. Pocket (Basket 117)”: 2 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 31. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 182, “Unit 1. XVII. Well 1991–1. Sealed by East Wall of Room 4. Pocket (Basket 118)”: 5 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 32. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 36, “Northwest Passageway: Section West of Unit 2. I. Miscellaneous Raked Fills on Top of Destruction Debris. Lot 1992–78 (Baskets 26, 141)”: 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 billon trachy, uncertain type 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX or GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Philip of Savoy (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, Athens, G.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, Athens, GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1171

33. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 37, “Northwest Passageway: Section West of Unit 2. I. Miscellaneous Raked Fills on Top of Destruction Debris. Lot 1992–80 (Basket 28) (beneath lot 1992–78)”: 1 Late Roman 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 34. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 37, “Northwest Passageway: Section West of Unit 2. I. Miscellaneous Raked Fills on Top of Destruction Debris. Lot 1992–81 (Baskets 31, 32, 39) (beneath lot 1992–80)”: 1 Greek 1 Late Roman 2 billon trachea, Latin Imitatives 2 billon trachea, uncertain types 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 denier tournois, France, Louis IX 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer 35. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 37, “Open Space West of Unit 1. (Behind Rooms 1 and 2). V. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor. Lot 1992–12 (Baskets 37, 60)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois counterfeit, Athens, GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer 1 tornesello, uncertain issuer 36. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 38, “The Buildings: Unit 2. IX. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 3. Lot 1992–44 (Baskets 6, 13, 15, 87, 97, 110, 143)”: 1 Middle Byzantine 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 petty denomination issue, Athens 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Florent of Hainaut 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 1 grosso, uncertain issuer

1172

appendix i

37. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 38, “The Buildings: Unit 2. X. Pit in Northwest Corner of Room 3, Sealed by Destruction Debris. Lot 1992– 73 (Baskets 14, 16, 17, 19)”: 1 Greek 1 Early Byzantine 1 Anonymous follis 1 Byzantine tetarteron, John II 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 38. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 38, “The Buildings: Unit 2. IX. Pit 1992–1 (Deposit 3) Sealed by Floor, Room 3. Basket 63”. On pp. 17–20 and 34, the excavators describe in detail the pottery and glass from this pit (38. and 39.). The late thirteenth-century presence of south Italian Protomaiolica pottery is of particular note: 1 Anonymous follis 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, France, Louis VIII and/or IX 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I or II of Anjou 39. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 38, “The Buildings: Unit 2. IX. Pit 1992–1 (Deposit 3) Sealed by Floor, Room 3. Basket 94”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 billon trachy, uncertain type 40. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 39, “Unit 1. XIV. Fills beneath Floor, Room 2 (West Half). Lot 1992–63 (Baskets 145, 146)”: 1 counterfeit tetarteron of Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 41. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 39, “Unit 1. XVIII. Rockfall on Top of Destruction Debris, Room 4. Lot 1992–68 (Basket 90)”: 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 penny, Déols 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Taranto

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1173

42. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, p. 39, “Unit 1. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 5. Lot 1991–62 (Basket 111)”: 2 Late Roman 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Florent of Hainaut 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 43. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 42, “The Buildings: Unit 2. I. Debris with Painted Plaster Covering Sterile Red, Room 5 (East and West)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 44. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 42, “The Buildings: Unit 2. V. Frankish Dump Directly beneath the Building Debris and over Miscellaneous Debris Covering Lower Floor, Room 5 (West Half)”. The dump is extensively discussed by the excavators in this paper. It contained a lot of pottery which is said to be characteristic of the destruction fills of 1312: 1 Greek 2 Early Byzantine 1 Anonymous follis 4 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 2 billon trachea, Latin Imitative 1 English short cross penny 2 petty denomination issues, Athens 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of William of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 4 denier tournois, uncertain issuer 45. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 43, “The Buildings: Unit 2. VI. Miscellaneous Debris on Top of Lowest Floor, Room 5 (East and West). Lot 1993–96 (Basket 23)”: 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I of Anjou 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I or II of Anjou

1174

appendix i

46. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 43, “The Buildings: Unit 1. VIII. Destruction Debris on Top of Clay Deposit, Room 5”: 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 penny, Arezzo 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I of Anjou 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Savoy 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Taranto 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois, Naupaktos 3 denier tournois counterfeits, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 denier tournois counterfeit, Athens, GVI.DVX 2 denier tournois counterfeits, of Naupaktos 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer 47. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 43, “The Buildings: Unit 1. X. Destruction Debris on Top of Later Floor, Room 8 (West Half). Pocket (Basket 67)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Karytaina 48. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 43, “The Buildings: Unit 1. XI. Later Floor and Underlying Fill, on Top of Early Floor and Disturbed Area to the East, Room 8 (West Half). Lot 1993–15 (Basket 100)”: 1 denier tournois, France, Louis VIII and/or Louis IX 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 49. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 43, “The Buildings: Unit 1. XII. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 9”: 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX 1 denier tournois, Naupaktos 50. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 44, “Paved Court. XVI. Pit 1993–1 (East of Room 12) Lot 1993–27 (Baskets 84, 112)”. On this pit, see further p. 34: it, too, contained materials typical of the phase before the 1312 destruction: 1 Greek 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Taranto 1 denier tournois, uncertain issuer

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1175

51. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 41, “The Buildings: Unit 2. IV. Destruction Debris on Top of Earth Floor, Rooms 3 and 3A Combined. Lot 1992–99 (Baskets 90, 91)”: 1 Middle Byzantine 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 52. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 41, “The Buildings: Unit 2. V. Pit 1994–1, Sealed by Overlying Destruction Debris and Cutting through Large Pit and Earth Floor Beneath, Rooms 3 and 3A Combined. Lot 1994–11 (Basket 83)”: 1 Roman 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 53. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 42, “The Buildings: Unit 2. VI. Earth Floor Beneath Destruction Debris, Rooms 3 and 3A Combined. Pocket (Baskets 82, 84)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 54. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 42, “The Buildings: Unit 2. VIII. Large Pit Sealed by Overlying Earth Floor Cutting through Packed Fills and Floor Tiles below, Room 3A/C. Lot 1994–42 (Baskets 66, 68, 69, 70)”. On this pit, see further p. 17 of the same publication: 2 Late Roman 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 penny, Sicily, Charles I of Anjou 1 obol, France, Philip IV 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of William of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 55. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 42, “The Buildings: Unit 2. VIII. Large Pit Sealed by Overlying Earth Floor Cutting through Packed Fills and Floor Tiles below, Room 3A/C. Lot 1994–43 (Baskets 89, 90)”. On this pit, see further p. 17 of the same publication: 1 petty denomination issue, Athens

1176

appendix i

1 denier tournois, Provence, Alphonse of France 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of William of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 1 grosso, uncertain issuer 56. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 42, “The Buildings: Unit 2. VIII. Large Pit Sealed by Overlying Earth Floor Cutting through Packed Fills and Floor Tiles below, Room 3A/C. Lot 1994–44 (Baskets 91, 92, 93)”. On this pit, see further p. 17 of the same publication: 1 Greek 2 (Late) Roman 5 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 billon trachy, Thessalonike, John Komnenos Doukas 1 denier tournois, Abbey of Tours 1 denier tournois, France, uncertain issuer 57. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 43, “Unit 1. X. Destruction Debris and Other Fills on Top of Clay Deposit, Room 6 (East). Lot 1993–36 (Basket 59)”: 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 58. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 43, “Unit 1. X. Destruction Debris and Other Fills on Top of Clay Deposit, Room 6 (East). Pocket (Baskets 31, 33, 60)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 59. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 43, “Unit 1. XI. Clay Deposit beneath Destruction Debris and on Top of Floor, Room 6 (East and West). Pocket (Baskets 53, 61)”: 2 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1177

60. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 43, “Unit 1. XI. Clay Deposit beneath Destruction Debris and on Top of Floor, Room 6 (East and West). Lot 1993–32 (Basket 60)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Abbey of Tours 1 denier tournois, Provence, Charles I of Anjou 61. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 43, “Unit 1. XI. Clay Deposit beneath Destruction Debris and on Top of Floor, Room 6 (East and West). Pocket (Baskets 35, 37)”: 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 double quartarolo, Venice, Pietro Gradenigo 62. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 44, “Open-air spaces of Unit 1: Northwest Court. XVI. Destruction Debris and other Fills on Top of Floor (Southwest Corner). Lot 1994–4 (Baskets 136, 137)”: 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 63. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 44, “Hard-clay Area adjacent to and North of Paved Court (East Half). XVII. Top Clay Surface. Lot 1994– 6 (Baskets 86, 88)”: 1 Roman 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I and/or II of Anjou 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Savoy 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 4 deniers tournois, uncertain issuer 64. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, p. 41, “Unit 2: Area Directly North of the Church. IV. Destruction Debris on Top of Floor, Room 8. Lot 1995– 14 (Baskets 55, 58, 114)”: 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX 2 deniers tournois, Naupaktos

1178

appendix i

65. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, p. 41, “Unit 2: Area Directly North of the Church. V. Top Crust of Floor Directly beneath Destruction Debris, Room 9 and Entranceway between Rooms 8 and 9. Lot 1995–16 (Basket 169)”: 1 billon trachy, Thessalonike, Thedore Komnenos Doukas 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) 66. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, p. 43, “Unit 1: Rooms 6 and 13 at the South End. XXI. Floor South of East-West Drain, Room 13. Lot 1995–33 (Basket 38)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 67. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, p. 43, “Unit 1: Rooms 6 and 13 at the South End. XXII. Fills Directly beneath Floor, Room 13. Lot 1995–34 (Basket 37)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 68. Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, p. 43, “Unit 1: Rooms 6 and 13 at the South End. XXII. Fills Directly beneath Floor, Room 13. Lot 1995–34 (Basket 40)”: 1 Greek 2 billon trachea, Latin Imitatives 2 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 69. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 175, “Unit 2: Area North of the Church. IV. Ash Deposit Cutting through Upper Floor and Lying on Top of Lower Floor, Room 12. Pocket (Basket 143)”: 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 70. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 176, “Area South of Unit 1: Unit 5 and East-West Road. XIII. Destruction on Top of Floor, Room 1 (Unit 5). Lot 1996–47 (Basket 64)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1179

71. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 176, “Area South of Unit 1: Unit 5 and East-West Road. XIII. Destruction on Top of Floor, Room 1 (Unit 5). Lot 1996–48 (Basket 20, 66)”: 1 Late Roman 1 penny, Hungary, Bela IV and Stephen 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I of Anjou 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 72. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 176, “Public Square (Northwest Passage) Between Units 1 and 2. XIV. Pit 1994–3, Dug into Public Square. Lot 1994–60 (Baskets 100, 101, 102, 103)”: 1 Late Roman 1 Anonymous follis 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 denier tournois, Athens, G.DVX 73. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 177, “North-West Roadway West of Units 1 and 2 and Area Directly West of Roadway: Bothroi in Area North of Roadway Gate. XV. Pit 1995–7, Dug into the Roadway (West of Public Square). Lot 1995–29 (Basket 27)”. On p. 34 of the 1995 excavation report it is suggested that this pit may date to before 1312, or even thereafter: 2 Early Byzantine 1 Byzantine tetarteron, John II 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of Naupaktos 74. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 177, “North-West Roadway West of Units 1 and 2 and Area Directly West of Roadway: Bothroi in Area North of Roadway Gate. XVI. Pit 1995–6, North of Unit 3 in Field West of Roadway (Section West of Unit 2). Lot 1995–27 (Basket 112)”. The pit was further discussed in the excavation report for 1995, p. 33. The pottery suggests a closure of the fill in the 1260s: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 6 billon trachea, Latin Imitatives 75. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 177, “North-West Roadway West of Units 1 and 2 and Area Directly West of Roadway: Bothroi in Area North of Roadway Gate. XVII. Pit 1995–5, Dug into Unit 3 (First Phase). Lot 1995–26

1180

appendix i

(Baskets 92, 94)”. The pit was discussed in the report for 1995, p. 33: the pottery suggests a date ca. 1250–1275: 1 Early Byzantine 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, uncertain type 1 denier tournois, France, Louis VIII and/or Louis IX 76. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 177, “North-West Roadway West of Units 1 and 2 and Area Directly West of Roadway: Bothroi in Area North of Roadway Gate. XVIII. Pit Dug into Unit 3 (First Phase). Pocket (Basket 21)”: 3 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 2 billon trachea, Latin Imitatives 77. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 177, “North-West Roadway West of Units 1 and 2 and Area Directly West of Roadway: Bothroi in Area North of Roadway Gate. XX. Pit 1996–3, Dug into Unit 3 (Room 3). Lot 1996–27 (Baskets 65, 68, 69)”: 1 Greek 2 Late Roman 2 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 78. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 178, “Bothroi in Area South of Roadway Gate. XXIV. Pit 1994–6, Dug West of North-South Roadway, Immediately North of Unit 4. Lot 1994–53 (Baskets 59, 60)”. The pit was further discussed in the excavation report for 1995, p. 33. The pottery suggests a concealment perhaps in the 1250s or 1260s: 2 Ancient 1 Middle Byzantine 1 denier tournois, Abbey of Tours 1 Uncertain Frankish 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 79. Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 178, “Bothroi in Area South of Roadway Gate. XXVIII. Robbed-out Wall or Pit Immediately East of Unit 4 (in Line with West Wall of North-South Roadway). Lot 1994–57 (Baskets 70, 110)”: 1 denier tournois, France, Louis VIII and/or Louis IX 1 Uncertain Frankish 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN CORINTH

1181

80. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 266, “Area South of Unit 1: Units 5 and 6. IV. Debris above Floor, Room 2 (Unit 6). Lot 1997–56 (Basket 45)”. On p. 230 some glass fragments from the same fill are described: 1 Late Roman 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, William of Villehardouin 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I or II of Anjou 81. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 266, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. VI. Fills on Top of Courtyard. Lot 1997–14 (Baskets 14, 61)”: 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Alexios I 1 billon trachy, Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 82. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 266, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. VII. Crushed-Limestone (‘Poros’) Floor of Courtyard. Pocket (Basket 131)”: 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 83. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 266, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. VIII. Pit 1997– 1, Covered by Courtyard and cutting through Frankish Road and Underlying Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–34 (Baskets 39, 45, 224)”. See further p. 233: this pit was dug before the construction of the unit: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, John II 4 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 denier tournois, France, Philip II 84. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–5 (Basket 62)”: 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 1 denier tournois, France, Louis VIII and/or Louis IX 85. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road

1182

appendix i

Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–13 (Baskets 72, 73)”: 1 Middle Byzantine 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 5 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 86. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–18 (Baskets 78A, 18B)”: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 87. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–37 (Baskets 23, 40, 42, 182, 209, 212)”: 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 2 counterfeit tetartera, of Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Faithful Copy or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative 4 petty denomination issues, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 88. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Pocket (Baskets 196, 210, 211)”: 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä, small module 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 89. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–38 (Baskets 213, 219)” 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 billon trachy, Latin Imitative 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN ATHENS

1183

90. Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 267, “Unit 7 (Southeast of Unit 1 and of Graveled ‘Court’): Courtyard of Frankish Building. IX. Fills and Road Metals below Courtyard and above Byzantine Levels. Lot 1997–39 (Baskets 28, 34)”: 1 Greek 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 10, CORIHTI 14

Medieval Coins in Stratigraphical Fills in the Athenian Agora

Note: The coins listed here derive from stratigraphical fills or layers which are limited to section HH of the Athenian Agora excavations, an area to which I have devoted particular attention: see the comments in «178» and «238», and in Baker, “Thessaly”. It lies along the Panathenaic Way, to the southwest of the Roman Agora, and was excavated in 1936. The information contained in the relevant excavation notebooks (of which I provide the pagination) was combined with my analysis of the coins and a verification of the pottery lots, undertaken very kindly by Joanita Vroom. The latter provided the confirmation that the chronologies of coin circulation and usage derived from this information had some validity (compare in this respect also the note to Appendix I.13, p. 1164). 1. p. 92, 14 February 1936, modern fill over Church of Christ: 1 Greek 1 Anonymous follis 1 denier tournois counterfeit, Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia, after 1311 1 Ottoman 2. pp. 211–212, 10 March 1936, north of wall of Byzantine building, below wall level. 34/LD, and p. 233, 13 March 1936, Byzantine building north of the NS wall to −0.15. Pottery context: B30, B61, E32: 1 Late Roman 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 Ottoman

1184

appendix i

3. pp. 211–212, 10 March 1936, second cut east late fill: 1 Greek 3 Roman 1 Middle Byzantine 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 4 Ottoman 4. p. 258, 17 March 1936, second cut west-old street, and p. 286, 20 March 1936, second cut west-old street ca. level of water-channel. Pottery context: B79: 1 Greek 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 5. p. 266, 18 March 1936, Church of Christ: 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 6. p. 266, 18 March 1936, Church of Christ, east half below floor 1: 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 3 Ottoman 7. p. 267, 18 March 1936, third cut east-late fill: 1 Greek 1 Late Roman 1 Anonymous follis 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of crude style and meaningless legend 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 1 Modern 8. p. 278, 20 March 1936, Church of Christ, SE corner below period B floor level and above tiles, and p. 286, 20 March 1936, Church of Christ: north of grave 1. Below period B floor level. Pottery context: B96. Other object: bronze crosses B293, B 294 (= HH119, HH120): 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 petty denomination issue, Athens 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 1 tornesello, Venice, Tomaso Mocenigo

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN ATHENS

1185

9. p. 286, 20 March 1936, ca. 39/MA, lowest soft fill above floor of Byzantine building: 1 Late Roman 1 Anonymous follis 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Athens 10. p. 294, 21 March 1936, Church of Christ below period B floor level, and p. 312, 23 March 1936, Church of Christ – below period B floor level east of graves. Pottery context: B98: 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 11. p. 294, 21 March 1936, fourth cut east-late fill: 1 Roman 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 2 Frankish 1 Venetian 1 Ottoman 3 Modern 12. p. 312, 23 March 1936, fourth cut east-disturbed fill: 1 tornesello, Venice, Marco Corner 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 3 Ottoman 13. p. 236, 26 March 1936, first northwest cut-disturbed fill: 1 Early Byzantine 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 1 denier tournois counterfeit, of crude style and meaningless legend 1 Venetian 3 Ottoman 14. p. 336, 27 March 1936, Church of Christ – pre-church filling east of graves. Pottery context: T112, P7220: 1 Ancient 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I

1186

appendix i

15. p. 346, 28 March 1936, first northwest cut-top of sand and gravel fill. Pottery context: B137: 2 Greek 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Alexios I 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 1 Ottoman 16. p. 347, 28 March 1936, fifth cut east-surface fill: 1 Greek 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Philip of Savoy 1 Venetian 2 Ottoman 5 Modern 17. p. 356, 30 March 1936, first cut northwest-sand and gravel, and p. 368, 31 March 1936, first northwest cut-sand and gravel, and p. 460, 7 April 1936, second northwest cut-sand and gravel below ca. –4.00. Pottery context: B139: 1 Greek 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Athens 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 soldino, Venice, Francesco Dandolo 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 18. p. 381, 1 April 1936, fifth cut east- north end- below bedrock: 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Naupaktos 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 19. p. 411, 2 April 1936, first southeast cut-hard road fill, and p. 535, 21 April 1936, fourth southeast cut-lowest road fill, and p. 547, 24 April 1936, fourth southeast cut-lowest road fill. Pottery context: T39: 3 Greek 1 Early Byzantine 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Athens 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Charles I or II of Anjou 5 Ottoman

COIN FINDS: STRATIGRAPHICAL FILLS IN ATHENS

1187

20. p. 412, 2 April 1936, first southeast cut-disturbed fill: 1 Middle Byzantine 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 Ottoman 21. p. 421, 3 April 1936, 55/N-soft fill west of road: 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 2 counterfeit tetartera, of Manuel I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 22. p. 421, 3 April 1936, 56/M-soft fill under late wall: 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 counterfeit tetarteron or trachy, of Manuel I or Latin Imitative type A 23. p. 460, 7 April 1936, trial trench B-ca. 53/MG soft, sandy pit, and p. 470, 8 April 1936, trial trench B-southeast sandy fill among strosis ca. 54/MD, and pp. 486–487, 9 April 1936, trial trench B 52/ME-below big stones. Pottery context: T17: 2 Vandal 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Ottoman 24. p. 460, 7 April 1936, second southeast cut-soft fill below level of strosis, and p. 472, 8 April 1936, second southeast cut-soft fill below level of well-strosis, and p. 473, 8 April 1936, pithos 54/MQ. Pottery context: T42: 5 Ancient coins 1 Anonymous follis 4 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Isaac II 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Alexios I 3 counterfeit tetartera, of Manuel I 1 counterfeit tetarteron or trachy 1 denier tournois, Athens, GVI.DVX

1188

appendix i

25. p. 461, 7 April 1936, Church of Christ – below period B floor. Pottery context: B101: 1 Roman 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 1 tornesello, Venice, Michele Steno 26. p. 461, 7 April 1936, Church of Christ – west end below strosis at −1.75. Pottery context: B109: 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Venetian 27. p. 502, 16 April 1936, third cut southeast-late fill, and p. 512, 17 April 1936, third cut southeast-lowest soft earth over bedrock, and p. 512, 17 April 1936, third cut southeast-sand over bedrock. Pottery context: T43: 2 Greek 2 Byzantine tetartera, Alexios I 7 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 2 Byzantine tetarera, uncertain emperor 2 counterfeit tetartera, of Manuel I 1 denier tournois, Achaïa, Isabelle of Villehardouin 1 Ottoman 28. p. 542, 22 April 1936, fourth southeast cut-lowest soft fill, and p. 547, 24 April 1936, fourth southeast cut-soft fill below road. Pottery context: T41: 6 Greek 2 Roman 1 Vandal 1 Early Byzantine 1 Middle Byzantine 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Alexios I 5 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarera, uncertain emperor 2 petty denomination issues, Athens 1 soldino, Venice, Francesco Dandolo 1 tornesello, Venice, Lorenzo Celsi 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 1 Ottoman

COIN FINDS: ALPHABETICAL LIST OF HOARDS

1189

29. p. 554, 25 April 1936, fourth southeast cut-sandy fill north of rubble wall, and p. 571, fourth southeast cut-sandy fill north of rubble wall. Pottery context: T44: 2 Greek 1 Early Byzantine 2 Byzantine tetartera, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Andronikos I 1 petty denomination issue, Achaïa, type 9, CORIHTVä 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Venier 30. p. 638, 11 May 1936, pit 55/MH. Pottery context: BB48: 1 Greek 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 31. p. 665, 18 May 1936, 47/MQ-Byzantine pit. Pottery context: B52: 1 Late Roman 1 Byzantine tetarteron, Manuel I 1 Byzantine tetareron, uncertain emperor 1 tornesello, Venice, Andrea Contarini 32. p. 712, 1 June 1936, 18–19/IA-IG-sand and gravel at change. Pottery context: B155: 1 Early Byzantine 1 counterfeit tetarteron, of Manuel I 1 Venetian 15

Alphabetical List of Hoards Contained in Appendix I.1, 2, 5, 8, 10

Achaïa «176» Aegean Area (?) 1858 «129» Agrinio 1967 «165» Agrinio 1973 «84» Agrinio 1978/1979 «4» Akarnania ca. 1960 «118» Albania «42» Amorgos 1909 «30»

1190 Amphissa ca. 1977 «116» Ancient Elis «174» ANS 1952 «134» ANS 1982 «207» ANS 1983 «205» ANS 1986 «163» ANS Zara «97» Antikereia ca. 1922 «18» Apollonia «93» Argos 1984 «38» Argos 1988 «59» Arkadia 1958 «33» Arta 1923 «66» Arta 1983 «67» Arta 1985A «110» Arta 1985B «206» Atalandi 1940 «139» Athenian Agora 1933 «17» Athenian Agora 1936 «178» Athenian Agora 1939 «120» Athens 1928 «40» Athens 1933 «26» Athens 1963A «55» Athens 1963B «51» Athens 1982 «79» Athens ca. 1999 «98» Athens/Agios Andreas 1937 «80» Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A «149» Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B «111» Attica 1950 «124» Attica (?) 1951 «126» Attica (?) 1967 «131» Attica 1971 «61» ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard «461» Balkan 1987 «496» Belmont Castle 1987 «460» Berbati 1953 «54» Birmingham «86» Birmingham «133»

appendix i

COIN FINDS: ALPHABETICAL LIST OF HOARDS

Bitonto «393» Brauron 1956 «25» Brussels 1904 «151» Brussels without inventory «141» Bular «72» Butrint «183» Capstan Navy Cut «69» Castelforte «386» Chalkida «211» Chasani ca. 1860 «71» Corinth 1898 «43» Corinth 15 June 1925 «53» Corinth 20–21 August 1928 «76» Corinth 16 April 1929 «56» Corinth 15 July 1929 «36» Corinth 8 May 1934 «70» Corinth 10 November 1936 «212» Corinth 1938 «57» Corinth 15–16 June 1960 «37» Corinth 1992 «77» Corinth BnF «192» Cosa «394» Delphi 1894A «198» Delphi 1894B «196» Delphi 1894Γ «154» Delphi 1894Δ «121» Delphi 1927 «99» Delphi 1933 «88» Dolna Kabda 1961 «489» Elateia before 1885 «150» Eleusina 1862 «109» Eleusina 1894 «125» Eleusina 1952 «170» Elis 1964 «168» Epidauros 1904 «89» Epiros «186» Eretria 1962A «49» Eretria 1962B «184» Ermitsa 1985A «140»

1191

1192 Ermitsa 1985B «169» Erymantheia 1955 «45» Euboia «166» Filignano «388» Gallipoli «391» Gastouni 1961 «188» Gortyna «200» Greenall «203» Ioannina «68» Ioannina 1821 «64» Ioannina 1983 «48» Ioannina 1986 «119» Istanbul 1871 «491» Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987 «497» Ithomi 1900 «4» Izmir 1968 «468» Kafaraj «137» Kalapodi «185» Kapandriti 1924 «95» Kapandriti 1978 «96» Kaparelli «167» Kaparelli 1927 «1» Karatsol 1888 «34» Kărdžali «490» Kastri 1952 «16» Kephallonia «197» Kephallonia 1932 «21» Kiras Vrisi «164» Kirkizates Artas 1915 «65» Kordokopi 1972 «63» Lamia 1983 «100» Lamia 1985 «173» Larisa 1955 «153» Larisa ca. 2001A «82» Larisa ca. 2001B «209» Lepenou 1981 «155» Leukada 1933 «204» Limnes 2006 «90» Limni Ioanninon 1965 «143»

appendix i

COIN FINDS: ALPHABETICAL LIST OF HOARDS

Lindos 1902 «462» Livadi 1974 «23» Livadi 1976 «24» Lord Grantley Hoard A «136» Lord Grantley Hoard B «210» Manduria 1916 «397» Mapsos 1991 «3» Martano «390» Megara «101» Mesochori «146» Mesopotam «73» Mesopotam «190» Methana «39» Metsovo 1979 «28» Mikro Eleutherochori 1971 «22» Morea 1849 «208» Muro Leccese «403» Mystras «180» Naousa 1927 «29» Naples 1886 «399» Naupaktos 1970 «102» Naupaktos 1976 «148» Naupaktos 1977 «94» Naxos 2005 «193» Naxos 1947 «20» Naxos 1967 «5» Naxos ca. 1969 «58» Nea Sampsous «162» Nemea 1936 «60» Nisi Ioanninon 1966 «132» Nivicë «147» Oreos 1935 «15» Orio 1959 «135» Paphos ca. 1995 «463» Paracopio di Bova «395» Paros 1999 «6» Patra before 1940 «46» Patra 1955A «142» Patra 1955B «159»

1193

1194 Patra 1955C «160» Patsos ca. 1968 «467» Peiraias 1926 «19» Petsouri 1997 «158» Philippiada 1929 «8» Pikermi/Spata 1936 «112» Plakes before ca. 1971 «466» Prilep «493» Puglia «392» Pylia 1968/1969 «92» Pyrgos 1967 «175» Ras Shamira 1966 «465» Rhodes ca. 1927 «469» Ritzanoi «191» Roca Vecchia «389» Romanos Dodonis 1963 «130» Roussaiïka Agriniou 1966 «127» Salamina «75» Samos 1932 «464» Santa Croce Di Magliano «401» Sant’Agata De’ Goti «402» Seltsi 1938 «47» Shën Dimitri «115» Shën Jan «156» Sicily «400» Silistra 1932 «498» Soudeli «172» Sparta 1926A & B «194» Sparta 1926C «50» Sparta 1957 «35» Spata «103» Sphaka «78» Sterea Ellada «199» Sterea Ellada 1975 (?) «123» S. Vito Dei Normanni «396» Taranto Celestini «398» Tărnovo «492» Tatoï 1860 «104» Tel Akko «470»

appendix i

COIN FINDS: ALPHABETICAL LIST OF HOARDS

Thebes 1967 «44» Thebes 1967 «122» Thebes 1973 «187» Thebes 1987 «91» Thebes 1990 «157» Thebes 1993A «9» Thebes 1993B «10» Thebes 1993C «11» Thebes 1997A «12» Thebes 1997B «13» Thebes 1998 «74» Thebes 1995 «181» Thespies «161» Thespies «171» Thesprotia 1974 «128» Thessalonike «494» Thessaly «14» Thessaly 1957 «32» Thessaly 1992 «105» Thira 1910 «31» Trikala 1949 «62» Tritaia 1933 «138» Troizina «182» Troizina 1899 «81» Uncertain Attica (?) 1972 «117» Unknown Provenance «2» Unknown Provenance «7» Unknown Provenance «106» Unknown Provenance «107» Unknown Provenance «113» Unknown Provenance «144» Unknown Provenance «145» Unknown Provenance «177» Unknown Provenance «189» Unknown Provenance «202» Unknown Provenance before 1946 «114» Unknown Provenance ca. 1964 «152» Unknown Provenance 1975 «108» Unknown Provenance June 1975 «85»

1195

1196 Vasilitsi 2000 «201» Velimachio «179» Vibo Valentia «387» Vidin «495» Volos 1907 «27» Vourvoura «87» Xirochori 1957 «83» Xirochori 2001 «52» Zakynthos 1978 «195»

appendix i

appendix ii

Coinages This appendix, a companion to Appendix I, provides overviews on coinage groups, denominations, and issues. These are discussed in terms of metrology, chronology, quality, size of production, and geographical scope. The rare documentary sources which unequivocally describe the production and circulation of these coinages within the area of interest are also considered. Monies of account, which usually contain kernels of information on actual coins, are treated separately in Appendix III. In Chapter 2, much of the numismatic data developed in Appendix I–II are further analysed and processed. 1

Byzantine and Byzantine-Style Coinages

1.A Tetartera The Byzantine tetarteron was the lowest denomination of the Alexian coinage system, devised in ca. 1092.1 It was minted in substantial quantities throughout most of the period to 1204 in the names of the successive emperors of the Komnenos and Angelos dynasties, and in much reduced quantities in the thirteenth century.2 Only certain aspects of this coinage are therefore of direct relevance to this book. The controversies regarding metrologies, fractions and standards, mints, and areas of circulation in the twelfth century, have a bearing on the supposed economic vitality of southern Greece,3 with natural repercussions also on the Frankish period. The twelfth-century Byzantine tetarteron continued to circulate into the thirteenth, when it was also imitated locally, as we shall see. A few post-1204 issues were also in evidence. The tetarteron and its value were rarely mentioned in contemporary Byzantine or western sources,4 and apparently not at all after 1204. The silvered

1  On the coinage system of the middle Byzantine empire, see Chapter 1, pp. 8–24. 2  For tetartera DOC IV is now the standard reference work, as it is for other Byzantine coins of the period 1081–1261, although older bibliographical items require consultation: see Metcalf, review of DOC IV, p. 400; Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”. 3  On the twelfth-century background, see also Chapter 1, pp. 1–8. 4  Frolow, “Noms des monnaies”; DOS XII, pp. 28–29; Grierson, Byzantine Coins, p. 219; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, p. 367, n. 3; DOC IV, pp. 47–51; Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 264, n. 6, pp. 267 and 269.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_008

1198

appendix ii

issues might have been worth one-sixth or maybe a quarter of a billon trachy in the middle of the twelfth century, the copper tetarteron undoubtedly less.5 Hendy has further broken down the copper tetartera, which vastly outnumber the silvered specimens, according to metrological, typological and geographical considerations, and by comparison with the other low-value Byzantine denomination, the billon trachy.6 On this basis, he has built an extensive system of mints (Constantinople, Thessalonike, a southern Greek mint), emitting tetartera and half-tetartera of different weight standards.7 In this book a more cautious approach has been chosen. For reasons which will be outlined below, all copper tetartera are considered to be of the same denomination (and, for what it is worth, weight standard), minted in the same place. This mint was presumably Constantinople, much less likely Thessalonike, though the existence of a southern Greek mint looks rather implausible.8 Hendy had divided the main tetarteron issues of Alexios I, John II, Manuel I, and successors, found so prolifically in Greece, into lighter and heavier varieties, and identified additionally different weight standards. This is at best problematic: even a simple change of sample, for instance from the published material from DO, used by Hendy, to that of the BnF, can alter the picture.9 This is exacerbated by the fact that Hendy, like some other scholars, did not pay attention to the existence of counterfeit tetartera,10 which are usually lighter than their prototypes. According to Zervos’ observations on the Corinthian material, there is in fact an even weight spread, with fluid transitions, across issues which Hendy had sought to separate.11 This should not be surprising for a low-value fiduciary coinage, which was presumably minted from a given 5  On the metallic composition of the tetartera see Metcalf, “Tetarteron” and DOC IV, p. 49; on the value, see also Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”. 6  Appendix II.1.B, pp. 1207–1246. 7  The arguments laid out in DOS XII have been mostly carried forward into DOC IV. See for instance pp. 200–201 for Alexios I; pp. 249–250 for John II; p. 284 for Manuel I. Grierson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 227, 231, 233, had endorsed Hendy’s conclusions, though making some amendments. 8  A number of authors have been sceptical of Hendy’s scheme: Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 106 and 113; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, pp. 368 and 373; Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 389, nn. 12 and 13; p. 395; p. 397; Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, p. 175. 9  See for instance the following discrepancies in average weights: Morrisson, Catalogue, pp. 684–685, and DOC IV, pp. 235–238: 3.05g and 3.80g for the ‘Bust of Christ’ issue of Alexios I; 3.5g and 2.7g for his ‘Jewelled Cross’ issue. 10  Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206. 11  See for instance Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, p. 366, no. 54; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 58, no. 65; Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 190, nos 47 and 48.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TETARTERA

1199

mass of metal (‘al marco’) without precise attention to the weights of individual coins, and frequently exchanged in bulk and not in tale. It is all the more difficult, however, to use weight as a criterion on which to base the finer points of fiscal policy.12 The inferior style of supposedly provincial twelfth-century tetarteron issues has long been commented upon,13 although it is now clear that such specimens are mostly later counterfeits.14 With regard to type, it is true that Manuel’s ‘Monogram’ issue (DOC IV, types 20 and 22: see #9 and #10) separates neatly according to the two manners in which the central Pi is rendered. Nevertheless, none of this emperor’s other issues display the same obvious division, and postulating any such pattern across the entire tetarteron coinage of Manuel would be stretching the evidence. Smaller typological variations and quirks exist within the twelfth-century tetarteron coinage – and these are more numerous than suggested in DOC IV15 – though must be ascribed to administrative considerations within a single mint and cannot be construed to signify different centres of production. On the whole, the genuine twelfthcentury tetarteron coinage is both stylistically and typologically more uniform than is often stated, and a clear bi-partite division on these grounds is not in evidence, not even for the central and significant reign of Manuel I. The tetarteron coinage of Hendy’s supposed southern Greek and Thessa­ lonike mints is mostly found in Greece, with numerous hoards and countless site finds.16 Meanwhile, the contemporaneous billon trachy coinage is absent there. In Macedonia and other parts of the empire there are a few hoards containing tetartera,17 although usually the billon trachy prevails. At some sites the 12  D  OC IV, p. 124, laments the “modern obsession with the precise weight of individual pieces” while nevertheless relying on the evidence of precise weights in the establishment of minting structures. 13  See for instance Metcalf, “Brauron”. 14   Light-weight or half tetartera, and ‘barbarous’ issues, are occasionally thrown into the same pot: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 240; Grierson, Byzantine Coins, p. 222; Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III, pp. 188–189. 15  For Alexios, see Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, p. 55, no. 45 and pl. 13; Williams and Zervos “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, p. 58, no. 59; Zervos, “New variant”; Zervos, “Jewelled Cross”; for John II, Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, pp. 48 and 54, no. 45; Zervos, “A little-known iconographic variant”; Zervos, “John II Komnenos”; for Manuel I, MacIsaac, “Corinth”, p. 155, no. 684. 16  See, amongst others, Metcalf, “Brauron”; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”; Σύνταγμα, pp. 83–96. For a rare piece of evidence from twelfth-century Thessaly, see Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 57. 17  Karyes on Mount Athos (Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, no. 17); Komotini 1979 (ibid, no. 4); Thessalonike 1933A (ibid, no. 21); Stara Zagora in Bulgaria (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 208–209, no. 167); Copuzu in Romania (Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 105, n. 5 and

1200

appendix ii

two denominations nevertheless manage to hold an even balance.18 While the situation in Greece superficially appears to be clear-cut with regard to circulation patterns and the consequent identification of a local mint, the picture in other areas of the empire, even in Macedonia which was supposed to be the second main centre of copper tetarteron production, is much more varied. What is more, amongst all the tetarteron finds from Greece and elsewhere, the supposed issues of the southern Greek mint are usually found in the same relative quantities.19 Finally, Alexios’ ‘Jewelled Cross’ type, which is found in large quantities in southern Greece and is held by some to be of local manufacture (#2 and #3),20 has been shown to have been counterfeited somewhere along the via Egnatia, to go by the evidence of hoards from Durazzo and Thessalonike (#15 and #16).21 This pattern of finds seriously calls into doubt the existence of a southern Greek mint. The evident ability of tetartera to travel large distances in the twelfth century casts a shadow even over the tetarteron production at Thessalonike, which Hendy had postulated.22 Interpretations have been put forward as to why parts of the empire should have used different low-grade, fiduciary denominations in the twelfth century. Those writers endorsing the existence of a southern Greek mint have either emphasised administrative divisions,23 or the idea of economic expansion p. 112, n. 2); South Turkey (Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 353); Syria or Lebanon (Goodwin, “A hoard of Byzantine tetartera and folles”). 18  Vrya in Chalkidike (Tsanana and Doukas, “Βρύα”); Istanbul [Hendy, “Coins (Saraçhane)”, pp. 356–362; Hendy, “Roman, Byzantine and Latin Coins”, pp. 251–263]; Melnik (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 130–132); Stara Zagora (ibid, pp. 127–128); «527. Thessalonike». Only in Asia Minor and the eastern islands are tetartera much less common: see merely Samos, AD, 20 (1965), NM, p. 9 (and perhaps Evgenidou, “Νομίσματα από την Σάμο”, pp. 128–129, although there is no indication here on denomination). See also Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”. It would appear that most of the tetartera published for Rhodes are not genuine Byzantine imperial pieces: see p. 1206. 19  Already noted by Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, p. 371, n. 27. In fact Vrya and Kalenderhane in Istanbul, cited in the last note, produced suspiciously large proportions for Hendy’s supposed southern Greek mint. 20  Grierson, Byzantine Coins, p. 227. 21  Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation”. These, or similar issues are also attested in Rhodes: see Kasdagli, “Provenance of coins found in Rhodes”, p. 396, and below (Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1205–1206) on counterfeit tetartera of Alexios’ type. Again, as with tetartera in the name of Manuel I, counterfeit issues and products of supposed provincial Byzantine mints are not always distinguished by modern writers. 22  A point already made in Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 112–113; Metcalf, “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki”, pp. 178–179; Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe– XIIIe siècles”, p. 389, nn. 12 and 13. 23  This has always been the main gist of Hendy’s arguments, most recently in DOC IV, p. 35.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TETARTERA

1201

precisely in that region.24 After initial uncertainties, Morrisson accepted the Greek prevalence in tetartera as a consequence of the “livelier and more extensive degree of exchange”.25 Neither the administrative nor the economic model would however necessitate the existence of mints in southern Greece and Thessalonike. The most probable scenario according to our current state of knowledge is that in the twelfth century tetartera were transferred or migrated to Greece from the Constantinople mint through a combination of imperial policy and private initiative. 1.A.1

Byzantine Tetartera in Post-1200 Greece Hoards containing earlier Byzantine tetartera: «1. Kaparelli 1927», «2. Unknown Provenance», «15. Oreos 1935», «16. Kastri 1952», «17. Athenian Agora 1933», «25. Brauron 1956», «38. Argos 1984», «44. Thebes 1967», «55. Athens 1963A», «59. Argos 1988», «79. Athens 1982», «91. Thebes 1987». Graves containing earlier Byzantine tetartera: «217. Corinth 31 May 1932», «218. Corinth». Later stratigraphical fills containing Byzantine tetartera: Appendix I.13, nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 90; Appendix I.14, nos 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #1–#14

The twelfth-century tetarteron remained available in medieval Greece.26 Arguably, pure tetarteron hoards were concealed during the conquest itself. Soon thereafter earlier Byzantine tetartera were hoarded together with more recent counterfeit issues. After the second or third decade of the thirteenth century, tetartera are represented in only a very few hoards in trifling quantities beside the other prevailing denominations. «79. Athens 1982» is unusual and might reflect a particularly urban situation, although the later Athenian petty denomination which dates the hoard so late might have been a contamination. The hoards of interest are all from the Peloponnese or the eastern 24  Harvey, Economic Expansion, p. 88. 25   Morrisson, “L’économie monétaire byzantine”, p. 248 ; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, p. 220. 26  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 239ff; Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”, p. 370.

1202

appendix ii

Mainland, including one from Euboia («15»), but also a few thirteenth-century Balkan hoards contained earlier tetartera.27 Even though twelfth-century tetartera are so prevalent at sites in Greece, it remains difficult to pinpoint their usage and survival rates into the subsequent periods.28 The stratigraphical contexts from Corinth and the Athenian Agora are an invaluable tool. At Corinth, tetartera are regularly found into the early fourteenth century, when the site experienced a major disruption. At the Athenian Agora tetartera remain in circulation until a very late date indeed.29 A few sites whose chronologies are confined to the period after 1204, «261. Chloumoutsi» and possibly «349. Pylos in Elis», have produced twelfth-century tetartera.30 Others conspicuously lack them: the lower castle in «230. Andros», or the monastery of «385. Zaraka» are examples. Perhaps this denomination was not desired in all contexts and by all populations of Greece after 120431? In parts of the primary region analysed in this book, Thessaly and Epiros, twelfthcentury tetartera might also not have circulated in the thirteenth, although the available data are so scarce that it is perhaps premature to make such a pronouncement, and the limited evidence from Arta («237») suggests that there was a continued if marginal appetite for this denomination in the form of the later Thessalonican and Nicaean issues.32 It has been suggested that at the turn of the thirteenth century Venice produced its own version of the tetarteron – the quartarolo33 – for usage in Greece,34 although connecting these two denominations is both etymologically and historically implausible.35 This said, the twelfth-century tetarteron, more so than the billon trachy, is well represented in the northern Adriatic, testimony no doubt to connections maintained by Venetians between the two territories.36

27  Asenovgrad, Nisovo, Tri Voditsi (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 138, no. 7, pp. 193–194, no. 133, pp. 216–217, no. 180), and Petrič (Penčev, Petrič) in Bulgaria; Serres (Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, pp. 38–39, no. Z). «489. Dolna Kabda 1961» also contained one tetarteron. 28  Compare Chapter 1, p. 15, with further references. 29  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 302. 30  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 343. 31  Baker and Stahl, “Morea”; Baker, “Zaraka: The coins”. 32  Appendix II.1.A.3, p. 1206. 33  Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. 34  Saccocci, “Quartarolo”. 35  Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 36  Callegher, “Monete medioevali dei secoli XI–XIII in Friuli”, pp. 340–341; Chapter 1, p. 19.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TETARTERA

1203

Twelfth-century tetartera were not merely used, but also tampered with in the thirteenth. They have been found to be clipped,37 cut,38 or beaten into the cup-shaped form of a billon trachy.39 1.A.2

Counterfeit Tetartera Hoards containing counterfeit tetartera: «15. Oreos 1935», «16. Kastri 1952», «17. Athenian Agora 1933», «25. Brauron 1956», «36. Corinth 15 July 1929», «38. Argos 1984», «59. Argos 1988». Graves containing counterfeit tetartera: «217. Corinth 31 May 1932», «218. Corinth». Excavation and single counterfeit tetartera: «223. Acrocorinth», «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «334. Nemea», «336. Olena», «349. Pylos in Elis», «357. Thebes». Later stratigraphical fills containing Byzantine tetartera: Appendix I.13, nos 14, 40, 62, 87, 14.2, 6, 9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 32. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #15–#55

The twelfth-century tetarteron coinage was used as a model for counterfeit issues in Greece in the thirteenth, and perhaps even later. This process has been recognised in its basic outlines for some time now,40 although standard works of reference – Hendy’s writings41 or the publications of the NM in Athens42 – have not taken note of it. More systematic attempts to describe and interpret these counterfeit issues have only been made in recent years.43 37  Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 189, no. 27; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 55 and pl. 13, no. 45; p. 55, no. 54. 38  Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, p. 55, no. 47; Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 190, no. 56; Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, p. 280, no. 58. 39  Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 190, no. 53. See also the comments for «44. Thebes 1967». 40  Baker, “Argos”, p. 225, n. 4, for the older bibliography. 41  D  OS XII, pp. 330–331; Hendy, Studies, p. 519ff; DOC IV. 42  Touratsoglou et al., “Θησαυρός Κομοτηνής”; Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”; Σύνταγμα. This denial has led to incorrect datings of a number of hoards. 43  Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 302, 305, 336; Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation”; Knapp and MacIsaac, Nemea III, pp. 188–189; Baker, “Argos”, pp. 225–228; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 243; Zervos, “New Light”; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. See also some of Zervos’ shorter notes (Baker, “Argos”, p. 226, n. 9).

1204

appendix ii

The majority of specimens of interest to the medieval period imitate the issues of Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180), more precisely his ‘Monogram’ and ‘St. George’ varieties (DOC IV, types 20 and 22; 18 and 23: #17–#38). Some specimens do not have obvious prototypes and are freer renditions of Komnenian-period iconographies, though they are stylistically similar to the main body of counterfeits, and share with them the small, excessively thin, polygonally-shaped flans (#39–#52).44 Most of the hoards, graves, and sites listed here above have yielded, or appear to have done so,45 issues of these general descriptions. The western Peloponnesian locations of «336. Olena» (#53), and perhaps «349. Pylos in Elis», are the exception. Some of the counterfeit tetartera from the Athenian Agora46 are also of cruder quality and appear to be late in date.47 This diversity had initially induced me to be cautious and to state that multiple centres would have produced counterfeit tetartera over a prolonged period of time. In the meantime, following a more recent examination of specimens from Corinth, Athens, and Nemea, I have been convinced that one substantial single group of counterfeit tetartera, produced in one place over a rather confined period of time, might be recognised. This group is prevalently found in the Argolis, Corinthia, and Attica, with outliers in Thebes and Euboia, and is therefore termed the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ of counterfeit tetartera.48 In relative terms, its presence is strongest at Argos and Nemea, somewhat less so at the Athenian Agora,49 and least at Ancient Corinth. The listed hoards date the coinage to shortly after 1204. Provisionally we may state that the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’ of counterfeit tetartera was produced in the Argolis after 1204 by Greeks, since the area was only conquered by the Latins in 1211–1212.50 At the conference Το νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο (Argos, May 2011), on the basis of yet more material from the Argolis (Akronauplia and the islands to the south of the Argolis), Mina Galani-Krikou put forward the idea that these were issued by Leon Sgouros, an identification which was also endorsed by Vasso Penna. I would myself like to reserve judgment on the issuer of this series until it has been properly investigated.51 44  The precise shapes may well constitute the basis for future typological divisions: see the comments for «334. Nemea». 45  For «15» and «17» I rely on the observations of Zervos and MacIsaac. 46  «238», although the actual counterfeit tetartera have not been included in the catalogue. 47  See for instance Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 336, nos 6 and 7. 48  A term also used in Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 49  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 302. 50  Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”, esp. p. 305; Baker, “Argos”, p. 228, n. 28, quoting Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”. 51  See Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων”; Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”. Compare also different discussions in the main chapters, for example, p. 12.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TETARTERA

1205

Telling twelfth-century imperial and thirteenth-century counterfeit tetartera apart is not difficult, once one gains some basic familiarity with the series. #1–#14 and #15–53 help to underline this point. There is a significant difference in execution and detail in the designs, fabric and weights are different, and so is the fashion in which the flans are cut out. The two hoards from Argos, the graves and the stratigraphic lists from Corinth and the Athenian Agora, show that such counterfeits, much as genuine imperial tetartera of the twelfth century, remained in usage for some time. According to the rather sparse data which are currently available, there appear to have been separate counterfeit productions in other parts of the Peloponnese, and in Athens. These are difficult to date, but in the latter case one may presume that the Catalan conquest of 1311 created a situation which was conducive to such counterfeiting activities, as it was for the counterfeiting of deniers tournois.52 The ‘Jewelled Cross’ tetartera of Alexios I (DOC IV, type 40) are available in different variations and qualities. Thanks to the meticulous analyses of Zervos and Papadopoulou, it is now certain that some specimens of this type were not the product of official Byzantine mints.53 Such counterfeits are present, as has been said, at Durazzo, Thessalonike, Rhodes, but also, in our area of analysis, at Argos («236»: #15 and #16) and Corinth («265», «268», «270», «271»). At the latter site they form a substantial part of the total number of tetartera of the ‘Jewelled Cross’ design.54 The story of this type and its ‘barbaric’ copies appears to be a long and complex one which still requires definition in terms of subgroupings and centre(s) of production, although as a phenomenon which is presumably entirely confined to the late eleventh and twelfth centuries55 this book does not devote further space to it. As an afterthought to the main body of counterfeit tetartera of Greece, the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’, it cannot fail to strike one that the apparent issues of a thirteenth century mint in Rhodes display many similarities, in terms of the small, thin and octagonally-shaped flans and some of the features of the

52  Appendix II.9.L–M, pp. 1481–1490. 53  Corinthian specimens which are presumably counterfeits are illustrated in Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 189 and pl. 45, no. 21; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, pl. 9, no. 44; Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, pl. 53, no. 50. An older illustrated example can be found in Williams and Fisher, “Corinth 1974”, pl. 11, no. 333. Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation”. See also p. 12. 54  This particular topic will be the subject of another forthcoming study by Zervos. 55  Baker, “Argos”, p. 226, n. 15.

1206

appendix ii

designs.56 Perhaps a more extensive cross-Aegean denomination had been born, although we need to await the period of the rule of the Gabalas family in Rhodes (from the 1230s) before we have any more concrete evidence for this: a copper issue of Leo Gabalas (ca. 1235) is known from «238. Athenian Agora» (see #55, with a better preserved museum piece illustrated as #54).57 The westward movement of this coinage evidently did not stop here: another specimen of the same type, presumably found locally, is noted in the De Luca collection, Santa Severina, Crotone province, Calabria.58 Related to the actual minting of tetartera in thirteenth-century Greece is the paring down of older copper coinages – Roman and Byzantine – to resemble the typical shape of the tetarteron.59 Zervos believes that counterfeit tetartera were supplemented by small quantities of counterfeit billon trachea of the same manufacture.60 1.A.3

Tetartera of the Thirteenth-Century Successor States Excavation and single tetartera of the thirteenth century successor states: «237. Arta». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #56–#59

The tetarteron continued to be minted into the thirteenth century, in much reduced quantities, by the Byzantine successor states in Macedonia and Asia Minor.61 The small tetarteron issues assigned by Hendy to the Latin states at Thessalonike and Constantinople have been re-attributed by Metcalf.62 Nicaean tetartera are in evidence in rather small quantities at some Anatolian sites.63 «237. Arta» is the only Greek site which has yielded tetartera of the successor states. The proportion of tetartera of Thessalonike and Nicaea (seven) to billon trachea of the same issuers (153) is indicative of the reduced status of this denomination in the thirteenth century. 56  Kasdagli, “Rhodian Copper Issues”, dated here from mid-century onwards, although there is no hard evidence on this matter. 57  On this coinage see DOC IV, pp. 648–650. Further, Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 262. 58  See also «447». I thank Daniele Castrizio for information about this unpublished coin. 59  Baker, “Apulia”, p. 234. 60  Appendix II.1.B.4, p. 1233. 61  See the relevant passage in DOC IV. 62  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 235. 63  «483. Pergamon» and «488. Troy» (although the actual tetartera are not listed in my catalogue).

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1207

1.B Billon Trachea The billon trachy, the second low-grade denomination of the Alexian reform, was introduced in ca. 1092.64 It was issued in large quantities by the emperors of the Komnenos and Angelos dynasties. The subsequent development of this denomination into the thirteenth century is very complex and has far-reaching implications also for mainstream historical debates. Thereafter, the billon trachy was the main denomination produced in the Byzantine successor states in Macedonia and Anatolia, and in the early years of the restored Palaiologan empire. Many of the issues of the turn of the thirteenth century remain to be dated in a satisfactory manner, and to be attributed to issuing authorities and mints. Even though DOC IV was intended to be the final word on many of these matters, its appearance has in fact had the opposite effect, by rallying those opposing Hendy’s solutions, and by heightening the already heated debate. While diametrically opposing opinions might be considered normal in a scientific exchange, the main bone of contention was the manner in which Hendy had presented his case in the DO volume. His long and verbose expositions failed to take into account important contributions by other writers, and were based on a selective usage of the primary evidence.65 There is an obvious discrepancy between the large body of evidence and opinions on the billon trachy, and the rather limited importance of this denomination to the territory under investigation in this book. It was only in primary circulation in Greece for less than a decade, after which it remained relevant merely to the northwestern part of the investigated area, where it was also produced in very small quantities indeed at the Arta mint. We need, therefore, to weed out those matters of interpretation which have no bearing on the medieval Greek situation. The term ‘billon trachy’ is a modern construct, commonly used in Englishlanguage numismatic writing. ‘Trachy’ refers to the concave shape of three of the four denominations in place since the Alexian coinage reform,66 which had previously denoted one of the two main gold issues of the eleventhcentury empire.67 Trachy is preferable to ‘scyphate’ as a term describing the 64  See p. 1197 above. Again, it is useful to consult also the basic overviews on currency in Byzantium in Chapter 1, pp. 8–24 and 46–57. 65  While applying to the volume as a whole, this is particularly true for his long excursus on the imitative coinages of the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries: DOC IV, pp. 59–95. See Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles” and Metcalf, review of DOC IV. 66  D  OS XII, pp. 26–38; DOC IV, p. 33, n. 6, p. 43; DOC V, p. 32. See Weber, “Elektrum-Skyphaten”, on the technical aspects of their production. Also Bendall and Sellwood, “Method of striking scyphate coins” and Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 486. 67  Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 265.

1208

appendix ii

shape of the coins.68 In the sources, trachea are usually qualified by the attribute ‘aspron’, in reference to the white appearance of both the base billon and the electrum coins.69 Western-language sources and Greek sources of Palaiologan times preferred the term ‘stamenon’, another derivative of the Macedonian period.70 Even if all but the issues of the twelfth-century emperors were essentially copper coins,71 the modern composite name of billon trachy is the best way of referring to this denomination. In the twelfth century, billon trachea are mentioned in a number of Byzantine and western sources. The general decline in value is documented, and the coinage is seen to be used in payments to western crusader armies.72 The neat clipping down of earlier and more intrinsically valuable twelfthcentury trachy issues, by the imperial Byzantine authorities in the years leading up to the Fourth Crusade, was evidently done in recognition of the falling standards (#62, #65, #67).73 The metal which was thereby extracted from the existing currency would also have contributed to any new monetary issues. In the thirteenth century, there are a number of written sources which support the identification of Latin Imitative issues.74 Otherwise, trachea/stamena are found in diverse contexts.75 In Anatolia in 1208 a sale recorded in nomismata is paid in trachea,76 and the typikon of the monastery of Lips in Constantinople (1294–1301) specified handouts of trachea at the monastery gates.77 False stamena are recorded for Durazzo in the Book of Statutes of Ragusa in 1294.78 For early-fourteenth century Constantinople, Pegolotti provides a surprisingly high exchange-rate of 4:1 to a tournois of uncertain definition, but points out 68  Grierson, “Nummi scyphati”: the term is of Arabic origin and relates to the broad rim and not the shape of the coins. 69  Weber, “Elektrum-Skyphaten”, p. 34: the billon trachea were evidently touched-up to create the white aspect (‘Silbersud’). On the electrum trachy see Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. 70  Histamenon: DOC III, p. 28ff; DOC IV, p. 37; DOC V, p. 28. 71  The evidence is summarised in DOC IV, p. 42. 72  D  OS XII, p. 170; DOC IV, pp. 44–45; Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, pp. 267 and 269; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, p. 219; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 535. Useful is furthermore Morrisson’s appendix to Laiou, “Byzantine trade with Christians and Muslims”. 73  See Chapter 1, p. 12, n. 59, on neatly-clipped trachea. 74  Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1223. 75  For overviews see Hendy, Studies, p. 535, n. 433; Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, pp. 152 and 154–155; DOC V, pp. 28 and 32. 76  Hendy, Studies, p. 535, n. 433. 77  B MFD, p. 1277, no. 39. 78  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 202, and Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 292 and 317. See further below in this Appendix on the attribution of certain Latin Imitatives to Dubrovnik (p. 1231).

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1209

that such coins are only useful locally for small purchases.79 A roughly contemporary exercise book from the capital also underlines their commonness,80 and they are still present in Rhabdas’ treatise of 1341.81 Thereafter, references to trachea/stamena peter out,82 although there is reason to believe that in the course of the fourteenth century the Byzantine coinage system reverted to the single flat copper coinage of old, referred to biblically on occasion as the assarion,83 but probably known to contemporaries as the follis or follaro.84 The twelfth-century billon trachy coinage was mostly minted at Constanti­ nople, according to Hendy’s system, although there are a few Thessalonican issues for Alexios I, John II, Andronikos I,85 but not for Manuel I.86 Production took place on a huge scale and the coinage spread widely throughout the empire and beyond. Nevertheless, for the entire primary area investigated in this book, only a single billon trachy hoard concealed before the events of 1204 has been recorded.87 This compares to Greek Macedonia and Thrace, with about a dozen pre-1204 hoards;88 about the same each from the territory of modern Romania89 and ex-Yugoslavia,90 a few hoards from Hungary,91 Asia Minor, the 79  Pegolotti, p. 40. 80  Vogel, Byzantinisches Rechenbuch, nos 13, 52, 85. 81  Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, pp. 154–155. See also Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 174, on both of these pieces of evidence. 82  For instance Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten”, has none, whereas only two entries in Schreiner, Texte (pp. 128–136, text 6, and pp. 144–148, text 8), of metropolitan and provincial origin respectively, mention this denomination. 83  D  OC V, pp. 24–25; Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 486. 84  Because of the limited spread of the late Byzantine copper coinage (after the midfourteenth century), and its total absence from Greece, I have not dedicated a separate discussion to it. See merely some remarks on the term follaro in Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1270. 85  D  OC IV, pp. 228–230; 267; 351. 86  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 389. 87  Papadopoulou, “Butrint” and “Butrint2”. The absence of issues of Alexios III (1195– 1203) probably dates the Butrint 2002 hoard before 1200, an opinion expressed also by Papadopoulou, though she concludes that 1203 might be a potential concealment date. The Cycladic hoard («5») is, by contrast, most likely a post-conquest concealment (see below). 88  For a selection see DOS XII, p. 366; Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, pp. 146–147; 155–156; Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, pp. 34–38; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 224; E. Georgantelis in NC, 155 (1995), p. 347 (= CH). 89  Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 105, 109; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Câteva observaţii”. The majority of hoards are from the Danube Delta: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Două tezaure de monede byzantine” and Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 167–169. 90  Aleksova, “Naodi”; Gaj-Popović, “Trésors de monnaies concaves byzantines”; Mirnik, Coin Hoards, pp. 94–99; Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, pp. 325–329, nos 1–5. 91  Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, pp. 87, 90–91; DOS XII, p. 374.

1210

appendix ii

eastern Aegean, and Cyprus.92 The territory which has yielded the largest number of hoards is Bulgaria, with well over 70 counted.93 Most of these hoards, especially the Bulgarian ones, close in the last two decades before 1204. This concentration, along with the ‘fossilised’ contents of many of the hoards, has been observed by writers on the subject.94 The strong hoard pattern appears to be the result of warfare, the rolling back of the Byzantine state, in addition to local conditions which might not have fostered monetary exchange.95 This apparently leaves Greece as a case apart: having ascertained that no billon trachy hoards are recorded for the twelfth century, with the exception of Butrint 2002, is there any suggestion at all that billon trachea were in circulation in Greece before 1204? Since the overall presence of pre-1204 imperial Byzantine billon trachea in post-1204 hoards is too meagre to allow for any statistical analyses, and since such coins also fail to appear in any of the published stratigraphical contexts from Corinth, the main evidence we are able to use are the overall statistics of twelfth- and thirteenth-century stray billon trachea from those sites which have produced viable quantities, Arta («237»), the Athenian Agora («238») and Corinth («263»). Arta has about three times as many twelfth-century issues as the later Faithful Copies. At Athens and Corinth the two issues are held in balance. All three sites have significantly more Latin Imitatives than the preceding two groupings. Comparing now for the same sites twelfth-century tetartera with billon trachea, Arta produced roughly equal quantities (24 and 28), while at Athens and Corinth tetartera outnumber billon trachea by factors of ca. 1600 and 190 respectively. All things being equal, Arta shows a more solid presence of billon trachea before the Fourth Crusade than the other two sites, and was presumably in an area in which both low-grade denominations co-existed. 1.B.1

Byzantine Billon Trachea in Post-1200 Greece Hoards containing earlier Byzantine billon trachea: «5. Naxos 1967», «6. Paros 1999», «13. Thebes 1997B», «21. Kephallonia 1932», «22. Mikro

92  Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, pp. 72 and 93; DOS XII, pp. 360 and 372; Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth- century Hoards”, p. 63; NC, 154 (1994), p. 284 (= CH). 93  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 135–227, lists billon trachy hoards from the modern Bulgarian territory, about a third of which date to the twelfth century. 94  Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 114–117. 95  The last two points might also have applied to the Danube Delta, where a similar phenomenon of fossilisation has been described for the earlier twelfth century: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Circulation monétaire”; Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Byzantine coin hoards”.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1211

Eleutherochori 1971», «23. Livadi 1974», «24. Livadi 1976», «28. Metsovo 1979», «29. Naousa 1927», «30. Amorgos 1909», «31. Thira 1910», «32. Thessaly 1957»(?), «33. Arkadia 1958», «34. Karatsol 1888», «68. Ioannina». Excavation and single earlier Byzantine billon trachea: «229. Amphissa»(?), «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «254. Berat», «263. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «292. Glyki»(?), «293. Gortys»(?), «299. Kaninë»(?), «301. Karditsa», «310. Krestena»(?), «344. Petalia»(?), «347. Plakoti», «350. Skotoussa», «380. Trianta Zourtsas». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #60–#67 Epiros and western Mainland Greece are therefore the only parts of the primary area of analysis which might have seen any significant degree of billon trachy circulation in the twelfth century.96 This impression is corroborated by the relatively large number of single billon trachea listed here above (the actual dates of loss of which can obviously not be ascertained), and because the statistics for twelfth- and thirteenth-century billon trachea which have been noted for Arta («237») are quite close to sites located in more central parts of the empire which certainly used billon trachea in the twelfth century.97 By contrast, we must assume that in the remainder of Greece imperial Byzantine billon trachea of the period before 1204 were only introduced after 1204.98 In addition to the statistics noted for the Athenian Agora and Corinth, one might point to the fact that certain important sites such as Argos («233»– «236»), Sparta («351» and «352») and Thebes («354»–«373») lack them completely.99 There is a grey zone which lies between the very eastern areas of the Peloponnese and Mainland Greece on the one hand, and Epiros and the western Mainland on the other, for which we do not know whether billon trachea were in circulation in the twelfth, or merely in the thirteenth century: see «229. Amphissa» and «380. Trianta Zourtsas», and perhaps «293. Gortys» and «310. Krestena». There is an overall lack of numismatic evidence for the middle Byzantine western Peloponnese,100 but maybe we have here the evidence that it was at least to some extent integrated in more north-westerly circulation 96  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 389. 97  The Bulgarian sites have produced ample coin finds, but are more difficult to use for the reasons which have already been discussed. Consider therefore merely «508. Istanbul» and «521. Rentina». 98  Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 99  Consider also the fact that «44. Thebes 1967», a fairly large billon trachy hoard of the 1230s, contained no twelfth-century issues. 100  Penna, “Ηλεία”.

1212

appendix ii

patterns in the twelfth century. Then again, it is possible that these coins were introduced during the same post-conquest sweep which brought billon trachea to the eastern Peloponnese. Thessaly is, again, rather thin on data (see «301. Karditsa» and «350. Skotoussa»). The early Cycladic hoard («5») was presumably concealed during the initial Latin conquest of the island, despite the fact that is does not contain issues dated after 1204.101 It is argued that the electrum trachy, which was also present in the hoard, had a longer life-span,102 and that the appearance of a good quantity of imperial issues on the islands can only be explained within such a framework.103 Pre-conquest imperial issues continued to be remarkably prominent in the slightly later Cycladic hoards («6», «29», «30», «31»), a reflection on the lack of monetary exposure of these islands. After the first decade of the thirteenth century imperial Byzantine billon trachea largely drop out of the Greek circulation. «68. Ioannina» is nevertheless a noteworthy piece of evidence, being a hoard from the 1260s in which the vast majority of billon trachea are still from the twelfth century. By comparing this to the two Arta hoards («66» and «67») we can understand how heterogeneous circulation still was. 1.B.2

Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative Billon Trachea Hoards containing Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative billon trachea: «6. Paros 1999», «18. Antikereia ca. 1922», «19. Peiraias 1926», «20. Naxos 1947», «21. Kephallonia 1932», «22. Mikro Eleutherochori 1971», «23. Livadi 1974», «24. Livadi 1976», «26. Athens 1933», «27. Volos 1907», «28. Metsovo 1979», «29. Naousa 1927», «30. Amorgos 1909», «31. Thira 1910», «32. Thessaly 1957», «33. Arkadia 1958», «34. Karatsol 1888», «35. Sparta 1957», «36. Corinth 15 July 1929», «37. Corinth 15–16 June 1960», «38. Argos 1984», «44. Thebes 1967», «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina». Excavation and single Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative billon trachea: «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «275. Corinth», «293. Gortys»(?), «299. Kaninë»(?), «330. Naxos», «344. Petalia»(?), «347. Plakoti», «351. Sparta», «354. Thebes», «357. Thebes».

101  The same is true for an unpublished hoard from the Panormos area of Tinos (not contained in Appendix I), which also closes in the issues of Alexios III: see Chapter 4, p. 479. 102  Appendix II.1.C.1, p. 1250. 103   Baker, “Cicladi medievali” and Chapter 4, p. 480. By contrast, Penna, “‘Θησαυρός’ Πάρου/1999”, recognises in the hoard from Naxos the presence of billon trachea in the Cyclades before 1204.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1213

Later stratigraphical fills containing Faithful Copies or ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative billon trachea: Appendix I.13, no. 87. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #68–#72 The first imitative billon trachea which concern our area are low-value copies of the issues of the Emperors Manuel I (1143–1180) (#68–#69, compare #61– #62), Isaac II (1185–1195) (#70, compare #63–#65), and Alexios III (1195–1203) (#71–#72, compare #66–#67). They were first identified as a coherent group by Hendy, who assigned them to the Second Bulgarian Empire in the years before and after 1200, and termed them types A–C.104 These issues were produced successively in this order, as can be established by hoards (see below) and archaeometric data.105 Other writers have accepted the imitative nature of these issues but have rejected the Bulgarian identification.106 The term ‘Faithful Copy’, first used by numismatists from Greece, expresses the nature of these issues, while avoiding any obvious interpretation. Indeed, there is no overall consensus on where and by whom these issues were produced, if not by the tsars of Bulgaria. The two most prevalent solutions are that they were austerity measures of the twelfth-century empire, or the first issues of the Latin empire. Faithful Copies are present in our primary area in considerably larger quantities than twelfth-century Byzantine billon trachea, although, as with the latter, their circulation was still much more extensive in other parts of Byzantium and formerly Byzantine lands (see below). Establishing the precise dating and 104  D  OS XII, pp. 218–222; Hendy, Studies, p. 520, n. 358; DOC IV, pp. 46–47, 59–95, 435–443. Grierson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 237–238, endorsed Hendy’s interpretation, as have most numismatists in Bulgaria and Romania: see, amongst a vast number of writings, the systematic treatment of the subject: Jordanov, “Bălgarsko imitativno monetosečene”, and also most recently but in the same tradition Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081–1453. 105  Hendy and Charles, “Twelfth-century Byzantine trachy”, p. 21. 106  Metcalf: “Byzantinobulgarica”, p. 420, “Hoard of billon trachea from the Empire of Nicaea”, SE Europe, p. 114ff, “Amorgos and Thira Hoards”, Ashmolean, p. 235, “Faithful Copies”, p. 178. Touratsoglou: “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, pp. 140–141, “Edessa”, pp. 67–68, “Βραστά”. The Bulgarian identification was also rejected by Oikonomidou, “La circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle”, p. 124, by Gaj-Popović, “Trésors de monnaies concaves byzantines”, p. 866, by Penna: “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, pp. 16–17, “‘Θησαυρός’ Πάρου/1999”, and by Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, p. 323. A bibliographical summary on these issues is also contained in Galani-Krikou et al., Συλλογή Ηλία Κάντα, p. 212, no. 38. Direct reactions to Hendy’s writings are notably contained in Metcalf, review of DOC IV, pp. 398–399, and Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, pp. 391–394. See also Morrisson, “L’économie monétaire byzantine”, p. 249.

1214

appendix ii

issuing authorities of these types is of much greater consequence to the numismatics of those areas, and the solution will also lie in the precise analysis of the material found there. This said, the Greek finds are able to make a significant contribution to this subject matter. I do not consider the Faithful Copies to be ‘Bulgarian’. The arguments – in a nutshell – are the following: the much-invoked concentration of these coins in Bulgaria107 does not by necessity render them Bulgarian, since the same Bulgarian prevalence has already been observed for twelfth-century imperial issues. By the same measure, their presence in areas other than Bulgaria, for instance on modern Greek territory,108 does not in itself make them nonBulgarian. It is much more the particular early developments of this series, and its peculiar spread into the various areas of the Aegean, which can only suggest a metropolitan, Constantinopolitan origin for the Faithful Copies. A Bulgarian identification is also implausible from a different numismatic angle: how can a society and a territory that had seen the arrival and almost immediate and large-scale thesaurisation of similar, and even more intrinsically valuable, issues (see above) have initiated such a significant coinage? Likewise, how could the same Bulgarian society and its political authorities have accepted the subsequent thesaurisation of its own issues – if this was indeed the proposed identification – which it had gone to such great lengths to produce109? As for the dating of these issues, a wide spread of dates has been suggested by different writers, in accordance with their general interpretations of this coinage. In order to rule out any possibilities that they could be construed as twelfth-century imperial Byzantine, or indeed post-1204 Latin, Hendy chose most recently a very generous time-bracket for these issues, from well before 1204, until well into the second decade of the thirteenth century. In fact, I will argue that they commenced in very close proximity to 1204, but that it remains difficult to determine if they were in fact issued first before or after that date. They were also produced during a very short time-span, of just a few years at the very most. It is also not possible to ascertain with complete conviction whether their production overlaps with the imperial issues of Alexios III (1195–1203), nor with that of the Latin Imitative issues.

107  Most recently: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Imitative gold coinage”, p. 498 and Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081–1453, pp. 243–247. 108  A point dwelt on by Oikonomidou, “La circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle”. 109  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 392, for similar observations.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1215

For the further purposes of this book, it will be sufficient to retain, for what it is worth, this approximate dating, and the fact that Faithful Copies are most likely from Constantinople. It is obvious that they were therefore issued either within the Byzantine or Latin empires, as other writers have maintained. Once this is accepted, further proposals are possible, though these are of secondary concern to our present purposes. One final observation is to be made: this approach of mine, which is on the whole cautious, even if decisive in the rejection of the Bulgarian identification, is the only one which the evidence is presently able to support. Despite an ever increasing number of available hoards, the inconclusive patterns simply keep perpetuating themselves. To determine the place and date of issues of the Faithful Copies will surely require a different line of enquiry, perhaps the generation of sophisticated archaeometric data, combined with an extensive analysis of the relevant coins on the level of dies. Because the Faithful Copies, the early Latin Imitatives, and the early issues of Nicaea (on the latter two, see below), are so intricately linked, I will be presenting here some joint considerations on chronologies. Billon trachy hoards have been published regularly for nearly a century,110 though only those hoards classified according to Hendy’s system of 1969 are useful for any statistical analysis. By going through some of the available listings and inventories, supplemented by a few individual publications, about 150 of such hoards can be assembled.111 These close, successively, in the imperial issues of 110  And summarised, for instance, in Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards and Metcalf, “Byzantine Scyphate Bronze Coinage”. 111  D  OS XII, pp. 325–404, provided the first catalogue of re-classified hoards; Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards” was an important addition to this, especially with regard to Turkish material. Further additions for Turkey are Metcalf, “Hoard of billon trachea from the Empire of Nicaea” and CH, 7 (1985), p. 239, no. 362. The largest repository of information on billon trachy hoards in Europe is Metcalf, SE Europe. Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, contains an absolutely indispensable list of finds from Bulgaria and neighbouring countries, though much has been published especially for Bulgaria since 1984. Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Espace rural” is a more recent synthesis for the entire eastern Balkan region (largely Romania and Bulgaria), listing numerous hoards. Amongst the Bulgarian material not included in these two works may be cited Callegher, “Blagoevgrad”, Penčev, “Liljač”, Wolkow, Trésor balkanique (undoubtedly Bulgarian in origin). Studies regarding late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Romanian hoards have been published by Oberländer-Târnoveanu: “Făgăraş”, “Două tezaure de monede byzantine”, “Câteva observaţii”, “Byzantine coin hoards”, (and Constantinescu) “Buzău”. Jordanov had also included the Danube Delta in his monograph. Mirnik, Coin Hoards, covers the whole of former Yugoslavia. Previously, Aleksova, “Naodi” and Gaj-Popović, “Trésors de monnaies concaves byzantines” were important studies of material for the territories of the Republic of North Macedonia and of Serbia respectively, though the

1216

appendix ii

Alexios III Angelos (1195–1203), in Faithful Copies, and in the early Latin issues and those of Theodore I Laskaris (in power from 1204 or 1205, crowned 1208: see below). The first two phases before the advent of the Latin issues account for less than half of the ca. 150 hoards, and of these three-quarters are from the territory of modern Bulgaria. The remaining hoards in these phases are largely from neighbouring areas: the Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Greek Macedonia and Thrace, Turkish Thrace and Constantinople, with outliers in Croatia and Anatolia. The third phase, that of the early Latin issues, has produced about twice as many hoards as the previous two phases combined, and sees a geographical expansion also into our primary area and Crete, and a larger concentration than previously in Serbia, northern Greece, Anatolia and Cyprus, while affecting also more faraway lands.112 As a consequence of this wider spread, Bulgarian hoards now only account for half of the total. The respective coronations of Alexios III (1195) and Theodore I (1208) are said to provide the measuring-rods against which one needs to date this prolific number of hoards and the issues they contain. The latter date is, nevertheless, of doubtful usefulness since the average hoard could not, a priori, be expected to contain Theodore’s issues because of the smaller quantities in which they were issued, rendering their presence or absence unreliable dating tools. Further, while a number of scenarios113 have been put forward with regard to the start of minting in his name – 1204, 1205, 1206, 1208, or even later – the fact remains that there are no conclusive historical data for any one of reliability of the data was not always secure: see Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 135 and 209. For Macedonia see also Razmovska-Bačeva, “Dve docnovizantiski depoa”, and Morrisson and Ivanišević, “Macédoine”. The material from the National Museum in Belgrade has since received further attention: Bendžarević, “Narodnog Muzeja u Beogradu”, Radić and Ivanišević, Byzantine Coins, pp. 70–71, Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”. For Serbia see further: Crnobrnja, “Podgorca”, Crnobrnja, “Zagradje”, Krstić, “Paraćina”. Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 333–338, lists all billon trachy hoards from within the territory of the Latin empire, mostly from northern Greece, published previously, amongst others, in Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, Touratsoglou, “Aiani”, Touratsoglou, “Βραστά”, Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, Oikonomidou, “La circulation des monnaies byzantines en Grèce au XIIIe siècle”, Marki, “Σωστική ανασκαφή”. The Greek evidence is summarised by Touratsoglou: “Άρτα”, p. 224, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία”, p. 227, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, pp. 393–394. Insofar as they are in the NM, the hoards are also contained in Σύνταγμα, pp. 103–119. See recently also Lianta, “Thessalonica/2007”. 112  For a hoard from southern Spain see CH, 7 (1985), pp. 239–240, no. 363 and Papadopoulou, “Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο”, p. 183, n. 39. 113  D OS XII, pp. 201 and 230; Touratsoglou and Protonotarios, “Couronnement”, p. 72, nn. 13 and 14; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 123; Grierson, Byzantine Coins, p. 246; DOC IV, pp. 88–89 and 133.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1217

these. Hendy’s most recent early dating of the Nicaean issues was determined by the desire to eradicate any perceived void in the post-1204 period into which the Faithful Copies might have slipped, which might have rendered them more likely to be Latin rather than Bulgarian. This chronological uncertainty is exacerbated by the lack of linear progression in this body of hoards from one generation of trachea to the next, and from one type to its successor. A much more irregular pattern of inclusions and distributions is in place, and the same hoard might for instance combine one grouping of trachea at an advanced stage with a previous grouping still remaining under-developed. Important factors in the formation of hoards are the bulk handling of these coinages in purses, which might have prevented the complete and even mix of issues,114 as well as the specific targeting of certain issues for thesaurisation.115 Thirty or so hoards are available which include coins of Alexios III but are still devoid of the imitative coinages. These hoards usually contain the issues of this emperor in lesser proportions than can be witnessed in the later hoards. There are only a few cases within this group in which the coins of Alexios already outnumber those of his predecessor, Isaac II: witness, for instance, a Dalmatian hoard,116 Plovdiv (BG),117 and Serres (GR).118 Assuming that coins in Alexios’ name were produced in an even manner during the period of his reign (1195–1203), and in similar overall quantities as those of Isaac II, who ruled for a similar duration (1185–1195), and that the concealments of the hoards closing in the issues of Alexios III are to be distributed more or less evenly over the period 1195–1203,119 we can observe that it was only towards the very end of his reign, or even thereafter, that Alexios’ issues became more plentiful than those of Isaac in the hoards. Amongst the approximately thirty hoards which still lack Latin Imitatives but close in Faithful Copies,120 we can witness that the majority of these already display more specimens of Alexios III than Isaac II. The exceptions are 114  On these ‘apokombia’, see DOC IV, pp. 92–93, 104–108, 124. 115  Callegher, “Blagoevgrad”, p. 135. 116  Mirnik, Coin Hoards, p. 97, no. 398. 117  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 198, no. 146. 118  Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, pp. 34–38, no. ΣΤ’. 119  Hendy’s idea that a late dating of the Faithful Copies would render the years 1195–1204 without hoards (DOC IV, p. 69) is not convincing, since this is precisely the period which can accommodate the numerous hoards closing in the issues of Alexios III. 120  D OC IV, p. 67ff had not done itself any favours by using merely seven of these hoards in the analyses, even though this category of hoards is so crucial to the interpretation of the various series.

1218

appendix ii

Blagoevgrad,121 Kartal,122 Kjustendil region,123 Liljače124 (all BG), Episkopi 1970125 and Nisi126 (GR). This pattern clearly pushes the beginnings of the Faithful Copies towards the end of the reign of Alexios III, or even later.127 In view of what I have said about the nature of hoard formations, the single evidence of the apparently early hoard from Enina (BG)128 is not enough to overturn this interpretation based on the weight of multiple hoards. We should also note that the Nisi hoard from Greek Macedonia might look immature in the last two imperial Byzantine issues, but has already more Faithful Copies than imperial issues, and the full range of types A to C. Similar, if less pronounced, tendencies, are to be found at Episkopi 1970 and, from our own area, «6. Paros 1999».129 A few Bulgarian hoards130 repeat the pattern, which is further proof in favour of an initial dating of the Faithful Copy series in close proximity to 1204 and, to my mind, detrimental to Metcalf’s dating of the Faithful Copies from the 1170s onwards. There are two more important observations that are to be made about this group of hoards which close in Faithful Copies: the first is that we can already see a good mix, in all possible constellations, of types A–C. The tightness of the series is underlined by the much smaller production rates of type B, and by the muling of type A with C.131 Second, any perceived indicators of maturity – be they particularly large numbers of Faithful Copies as compared to earlier imperial coins, or large numbers of later type B and C specimens compared to earlier types A – are not at all concentrated in Bulgaria, despite the predominance of Bulgarian hoards amongst this material. It has already been noted on another occasion that, contrary to Hendy’s postulations, even the Anatolian 121  Callegher, “Blagoevgrad”. 122  D  OS XII, p. 351. 123  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 183, no. 111. 124  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 184, no. 114. 125  Touratsoglou, “Unpublished Byzantine hoards”, pp. 144–145. 126  E. Georgantelis in NC, 154 (1994), p. 269, no. 7 (= CH). 127  See Metcalf, “Amorgos and Thira hoards”, pp. 52 and 53, who agrees with similar observations made by Touratsoglou. Grierson, Byzantine Coins, p. 238, was content to state categorically that the Faithful Copies commenced before 1204. 128  D  OS XII, p. 341. Hendy does not use the other apparently early hoard from Lakite (BG) because it is of rather unconvincing composition (DOC IV, p. 67), and he also stresses the exceptional nature of the Enina hoard, noted also by Metcalf: for instance in SE Europe, p. 117, and review of DOC IV, p. 398. 129  Noted by Penna, “‘Θησαυρός’ Πάρου/1999”, p. 513. 130  The already cited Liljače and Kjustendil region hoards, in addition to Tărnovo (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 146, no. 26) and the Romanian Făgăraş (Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Făgăraş”).  OC IV, p. 71. See also the specimen listed under «357. Thebes». 131  D

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1219

material displayed quick and decisive developments in this series.132 The two Romanian hoards from Bucharest133 and Buzău134 are also mature according to these criteria. In summary, the Faithful Copies were introduced a short time before or even after 1204. The series developed rather rapidly upon its inception, swiftly moving through the successive types.135 There is no particular indication that developments radiated from Bulgarian soil. This latter point is reinforced by a curious distribution pattern which affects our primary area:136 Faithful Copy type A is dominant amongst virtually all the hoards listed here above for Greece, be they from Thessaly and Epiros, the Cyclades, or the Peloponnese, with the exception of some of the smaller hoards (see for instance «21. Kephallonia 1932»), or the later «44. Thebes 1967». In other areas that experienced the circulation of Faithful Copies, types A–C usually progressed towards the latter. It would therefore appear that Greece was at one point in time favourably supplied with type A Faithful Copies, which left a permanent imprint on this series in the area. Arta («237»), the Athenian Agora («238»), and Corinth (e.g. «268») provide exceptions, although the formation of site finds is, of course, different to that of hoards, and these Epirote and Aegean cities will have represented rare pockets of continued billon trachy circulation. As Metcalf says, it is impossible to imagine a direct and decisive historical link between Bulgaria and Greece that would have induced such a pronounced movement of type A Faithful Copies. This fact, combined with the early and rapid developments in the Faithful Copy series in areas such as Macedonia and Anatolia, would suggest that they could have no origin other than Constantinople. It is much more likely that this movement of type A Faithful Copies to Greece, perhaps but not necessarily also their pro132  Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 352 and 359. Some more recently published coin finds have enhanced this picture further: Baker, “Late Byzantine coins”, pp. 316–317, and Savaş Lenger and Yaraş, “Güre”. Consider also the overstrikes of Faithful Copies on Seljuq coins, which moves them further into the Anatolian orbit: Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, p. 323. 133   Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Câteva observaţii”, p. 77, no. 2. Oberländer-Târnoveanu and Constantinescu, “Buzău”. 134   135  D  OC IV, p. 72, locates the final dominance of type C Faithful Copy as late as the midthirteenth century, when in fact already the very early hoards discussed here show clear signs of this tendency. 136  This is a common theme in Metcalf’s writings: see for instance “Byzantinobulgarica”, p. 419, “Amorgos and Thira Hoards”, p. 51, “Faithful Copies”, p. 179. Hendy picks up on Metcalf’s observations (DOC IV, pp. 47 and 73ff), but manages to turn them towards a Bulgarian identification of the Faithful Copies, the response to which is Metcalf, review of DOC IV, p. 399: “… spins some ingenious but not very convincing hypotheses”. See also the evidence of more recently published and discussed material: Baker, “Argos”, p. 228; Baker, “Cicladi medievali”.

1220

appendix ii

duction itself, took place in the wake of the taking of this city by the Latins in the spring of 1204. Anatolia, Thrace, and some Bulgarian territories were also the objectives of early Latin incursions, designed to make claims felt on formerly Byzantine lands.137 The significant difference between Greece and these other areas is that in the wake of the conquests of Boniface of Montferrat and his followers, the interaction between Greece and Constantinople was initially much lower than between Constantinople and areas in the north. Having formed some ideas, however vague, on the date of inception of the Faithful Copies, we would expect the next generation of billon trachy hoards, those closing in the early Latin Imitatives, to provide us with a chronological cap. This, unfortunately, is not forthcoming, and we need to content ourselves with the following three observations (see below for further analyses): the Latin Imitatives were either first minted concurrently or a bit later than the issues of Theodore I Laskaris in Nicaea. A mean probable starting date for the Latin Imitatives is therefore 1205 or 1206. Within this body of hoards there is an ulterior development towards Faithful Copies type C, though this proves neither that the latter were still being issued, nor – in view of the proposed dating of the Latin Imitatives – that the Faithful Copies extend necessarily beyond the spring of 1204.138 In the timeframe within which the Faithful Copies were possibly minted at Constantinople, the city experienced three main political shifts: in July 1203 Alexios III fled and was replaced by Isaac II and his son Alexios IV; in January/ February 1204 Alexios V took to power; on 12 April 1204 Constantinople fell to the crusaders. I would argue that Metcalf’s idea of an austerity imperial coinage has every possibility of being applied to, not as he conceived the 1170s to 1203, but the final eight-and-a-half months of Byzantine rule. DOC IV (pp. 421– 424) has, in fact, postulated the existence of coinages for the joint reign of Isaac II and Alexios IV, based largely on Choniates’ accounts of confiscations and regular payments to the Latins: these are vast quantities of debased electrum trachea in the name of Alexios III, and minute tetarteron issues in the names of Isaac II and Alexios IV. Leaving aside the latter, which are inconsequential to any of the main developments and arguments, would it not be conceivable that the Faithful Copies were begun in this context? Choniates’ narratives (and to a lesser extent those of Robert of Clari and Villehardouin) make it clear that the imperial fisc sought out all possible sources of money, not just in silver 137  Wolff, “Latin Empire”, pp. 192 and 202. 138  The belief that type C might date significantly later, repeated for instance again in Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081–1453, pp. 246–247, is not at all borne out by the hoard data.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1221

and gold, after Alexios III had fled with a substantial treasure.139 The Faithful Copies and the electrum trachea in the name of Alexios III, the latter allegedly minted after July 1203, have many features and advantages in common: they were debased but bore forms and designs that were recognisable and, perhaps initially, acceptable at face value to the recipients. They also managed to avoid any reference to the current Latin-backed regime, which was held in such disregard by the Byzantine public, judging by Choniates’ account. The sequence of copies of Manuel I, Isaac II, and Alexios III, issued in the right chronological order, also betrays an imperial Byzantine feature. The lack of the usual imperial ‘secret marks’ on these issues is not a particular concern,140 since the administrative context necessitating such marks might not have been current. The metrological and metallurgical differences between Faithful Copies and Latin Imitatives would also favour the imperial solution, while other considerations push the Faithful Copies closer to the Latin Imitatives.141 Might it in fact be possible that the Faithful Copies were minted across the political shifts affecting the imperial capital, from Isaac II and Alexios IV, to Alexios V,142 to Latin rule? After all, Choniates’ account implies that the Latins minted almost immediately upon their conquest of Constantinople (see below), while the initial date of the Latin Imitative series is still in doubt. We have seen that there was a general, if untidy, progression towards type C within the Faithful Copies. If types B and C were minted perhaps in the course of 1204, or later, and if therefore the earlier payments from July 1203 were made by Isaac II and Alexios IV to the Latins in type A, this would explain admirably the concentration of the latter type in Greece. 1.B.3

Billon Trachea of the Latin Empire 1204–1261 Hoards containing billon trachea of the Latin empire: «9. Thebes 1993A»(?), «10. Thebes 1993B»(?), «11. Thebes 1993C»(?), «12. Thebes 1997A», «13. Thebes 1997B», «14. Thessaly 1973», «18. Antikereia ca. 1922»(?), «20. Naxos 1947», «21. Kephallonia 1932», «22. Mikro Eleutherochori 1971»,

139  Phillips, Fourth Crusade, pp. 183, 188–189, 200, 209, 214, 218. The relevant monetary sources collected in Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, appendix I, is still useful. 140  Touratsoglou, “Edessa”, p. 68, believes that this renders them non-Byzantine. 141  For instance the existence of large and small module Faithful Copies (Touratsoglou, “Edessa”, p. 68; DOC IV, p. 671), or of uniface coins: Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, pp. 390–391. 142  Who also had to meet obligations to the Latins, in addition to having to pay for his military ventures against them: DOC IV, pp. 425–426; Angold, Fourth Crusade, pp. 97–98; Phillips, Fourth Crusade, p. 229.

1222

appendix ii

«23. Livadi 1974», «24. Livadi 1976», «25. Brauron 1956», «26. Athens 1933», «27. Volos 1907», «28. Metsovo 1979», «29. Naousa 1927», «30. Amorgos 1909», «31. Thira 1910», «32. Thessaly 1957», «33. Arkadia 1958», «34. Karatsol 1888», «35. Sparta 1957», «36. Corinth 15 July 1929», «37. Corinth 15–16 June 1960», «38. Argos 1984», «44. Thebes 1967», «59. Argos 1988», «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina». Graves containing billon trachea of the Latin empire: «218. Corinth». Excavation and single billon trachea of the Latin empire: «223. Acro­ corinth»(?), «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «254. Berat», «259. Chalkida», «261. Chloumoutsi», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «273. Corinth», «290. Eutresis», «296. Isthmia»(?), «330. Naxos», «334. Nemea», «350. Skotoussa», «351. Sparta», «354. Thebes», «355. Thebes», «356. Thebes», «357. Thebes», «359. Thebes», «360. Thebes», «364. Thebes», «366. Thebes», «368. Thebes», «369. Thebes», «370. Thebes», «372. Thebes»(?), «373. Thebes»(?), «382. Troizina», «385. Zaraka». Later stratigraphical fills containing billon trachea of the Latin empire: Appendix I.13, nos 5, 10, 18, 29, 32, 34, 41, 44, 45, 53, 56, 57, 62, 68, 72, 85, 88, 89. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #73–#105 Like the Faithful Copies, the Latin Imitative billon trachea were first identified and described by Hendy in 1969.143 These issues are broadly divided into an early and a later grouping, the second of which is of marginal interest to the Greek area and will be discussed at the end of this section.144 Unlike the Faithful Copies, the Latin Imitatives are freer renditions of the Byzantine prototypes, reproducing the general iconographical and epigraphical repertoire, but avoiding any strict repetition of the types. The coins are minted in the Byzantine tradition and there are no obvious typological indications that they were issued by Latin authorities. Datings and attributions have been made on numismatic and archaeological grounds. For the early grouping of Latin Imitatives (henceforth: early Latin Imitatives) Hendy has devised a structure of two mints (Constantinople and Thessalonike) issuing three successive large m odule types (A–C: #73–#75 and 143  D  OS XII, pp. 191–217; DOC IV, pp. 80–95 and 653–697. 144  Appendix II.1.B.3, pp. 1231–1232.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1223

#84–#87). These were produced in the same general period as the first two issues of Theodore I Laskaris in the Anatolian territories (DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10 = DOC IV, no. 5, type A; and DOS XII, second coinage, pl. 31.1–5 = DOC IV, no. 6, type B: #106 and #107). The six Latin issues and the first Nicaean issue (first coinage = type A) are paralleled by small module equivalents (types A–G).145 The relationships between the two modules, in terms of denominations and issuing authorities, are not entirely clear. The production of copper coins in Latin Constantinople is inferred from two principal original sources:146 Choniates narrates the melting down of statues for the specific purpose of minting coins, while a 1219 treaty between Theodore I Laskaris and the Venetian podestà implies that billon trachea (termed stamena) had already been produced. The stripping of Constantinopolitan palaces by crusaders to raise cash, reported by Sanudo,147 and the existence of gold hyperpyra issued in Latin Constantinople,148 are further corroborative pieces of proof. Whereas Hendy’s central thesis regarding the Latin Imitative coinage has been universally accepted, the details remain much debated.149 In this book I will consider the large and small module issues to be of the same mintage. This was probably also the case for Theodore I Laskaris’ early issue and its equivalent: therefore so-called Latin small module type G should be considered Nicaean. I will reject the identification of a Latin mint at Thessalonike, and I will postulate that all early Latin Imitative issues were minted at Constantinople, very probably at two mints, palace and public. It appears that the large module issues and their small module equivalents were being produced more or less concurrently, as were the respective large module issues of the Constantinople and so-called ‘Thessalonike’ mints, the second of which I consider to be the public mint of Constantinople. We are therefore witnessing a rather neat overseeable pattern of production, even if this occurred on a vast scale. This minting activity is limited to just a few years, commencing some time after the conquest of the city in the spring of 1204 (see above) and barely stretching into the second decade of the thirteenth century. 145  There may have been a second small module type (H) in parallel with a further issue of Theodore I, identified by Dočev: Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, p. 9. 146  Both cited in DOS XII, p. 206 and DOC IV, pp. 661–662. See also Stahl, “Latin Empire”, pp. 199 and 203; Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “Eclatement du monnayage”, pp 136–137; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 535, n. 39 (with reference to other studies). 147  Lock, Franks, p. 21, n. 19. 148  Appendix II.1.D.4, pp. 1260–1264. 149  An overview of the questions and attributions is given in Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”.

1224

appendix ii

In order to establish this chronological frame, we need to continue our observations on the hoard distributions which we commenced above with the ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative series. Overstrikes provide us with a general sequence:150 within the large module coinages, according to this body of evidence, Theodore’s first coinage/type A is followed by Constantinople type A, contemporary or later to which is ‘Thessalonike’ type A, contemporary or later to which is Constantinople type B. Theodore’s second coinage/type B is contemporary or later than ‘Thessalonike’ type B. Constantinople and ‘Thessalonike’ types C follow on from these. A very similar sequence is suggested by overstrikes within the small module types. As has been said, about half of the ca. 150 assembled hoards close in the early Latin Imitative issues, distributed chiefly amongst Balkan and Anatolian territories, with a continued heavy concentration in Bulgaria. This body of evidence is chronologically hemmed in by Theodore Laskaris’ first coinage/type A at the top end, and by his later issues at the other.151 However generous these data seem, they are again less than entirely satisfactory: the issues of Theodore Laskaris cannot be independently dated (see above); and there are very few hoards which close in Theodore’s later issues,152 or those of his successors John III Vatatzes at Nicaea (from 1221),153 or Theodore Komnenos Doukas at Thessalonike (from 1224).154 There is also not enough depth in numbers outside of the central area of billon trachy distribution, although the Greek evidence is once more able to offer some unique insights. The excavation records from a number of sites indicate that the large module issues from Constantinople are a generally a more prolific coinage than those of ‘Thessalonike’, although there is not such a vast difference in proportions as is sometimes suggested. Amongst the small module issues, however, type A is heavily dominant and is found in very large numbers indeed. In the hoards there is an overall chronological progression in the large module issues: a substantial number of hoards contain only Constantinople type A, amongst which are «22. Mikro Eleutherochori 1971», and «24. Livadi 1976» from our 150  Bendall, “Latin Billon Trachea-Thessalonica or Constantinople?”; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 218, n. 26; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, p. 56, n. 83; Bendall, “A Latin Coinage of Thessalonica?”, p. 75, n. 5; DOC IV, pp. 90 and 94; Lianta, Late Byzantine coins, pp. 47–48. 151  Which are re-visited and re-named in DOC IV, pp. 454–455. The issues in question are type Cff. 152  Merely Istanbul B (DOS XII, pp. 348–349) and Thessalonike 1976–1977 (Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 219) are known to me. 153  A hoard from Sardis: Bates, Byzantine Coins, p. 155, hoard JJ. 154  The Bulgarian Logodaž (DOS XII, pp. 361–362) and a hoard of unknown provenance: Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas”.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1225

area. Next, a smaller number of hoards combine types A of Constantinople and of ‘Thessalonike’, such as the Greek «28. Metsovo 1979», «29. Naousa 1927», «30. Amorgos 1909», «34. Karatsol 1888». Types B from Constantinople and ‘Thessalonike’ follow on from these, usually initially the latter: witness, from our area, «33. Arkadia 1958». There are, however, a few hoards which reverse this pattern, and contain type B from Constantinople without the corresponding type from ‘Thessalonike’, suggesting that the two types were emitted more or less concurrently.155 For types C of both cities the picture is thoroughly mixed, that is to say a good number of hoards contain merely those of Constantinople, another group those of ‘Thessalonike’, while a third group includes both. Large module types C of Constantinople and ‘Thessalonike’ are curiously absent from the hoards of the entire primary area under discussion, and are only to be found in very small quantities at some of the major sites.156 Within the small module Latin Imitatives the progression is very similar: type A is followed by type D (corresponding to large module ‘Thessalonike’ type A), by types B and E, and finally types C and F. Type G, the small module equivalent of the first Nicaean issue, also appears rather early on, which suggests that it might have been of Nicaean rather than Latin mintage. In the hoards, this progression in the small module series runs entirely in parallel with the large module equivalents contained in the same hoard: there are no hoards in which both series are out of sync, although some hoarders evidently preferred one module or the other, and there is an overall dominance of small module type A. According to the evidence of coin hoards, the first billon trachy issue of Theodore I Laskaris at Nicaea (DOS XII, first coinage, pl. 30.7–10 = DOC IV, no. 5, type A) was in production before and/or at the same time as Constantinople large module type A, and also during the somewhat later ‘Thessalonike’ large module type A, and their respective equivalents, small module types A and D. Even hoards from Greece, at a considerable remove from Anatolia, confirm this pattern: «22. Mikro Eleutherochori 1971», then «24. Livadi 1976», «28. Metsovo 1979», «29. Naousa 1927». Theodore’s next issue (DOS XII, second coinage, pl. 31.1–5 = DOC IV, no. 6, type B) first appears in Turkish hoards at the same time as Constantinople large module type B,157 and in the Balkans just a short 155  Aksakovo (BG): Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, no. 3; Bursa (TR): Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfthand Thirteenth-century Hoards”, p. 67; Tabanovac (SR): Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, no. 21. 156  Argos («236»), Athenian Agora («238»), Corinth («263», «267», «268»), Sparta («351»), Thebes («357»). 157  Bursa (Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards”, p. 67) and uncertain Turkish provenance (Metcalf, “Hoard of billon trachea from the Empire of Nicaea”).

1226

appendix ii

time later: see the Bulgarian hoards from Korten, Măgliž II and Cipina,158 the Serbian Zablaće,159 or «30. Amorgos 1909» and «31. Thira 1910» from our area. The chronologies of the early Latin and early Nicaean series are therefore intimately linked: both series commenced and ended in roughly the same period, with the beginning of the first Nicaean issue just pre-dating the first early Latin issue, and the second Nicaean issue just pre-dating the last early Latin issues. As we have seen, the ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives might have been produced in their entireties by 1204/1205; Theodore I might have started minting in 1204/1205. This leaves us with a reasonable starting date for the marginally later Latin Imitatives of 1205 or 1206.160 Hendy’s dating of Theodore’s second coinage to precisely 1208, in parallel with a related electrum issue, may or may not be correct.161 It is, nevertheless, surely right to locate this issue within the period before 1210, given the fact alone that so many subsequent trachy issues in his name (DOC IV, nos 7–11, types C–G: #108) need to be accommodated in the remaining years of his reign, which lasted until 1221. This is the reason why I believe that also the production of the early Latin Imitative series had been completed by the end of the first decade of the thirteenth century, or shortly thereafter, and why a dating of types C of Constantinople and ‘Thessalonike’ as late as 1220162 appears to me highly improbable. As we have seen, the early Latin Imitatives divide into three substantial groups, based on stylistical, typological, and metrological considerations: the large module issues of Constantinople and of ‘Thessalonike’, and the small module issues. I have attempted to prove that these varying issues displayed an altogether linear chronological progression. There is therefore, a priori, no indication that these issues were of different mintage. In fact, the strict parallelism in the shifts from one type to the next, and across two modules, would indicate quite the contrary: the existence of a single coordinating authority. Some authors have nevertheless thought to separate them. This has obviously been the case for the issues attributed to ‘Thessalonike’, but also for the small module issues. I should say here, in parenthesis, that in the search for solutions for this alleged diversity, scholars have on many occasions evoked Venetian elements: it has been said that ‘Venice’ or ‘Venetians’ were responsible for the minting of coinages in parallel to the Latin empire, either within 158  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, nos 96, 129, 192. 159  Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, no. 14. 160  The accession of Henry of Flanders to the imperial throne in August 1206 is a hypothetical context for such an innovation: Van Tricht, “Henri de Flandre”. 161  D  OC IV, p. 88ff. 162  D  OC IV, p. 94. See also again the late dating proposed by Marchev and Wachter, which I have already mentioned in the current discussion.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1227

Constantinople itself or in Greece. Such arguments have been put forward as solutions for the identity of the ‘Bulgarian’ Imitative issues, the counterfeit tetartera,163 as well as the small module Latin Imitatives and the large module Imitatives from ‘Thessalonike’ (see below). It is, however, to my mind inconceivable that Venice, its colonial institutions, or private Venetians, would have had the interest or the capacity to have produced such coins, and I believe that other solutions must be found for each of the cases.164 Grierson first expressed the idea that the small module Latin Imitatives were of Greek origin;165 Hendy developed the case further in favour of such a Venetian identity;166 while Touratsoglou refuted it.167 In response to Hendy’s arguments it should be pointed out that there is no indication that the small module issues were later than their large module equivalents. There is also no strong regional bias in small module issues, with the possible exception of Anatolia, where they appear in lesser quantities. To evoke the good presence of small module issues at Corinth as proof of local mintage (see «263», «264», «265», etc.) would be to ignore that the Balkan sites repeat the same picture, and that small module issues were more easily lost than the larger coins in everyday situations. One must also assume that hoarders did not treat the small module issues on a par with the larger ones, and that they were either avoided or specifically targeted for thesaurisation. This accounts for the somewhat erratic inclusion rates in some of the hoards, which cannot be construed as pointing to any particular origin for these small module issues other than Constantinople itself. We are therefore left with the simplest of solutions originally proposed by Hendy in 1969, that small module issues were minted at Constantinople more or less concurrently to their larger equivalents, for which they constituted fractions. Hendy’s attribution of three successive types of large module Latin Imitatives to the Latin kingdom of Thessalonike has been called into doubt, notably by Metcalf and Bendall:168 #84–#87. These criticisms have, variously, dismissed the unity of the three types; pointed out the lack of any geographical 163  Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206. 164  The arguments are presented in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 219; Baker, “Argos”, p. 227; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Medieval Clarentza”, p. 248. Consider also the main historical sections of this book, in Chapter 3, esp. pp. 232–233 and 240–241. 165  Grierson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 268 and 271. 166  D  OC IV, pp. 670–672. 167  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 399. 168  Metcalf: SE Europe, pp. 123 and 135; “Amorgos and Thira Hoards”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 232–239; Metcalf, “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki”. Bendall: “Latin Billon Trachea-Thessalonica or Constantinople?”; Bendall, “A Latin Coinage of Thessalonica?”. See further Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, p. 12; Morrisson,

1228

appendix ii

distinctiveness, with the exception of the two curious Cycladic hoards («30» and «31»); and have proposed a much smaller, rather distinctive, issue for the city under Latin domination (1204–1224): #102–#104. When Hendy initially postulated a Thessalonican mintage of the three types in question in 1969 he never engaged in a particularly detailed line of argumentation. In fact, there are a number of arguments which make it very unlikely that the large module Latin Imitatives of ‘Thessalonike’ were minted in that city: it appears, contrary to the expositions of Longnon, Wolff or Wellas,169 that the Latin political entity at Thessalonike was only designated a kingdom in 1208 or 1209, following an agreement between the Latin empire and Demetrios, the son of Boniface of Montferrat.170 This political shift cuts right through the production period of the coinage in question. Adhering to Hendy’s mint attributions would imply that the Constantinople and ‘Thessalonike’ mints were set up in the previous period, during which the two Latin entities were often at loggerheads,171 and continued for a short while after 1209, when relations again deteriorated.172 It would be very difficult to imagine that the finer points of coin production – metrology, denominations, regular and synchronised type rotations – might have been coordinated within such a political climate, and that a possible transfer of minting technology from Constantinople to Thessalonike might have taken place. Billon trachea of the first decade of the thirteenth century had a wide and generally harmonious distribution pattern. One would nevertheless have expected at least a marginally more pronounced presence of supposed Thessalonican issues in Macedonia or central Greece. This is not at all in evidence: the only Balkan find which has such a bias is the Yenimahalle hoard from the vicinity of Constantinople which, because of its singularity, cannot be used towards any particular interpretation of the series.173 The evidence of two Cycladic hoards is therefore crucial, and makes a metropolitan origin of the large module Latin Imitatives of ‘Thessalonike’ almost imperative.174 “Thessalonike”, pp. 176–177, esp. n. 16; Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081– 1453, pp. 266–270. Much of what follows is also discussed in Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. 169  Wellas, Königreich Thessalonike, esp. p. 14ff. 170  Ferjančić, “Počeci Solunske kralevine”; Kiesewetter, “Theodoros Palaiologos”, p. 121, n. 1. 171  Longnon, L’empire, 55–61. 172  Wolff, “Latin Empire”, p. 207ff. 173  As has been noted by Hendy: DOC IV, p. 93, n. 122. For the bibliography relating to this find, see Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 141. 174  See Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. A Turkish find, which has been published quite recently, also makes it clear that these coins are rather un-Thessalonican: Baker, “Late Byzantine coins”, pp. 317–319. Finally, a yet to be published contribution by E. Lianta (“Τα νομισματικά ευρήματα της βυζαντινής περιόδου από το σταθμό της Βενιζέλου”, presented to a conference on Byzantine Macedonia, organised by the Society for Macedonian Studies, Thessalonike,

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1229

These observations require us to look at the situation in Constantinople. Because a ‘Venetian’ explanation for the apparent duality of minting activity in the capital has already been dismissed, the solution must be found within the structures of the Latin empire itself. There is a discrete body of numismatic and textual evidence for the existence of a public mint in Constantinople during the middle Byzantine period.175 Hendy had tried to pre-empt such a step,176 but to me there seems to be at present no more logical interpretation for the Latin Imitatives of ‘Thessalonike’ than to say that they are the products of a public mint in Constantinople. Such a mint would have operated in harmony with the palace mint, which would have emitted the Latin Imitatives of Constantinople, but according to different, more privately and commercially orientated parameters. Such an interpretation would account for the strict parallelisms in types and standards across all the Latin Imitatives, and also for the discrepancies in production rates and the unusual Cycladic distribution of ‘Thessalonike’ issues, an area which was conquered through private rather than imperial efforts. With all the above data regarding the production dates and places of the Latin Imitative billon trachea in mind, we should cast a final eye on the distribution patterns in Greece. The earliest billon trachy hoards, with the exception of «6. Paros 1999» which closes in a Faithful Copy, date from the period after the inception of the Latin Imitatives in ca. 1205/1206. There are numerous hoards which defy closer analysis, including some from Thebes («9», «10», «11», «12», «13»177). The earliest hoards whose composition and provenance are secure are those of Naxos («20»), Kephallonia («21»), Brauron in Attica («25»), and the three northern Thessalian hoards («22», «23», «24»), all datable to 1205 or 1206. Hereafter, and until the end of the first decade of the thirteenth century or slightly later, billon trachea are hoarded in most parts of Greece, including the islands. Westernmost Greece – the western Peloponnese, the western Mainland, and Epiros – are largely excluded from this pattern, with the exception of the mentioned hoard from Kephallonia and «28. Metsovo 1979». Numismatists have for some time now attempted to assign concealment dates

24–25 May 2016), will show that the stray finds from within the city are in no way biased towards the issues of the supposed local mint, as one would have expected. 175  Morrisson, “Moneta, Kharagè, Zecca”, pp. 53–54; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, p. 917; Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, p. 226. See also Chapter 1, pp. 9 and 12. 176  D OC IV, p. 95. 177  It is possible, although this cannot presently be verified, that the political and military developments in 1208–1209 in the eastern Mainland are responsible for these hoards: Chapter 3, p. 225–229.

1230

appendix ii

to some of the vast numbers of billon trachy hoards from the Balkans based on the patterns of the conflict between Byzantium and the Second Bulgarian Empire, the Latin conquests, and subsequent events.178 I believe that this can to some extent be done, but with caution since our evidence is too lacunary.179 Boniface of Montferrat entered Thessaly in the autumn of 1204,180 which renders our hoards too late to be associated with this initial penetration of the crusading armies into my primary territory, although a slightly earlier western Macedonian hoard from Pydna would fit these events.181 It was, however, this first military surge into our area which would have brought in Faithful Copies, especially those of type A (see above). In the aftermath of this invasion, the area is particularly badly documented and there are no larger historical movements which can be brought in relation with the north Thessalian hoards, nor with a string of western Macedonian hoards from the nearest vicinity: Aiani 1969 and 1973,182 and an impressive foursome of hoards from Kozani.183 By the time we reach the next Thessalian hoards in ca. 1207 or later («34», and perhaps «27» and «32»), the historical context for their concealments is probably provided by the increasing conflict between the new empire and its Thessalian feudatories.184 Boroe, modern Stara Zagora (BG), which was also the target of Emperor Henry,185 produced multiple hoards of the same datings.186 The Peloponnesian («33», «35», «36», «37», «38») and Cyladic hoards («29», «30», «31») of the general period 1207 to just beyond 1210 can best be brought in connection with the second and conclusive waves of conquests of these respective territories, and with some of the more prolonged sieges.187 Judging from a couple of later hoards («44» and «59»), and from the Corinthian grave and stratigraphical contexts listed above, Latin Imitatives continued to remain available in southern Greece for a few decades to come as the most plentiful billon trachy coinage. It is possible that the petty denomination issues of Achaïa and Athens started re-using some of the same metal in the 1240s.188 The Latin Imitatives were nevertheless largely avoided as objects 178  Hendy applies this method in DOC IV, p. 88ff. 179  Causes for hoarding patterns are discussed specifically for the early thirteenth century in Chapter 2, p. 144. 180  T IB 1, p. 69. 181  E. Georgantelis in NC, 155 (1995), p. 347, no. 61 (= CH). 182  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 333–335, nos 117 and 124. 183  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 335–336, nos 132–135. 184  T IB 1, p. 199. 185  T IB 6, p. 204. 186  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 210–211, nos 170 and 171. 187  Baker, “Cicladi medievali”; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 188  Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1231

of thesaurisation, which is indicative of their reduced status. Only in Epiros were they dwarfed by subsequent issues of the Byzantine successor states («66», «67», «68»). The single finds confirm this picture, with plentiful specimens in southern Greece. It had been generally believed that Athens, and the entire Latin lordship of Athens, were deficient in Latin Imitatives.189 This is not the case: the Athenian Agora («238») possesses such issues in good quantities, and Thebes even more so according to the evidence presented in the last two decades by Galani-Krikou.190 There are proportionately fewer Latin Imitatives at Arta («237»), in present-day Albania and in Thessaly.191 In addition to the Latin Imitatives that have so far been discussed, Hendy has identified a series of Constantinople large module issues designated by him as types D and ff:192 #76–#83. This is the later grouping of Latin Imitatives which I referred to at the beginning of this section. This series is of only marginal importance to Greece, and the few Greek finds («44», «59», «237», «265», «267», «268») make only a very humble contribution to resolving some of its problems. A number of opinions have been expressed on the origin of this series. Metcalf first proposed to attribute it to Ivan II Asen of Bulgaria (1218– 1241).193 Hendy, and others, have adhered to the original idea that these were later Latin coins of Constantinople.194 Touratosoglou also believes that these coins are Bulgarian,195 whereas Dočev, inspired by some of the documentation mentioned above,196 attributes them to the Republic of Ragusa.197 While the latter attribution is anachronistic and geographically implausible, it is much more difficult to arbitrate between the other positions. Many convoluted arguments have centred around find distributions, but this approach is to my mind a red herring: this series is clearly centred on Thrace, a pattern 189  This opinion is based on an initial observation by Bellinger (Metcalf, “Peter and Paul”, p. 154, n. 10), repeated ever since in the writings of Metcalf and Hendy, amongst others. 190  See, in addition to the hoards mentioned above, «354», «355», «356», «357», «359», «360», «366», «368», «370», «372», «373». 191  See respectively «254. Berat» and «299. Kaninë»; and «350. Skotoussa» and «381. Τrikala». The two latter findspots have not produced Latin Imitatives and only later billon trachea. 192  Again, the main points of the exposition contained in DOC IV, pp. 664–667, had already been developed by Hendy in his 1969 work. 193  Metcalf, “Peter and Paul”, subsequently repeated in SE Europe, p. 127f and Ashmolean, pp. 233 and 235. 194  Grierson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 238 and 269; Hendy, Studies, pp. 520–521; DOC IV, pp. 54 and 81–88. 195  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 402. 196  P. 1208, n. 78. 197  Dočev, “Za proizhoda na ijakoi tipove latinski imitativni moneti”; see also Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, pp. 10–11.

1232

appendix ii

which covers both the eventualities of the Second Bulgarian empire and the Latin empire of Constantinople. On weighing up the remainder of the arguments, the Bulgarian identification is more convincing. Unlike the earlier Latin Imitatives, types Dff are found very sparingly in Greece, and they are also under-represented in Anatolia. This stands in contrast to the gold hyperpyra of the Latin empire, which appear in Greece from the 1240s,198 and might also have gained some prominence along the Anatolian coast.199 The later Latin Imitatives were also produced in a different manner to their supposed earlier counterparts: a substantial number of types were emitted in very quick succession at a relatively early date.200 In fact the full weight of the hoards, never properly acknowledged in DOC IV, makes it quite clear that some of the earliest types, D, P, R, and perhaps O, were produced concurrently with the early Latin Imitatives. This is confirmed by some of the overstrikes published recently.201 Some of these types were also produced over a substantial period of time, unlike the earlier Latin Imitatives which had the briefest of life-spans. This can be exemplifies by type O, which is present in the earliest hoards in modest quantities, but then picks up towards mid-century.202 There is also some evidence that these issues were sporadically clipped at the source. These are some technical considerations which point towards a Bulgarian identification. Hendy had believed that the existence of signed copies in the name of Ivan II Asen (1218–1241)203 was a major stumbling-block for such an attribution of the Latin Imitative types Dff. Apart from the fact that a good number of these types date much earlier than 1218, it seems to me that their 198  See Baker, “Argos”, p. 228 and Appendix II.1.D.4, pp. 1260–1264. 199  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 347, n. 36; Mercangöz, Kadıkalesi, p. 15. 200  The following are important early hoards. Bulgaria: Asenovgrad; Korten; Măgliž II; Pazardžik; Preslav (two hoards); Suvatite; Vidin (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, nos 7, 35, 96, 129, 137, 151, 153, 176); there are also up to three hoards from Ustra castle, Kărdžali province: Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 220–221. Ex-Yugoslavia: Dumbarton Oaks III (DOS XII, pp. 340–341) ; Turkey: Istanbul B (DOS XII, pp. 340–341); Postallar (DOS XII, pp. 381–382); Troad (DOS XII, pp. 393–394); Romania: Tuzla (Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Câteva observaţii”, pp. 78–80, no. 4); Greee: Serres (Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, pp. 39–48, no. ΣΤ); Thessalonike 1963, 1976–1977, 1997 (Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, pp. 219 and 224); Thessalonike ca. 1990 [S. Bean in NC, 157 (1997), pp. 238–239, no. 75 (= CH)]. 201  Lianta, Late Byzantine coins, p. 47, concerning types P and R. 202  See the following Bulgarian/Thracian hoards: «489. Dolna Kabda 1961»; Krasen, Tri Voditsi, Ustovo (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, nos 100, 180, 186); Thrace (Bendall, “Thessalonican coinage of the mid thirteenth century”). Important are also the single finds from Isaccea in Romania (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 128–130), and the Bulgarian «522. Seuthopolis» and «525. Tărnovo». 203  Appendix II.1.B.9, pp. 1245–1246.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1233

contemporaneity with the early Latin Imitatives creates even more problems for their proposed attribution to Latin Constantinople. 1.B.4

Counterfeit Billon Trachea Hoards containing counterfeit billon trachea: «26. Athens 1933»(?), «36. Corinth 15 July 1929» Excavation and single counterfeit billon trachea: «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «351. Sparta», «357. Thebes». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #105

Like tetartera, billon trachea were counterfeited in southern Greece, albeit in much smaller quantities. Most of the specimens are from Corinth («36», «268», «269») and copy Latin small module type A. Some of these are part of a recognised group, which Zervos204 has interpreted as the billon trachy counterpart to the tetartera which I have termed the ‘Saronic Gulf Group’.205 Another freer copy of a Latin small module type A has been found at Sparta. The final word on the question of billon trachy counterfeits has certainly not been spoken, especially since there is a thin line between tetartera and trachea, and signs of concavity are not always easy to detect. Some pieces from Argos («236»), which I had held to be tetartera, have recently been re-interpreted as trachea.206 1.B.5

Billon Trachea of the Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 Hoards containing billon trachea of the Byzantine empire at Nicaea: «19. Peiraias 1926», «22. Mikro Eleutherochori 1971», «24. Livadi 1976», «26. Athens 1933», «28. Metsovo 1979», «29. Naousa 1927», «30. Amorgos 1909», «31. Thira 1910», «44. Thebes 1967», «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina». Excavation and single billon trachea of the Byzantine empire at Nicaea: «237. Arta», «254. Berat»(?), «259. Chalkida», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «381. Τrikala». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #106–#110

204  Zervos, “Irregular copper coins of the early thirteenth century”. 205  Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1203–1206. 206  Zervos, “New Light”, p. 164, n. 6.

1234

appendix ii

Under this and the following headings I will present billon trachea produced after the first decade of the thirteenth century by the Byzantine successor states, and by the restored Byzantine empire, into the fourteenth century. The previous generation of ‘Bulgarian’ and especially Latin Imitatives, which have already been discussed, had been issued in vast quantities and had enjoyed very extensive circulation in the entire formerly Byzantine area. Hoard and site finds from Anatolia, and especially from the Balkans, allow us to assess the production and circulation of the successive generations of trachea. Overall, the number of hoards is much smaller than previously, with just over fifty of these managing to offer viable information on the development of this denomination during more than a century, as compared to the hundreds of hoards which illuminate the decades around the fall of Constantinople in 1204. Further, the hoards and site finds for the period after ca. 1210/1220 are overwhelmingly concentrated in present-day Bulgaria, with some significant but much rarer data from Romania, northern Greece, the Republic of North Macedonia, European Turkey, and Anatolia.207 Outlying areas, including Serbia and our primary area of investigation, are marginal within this picture. In this sense, a contraction of the area of trachy circulation had taken place since the period ca. 1190– 1210. Finally, it would also seem that production rates after 1210 were smaller than previously: hoards until mid-century are often still dominated by Latin Imitatives. The issues of the Palaiologan emperors (from 1259/1261) are as a rule better represented than those of their predecessors. Beginning with the period before the restoration of Constantinople to Byzantine rule in 1261, the Anatolian and Balkan successor states after 1204/1224 produced billon trachea at Magnesia208 and Thessalonike (see below). After 1246 these mints issued in the names of the same emperors, initially John III Vatatzes. In line with the reduced circulation patterns that I have already mentioned, the products of these mints predominate in their respective areas. For instance, in hoards and site finds from Pergamon209 and Sardis210 there are considerably more Nicaean trachea. As we shall see, in the Balkans – including our primary area – Thessalonican issues tend to dominate. The evidence from Istanbul, though of potentially great interest, is not particularly abundant.211 We have already considered the first two issues of Theodore I Laskaris (1205–1221) (#106 and #107) together with the contemporary ‘Bulgarian’ and 207  The relevant billon trachy finds will be discussed in the further course of this presentation. 208  Again, DOC IV, pp. 447–540, is the main reference for this series. 209  Hoard: Weller, “Eighteen Byzantine scyphate coins”; site finds: «483». 210  Hoard: Bates, Byzantine Coins, p. 155, hoard JJ; site finds: «487». 211  See «508» (for Kalenderhane) and Hendy, “Coins (Saraçhane)”: both sites have yielded single Nicaean and no Thessalonican coins.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1235

Latin Imitative series. In this early period there was of course no Byzantine minting in Thessalonike, which probably commenced in 1224. The first two Nicaean trachea of Theodore spread widely in all areas, and for a short while thereafter his subsequent issues were the only major new additions to the circulating stock of trachea even in the Balkans.212 A type D issue of this emperor from Chalkida («259») belongs to this period (compare #108). After this date, Nicaean issues are heavily marginalised throughout the Balkans, and even more so in our primary area of concern, where only Epiros («66», «67», «68», «237», «254»?, with a Thessalian outlier «381») manages to produce a concentration of finds, with rather more sporadic manifestations at Thebes («44»), and Corinth («267»). The Epirote hoards, dating to the 1260s, contain very few Anatolian trachea indeed. They are mostly issues of John III (see examples #109 and #110), and only a couple of specimens of Theodore II are known for the entire Epirote area. Further parallelisms underline the confined nature of this phenomenon: a rare issue of John (type V) is perhaps present in both hoards from Arta («66» and «67»: see also my comments for these respective hoards), his type C is found at Arta and Trikala («237» and «381»), type H at Thebes and Corinth («44» and «267»).213 In fact, Nicaean coins of John III seem to travel to Epiros, though perhaps not to southern Greece, in tandem with his Thessalonican issues. Even if the remainder of the Balkans shares with Greece the general paucity in Nicaean issues, the spread there is more even and less idiosyncratic. The hoards214 and site finds215 cover a range of issues of the three emperors Theodore I, John III, Theodore II, and there are no regional

212  See the evidence of the following hoards. Thessalonike 1977: CH, 4 (1978), p. 64, no. 206; Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 219; Touratsgolou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία”, p. 278. Serres: Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, pp. 39–48, no. H. 213  See also Zervos, “Rare and unpublished late Byzantine coppers”, for a type N variant not listed in Appendix I since there is no entry there for the 1929 season at Corinth. 214  Bulgaria: «489. Dolna Kabda 1961» and «495. Vidin» are contained in my catalogue; I have already referred to Krasen, Tri Voditsi, Petrič, and Nisovo (on the latter two, see p. 1202, n. 27). See further Peter and Paul (Metcalf, “Peter and Paul”); Silistra (Penčev, “Drăstăr”); Svištov (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, no. 159). ‘Thrace’: Bendall, “Thessalonican coinage of the mid thirteenth century”. Some of these data are again gathered in Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Espace rural”, pp. 398–403. 215  Again, the only significant quantities are from Bulgarian sites: «522. Seuthopolis» and «525. Tărnovo»; Preslav and Melnik (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 122–124 and 130–132). «514 Ohrid» (MK) apparently has good quantities of Nicaean issues (said to be about 50 in number: Razmovska-Bačeva, “Coin Circulation in the Ohrid region”), although precise details on these issues are currently not available. Individual finds are known from «513. Nesebăr», «524. Šumen», and «500. Agios Achilleios» (GR).

1236

appendix ii

or heavily concentrated patterns akin to those of Greece. In fact, no Balkan finds other than the Epirote ones for John’s types V and C are known to me. 1.B.6

Billon Trachea of the Byzantine Empire at Thessalonike 1224–1261 Hoards containing billon trachea of the Byzantine empire at Thessalonike: «44. Thebes 1967», «48. Ioannina 1983», «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina», «69. Capstan Navy Cut». Graves containing billon trachea of the Byzantine empire at Thessalonike: «220. Neochorio». Excavation and single billon trachea of the Byzantine empire at Thessa­ lonike: «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «254. Berat», «263. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «287. Elassona», «299. Kaninë», «301. Karditsa», «335. Nikopolis», «348. Platykampos», «350. Skotoussa», «351. Sparta», «358. Thebes», «376. Thessaly», «381. Τrikala», «383. Tyrnavos», «384. Ypati». Later stratigraphical fills containing billon trachea of the Byzantine empire at Thessalonike: Appendix I.13, nos 56, 65. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #111–#124

It was presumably in 1224 that Theodore Komnenos Doukas conquered Thessalonike from the Latin kings: he was proclaimed and later crowned emperor some time between that event and 1228, at the latest.216 Though these dates are of obvious importance with regard to the beginning of Byzantine minting in that city, they are ultimately inconclusive.217 Unlike the previous era of ‘Bulgarian’ and Latin Imitatives, for which we are virtually able to give a year-by-year account of coin production and circulation, our knowledge of the output of the mints of the successor states is much more sporadic, despite the fact that the types were presumably changed on a yearly basis.218 Accountable 216   A lot has been written on these matters. See Bredenkamp, Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike, p. 75ff on the conquest, summarising the work of Longnon and Sinogowitz; see Stavridou-Zafraka, “The Empire of Thessaloniki”, p. 214, on the proclamation and coronation according to the datings of Karpozilos, Lambropoulos, Stiernon, and Bee-Seferli. 217  On the coinage of Byzantine Thessalonike, see DOC IV, pp. 543–617. Various issues have been brought in connection with these events, based on Hendy’s original premise that minting began in 1224: see for instance Bendall, “Another overstrike of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas”; Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas”. 218  See Chapter 1, 49.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1237

for these uncertainties is the limited availability of hoarded material which we might use to reconstruct coin production. As we view the Balkan evidence, we find just a handful of hoards,219 at most, for each of the reigns in the city of Theodore, Manuel (1230–1237), John (1237–1242/1244), John III Vatatzes (1246–1254) and Theodore II Laskaris (from 1254), despite the fact – as has been said – that Thessalonican issues predominate heavily over issues of the contemporary Nicaean state in the Balkans, and also in our primary area of consideration.220 In contrast to the picture drawn by the Nicaean issues of the period 1204– 1261, Greece receives a good range of issues and types of the Thessalonike mint. Dominant amongst the numerous site finds are the issues of Theodore and Manuel Komnenos Doukas, and of John III, much as in the remainder of the Balkan sites.221 The issues of John Komnenos Doukas are a partial exception to this picture, as we shall see. The overall quantity of single coins of Thessalonike is much higher than those of Nicaea, and all the main areas of Greece are covered:222 Peloponnese (Corinth and Sparta); Mainland Greece (Athens, Thebes, and Ypati, and the grave find from Neochorio in the west); and 219  The hoards which have already been mentioned in the context of the Nicaean finds invariably contained also Thessalonican issues. The following are important additional hoards to consider. Bulgaria: Aleksandrovo, Dorkovo, Moglitsa, Pisaratsi, Preslav, Silistra (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, nos 5, 62, 125, 144, 152, 162); Preslav 1978 [CH, 7 (1985), pp. 240–241, no. 367]; Vidin (Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970”); Ustovo (see p. 1332, n. 202); Ustovo (Penčev, “Ustovo”). Romania: Balş [CH, 4 (1978), p. 64, no. 203]. Republic of North Macedonia: Čanakli (Mandic, Ananijev, Morrisson, “Čanakli”); Ohrid (a grave hoard containing also silver trachea: Razmovska-Bačeva, “Theodore Angelus Comnenus Ducas”: Appendix II.1.C.2, pp. 1250–1251); «493. Prilep»; Okitsi (Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, no. 25). Serbia: Dubravica (Radić, Papadopoulou, Ivanišević, “National Museum in Belgrade”, no. 23). Northern Greece: Edessa (Touratsoglou, “Edessa”); Serres (Touratsoglou and Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Βυζαντινοί νομισματικοί θησαυροί”, pp. 38–39, no. Z); Serres [CH, 4 (1978), p. 65, no. 208]; Touratsgolou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία”, p. 278, also lists a number of previously unpublished finds from the area of Thessalonike. Unknown Provenance: Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas”. Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, pp. 193–197, provides a very comprehensive list of finds of Thessalonican coins. 220  Metcalf, “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki”, p. 180, under-estimates this pattern, while Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, emphasizes it. See further Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία” with important, previously unpublished, data. 221  Most of the relevant Balkan sites have already been mentioned in the context of the Nicaean trachea. See additionally merely «516. Păcuiul lui Soare» (RO); «526. Thasos»; Pella [AD, 50 (1995), NM, p. 11]; Veroia [AD, 20 (1965), NM, p. 7; AD, 49 (1994), NM, p. 14] (both GR). 222  I refer to the list at the beginning of this heading.

1238

appendix ii

numerous locations in Epiros and Thessaly.223 Despite of the generosity of this distribution, the number of hoards is very limited. Many of the single Greek finds of Thessalonican issues are concentrated in the reigns of Theodore and Manuel Komnenoi Doukai (to 1237). All parts of Greece receive regular supplies, with all the main types being represented in all areas, though Thessalonican issues are not hoarded at all in this period. The earliest issue of Theodore, type A224 (compare #111 and #112), heavily dominates however a hoard concealed just after 1237 (see «44. Thebes 1967» and below). Some of the Balkan finds, notably the grave find from Ohrid, display similar concentrations and it would be plausible to attribute this transfer specifically of type A coins to Theodore’s early efforts to consolidate his position vis-à-vis the main Greek powers.225 A small module billon trachy series was produced in the name of John Komnenos Doukas, son of Theodore and nephew of Manuel (ruling as emperor 1237–1242, thereafter for two years as despot) (see #120; #119 is a rather unusual large module type of the same series). This so-called series III has been most extensively worked on by Bendall226 and Hendy,227 and further commented on by Metcalf228 and Touratsoglou.229 All writers regard this series as apart from the remainder of Thessalonican coinage, not merely in terms of physical size, but also in production method (a number of the coins are uniface, as were some Latin and ‘Bulgarian’ Imitatives), in chronology (the later series III coins post-date considerably the year of John’s death in 1244), and in circulation, since these coins are much more Balkan and much less Greek than the other Thessalonican coins. In fact, the only certified series III coins which feature in my catalogue are a single piece from Berat («254») and two and three respectively from Arta («237») and Corinth («267», «268»), and a hoarded specimen from Thebes (see below). Hendy has proposed somewhat less than whole-heartedly that series III might have been minted by ‘Venetians’. This can be rejected on principle (see my arguments above230), with reference to the paucity of the series precisely in areas of interest to Venice, and also on some 223  It should be noted that this abundance was evidently such that some of these issues spread further westwards into southern Italy: «435. Otranto». 224  On this dating see: Bendall, “A hoard of trachea of Theodore Comnenus-Ducas”, confirmed by the recent grave hoard from Ohrid referred to p. 1237, n. 219. 225  Bredenkamp, Byzantine Empire of Thessalonike, p. 103ff. 226   Bendall, “Thessalonican coinage of the mid thirteenth century”; Bendall, “John Comnenus-Ducas”. 227  D  OS XII, pp. 282–285 and 286–288; DOC IV, pp. 580–582. 228  Metcalf, review of DOC IV, p. 400. 229  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 391. 230  Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1227.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1239

of the technical grounds put forward most recently by Bendall.231 Although the series plays virtually no role in Greece, a specimen in a Greek hoard (in «44. Thebes 1967»), together with a coin of the same type in the Peter and Paul hoard,232 makes an important contribution by locating the beginning of series III immediately after 1237, or even in the reign of Manuel Komnenos Doukas himself. To conclude, it looks most likely that the series was indeed produced from the 1230s onwards, and perhaps well into the Palaiologan period, at the Thessalonike mint, and that it satisfied more the current Balkan rather than Aegean monetary requirements. From 1246 the main signed, large module, series of billon trachea from Thessalonike were minted in the name of John III Vatatzes (see #122 and #123). His various issues are again well represented in different Greek locations. This period also sees the next hoard, «48. Ioannina 1983», which is a single type A hoard. It is certainly of note that this early Thessalonican type of John’s was not his most prolific one to judge by the ample evidence available from the Balkan sites, even if it overwhelms the single finds from the town of Arta («237»). The formation of this hoard – though not its concealment, which has no identifiable historical context – can also be brought in connection with military events: the first direct confrontation of Nicaean/Thessalonican and Epirote forces in the later 1240s, after the elimination of the common Bulgarian foe.233 The single finds from Arta corroborate this interpretation. In the further course of John’s minting at Thessalonike (to 1254) successive types also reached Epiros, no doubt some of these in military contexts, underlined by similar issues from his Magnesia mint which have already been discussed. These were all eventually hoarded together with issues of his son Theodore II Laskaris (see #124), in the early Palaiologan period («66», «67», «68», and a fourth hoard which might have been of similar provenance: «69»). These hoards will be further discussed below.234 Coins of Theodore II are otherwise, with the exception of the Artan single finds («237»), absent from our area of concern. At the main Balkan sites the issues of Theodore are also much worse represented than those of his father. To conclude, the billon trachy coinage of Thessalonike after 1224 is revealed as complex and far reaching. Our area of concern did not partake in all of the developments, and even within this area most of the evidence is Epirote. Two 231  Bendall, “John Comnenus-Ducas”, pp. 259–263. 232  The parallel was established by Mrs Oikonomidou in her publication of «44». DOC IV fails to take these observations into account. 233  Kravari, Macédoine occidentale, p. 43ff. 234  Appendix II.1.B.8, p. 1244.

1240

appendix ii

roles can be discerned: this coinage managed to uphold the usage of billon trachea throughout the first half of the thirteenth century and beyond;235 but this usage was marginal236 and the coinage tended to accumulate, spread, and be disposed of in military contexts. The coinage of the empire at Thessalonike will be encountered again in our next discussion on the mint of Arta, and when considering the possible spread of German coins into the Balkans.237 1.B.7

Billon Trachea of the Despots at Arta Hoards containing billon trachea of the despots at Arta: «66. Arta 1923»(?). Excavation and single billon trachea of the despots at Arta: «237. Arta», «294. Ioannina». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #125–#127.

The characterisation of the impact of issues of Thessalonike, and trachy circulation particularly in Epiros, provides the context for the next discussion. Arta was the only official mint in our primary area which produced billon trachea in the middle of the thirteenth century. A large amount has been written on this mint and the possible issues produced there: Hendy’s cautious approach seems on the whole the most reasonable,238 yet it is not possible to discount entirely some of the attributions to this mint made by Protonotarios or Oikonomidou et al.239 (some of which are based on sound archaeological evidence240), or indeed by Bendall in 1996, a contribution which was virtually ignored in DOC.241 235  Consider the two listed Corinthian stratigraphical contexts. 236  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 133. 237  Appendix II.5, p. 1333. 238  D  OC IV, pp. 621–631. 239   The two most substantial contributions and alternative positions to Hendy’s are Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire” (already criticised in Hendy, Studies, p. 523, n. 378) and Oikonomidou et al., “Συμβολή στην έρευνα της κυκλοφορίας”, esp. pp. 104 and 114. DOS XII did not discuss the possible Arta mint, even though early groundwork by Lambros, Mattingly, Bertelè, Manuel De Guadan and Lascaris Comneno, and Gerasimov had already been published. Further studies have been published by Oikonomidou, “Michel II d’Epire”; “Ανασκόπηση της νομισματοκοπίας του ‘Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου’”; and Protonotarios, “Η νομισματοκοπία του βυζαντινού κράτους της Ηπείρου (1204–1268)” (which is a Greek version of the above); “Michael I or II of Epeiros”. 240   Reiterated by Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, pp. 387 and 390. 241  Bendall, “Michael II”. See merely DOC IV, p. 626: “attributions … questionable.” Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081–1453, pp. 570–591 treats the coinage of Arta, and the issues which have at times been attributed to Arta, with some attention. The authors

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1241

Whatever the precise shape of the coinage of Arta, it is certain that Michael II of Epiros (ruling ca. 1236242 to 1266–1268243) was the sole ruler (although at times in conjunction with others) to issue billon trachea at Arta. The silver (electrum) trachea of his predecessors at Arta are discussed below.244 Only one possible hoard and two find complexes from our primary area have produced Artan trachea («66»?, «237», «294»). Other finds have been noted at two sites in the immediate vicinity («500. Agios Achilleios» and «514 Ohrid»), in the Macedonian hoard of Okitsi,245 with one further Anatolian find («487. Sardis»). The single coin which might have been minted at Arta found in «66» is dwarfed by the 35 trachea from the Thessalonike mint contained in the same hoard. The ratio at «237. Arta» is more favourable to the local mint at 27 to 133. Ohrid and Agios Achilleios, both localities lying within the territory ruled by Michael II until his submission to imperial authority, have ratios of 3 to 8 and 2 (or 1) to 21. No archaeological means of dating the billon trachea of Michael II Komnenos Doukas exist, and despite the fact that one may discern at least two iconographical groupings among his issues [those depicting him alone, and those depicting him with possible co-ruler (?) or crowned by John III Vatatzes], and the existence of ample sigillographic material which can on two occasions be dated according to the documents to which it is attached,246 the attempts so far to date his issues have been half hearted or non existent. In view of the fact that the title of despot is quite clearly used by Michael prior to his submission to John III Vatatzes and the official receipt of that title in 1249,247 and the similarities between a seal of 1237 and type Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, no. 12 (= DOC IV, pl. 46, no. 3; see #125),248 there is no reason to seek as tight a chronological profile to this coinage as Hendy does.249 It may therefore be tentatively suggested that the issues of Michael II are to be split neatly into two, namely those on which he portrays himself as an add some pertinent observations on findspots and style regarding the more uncertain types. 242  The beginnings of his rule and of his coinage are not particularly secure. Hendy cites the date of his first charters, although the son of Michael I was in effective control of Epiros at a much earlier point in time. 243  Ferjančić, “Mihailo II Anđeo”. See also Nicol, Epiros II, p. 9, n. 1. 244  Appendix II.1.C.2, p. 1251. 245  P. 1237, n. 219. 246  Lemerle, “Trois actes du despote d’Epire Michel II”, pp. 411–413, nos 9 and 13. 247  P LP, no. 220. The evidence for the usage of this title (as early as 1236) can be found in Lemerle, “Trois actes du despote d’Epire Michel II”, p. 411ff, nos 8, 10, 11. 248  Seal and coin are depicted in Bertelè, “Una moneta dei despoti di Epiro”. 249  D OC IV, p. 624, according to which all minting was limited to the later 1240s.

1242

appendix ii

independent ruler (all pre-1249) (examples: #125 and #126), and those depicting him in association with John III (an example is probably #127). Michael’s son Nikephoros250 does not feature in these iconographical schemes, neither as a depicted co-ruler (with Michael II), nor as despot in Epiros associated with imperial power, as has sometimes been assumed. In the first instance, since he was born in ca. 1240 he would barely have been represented as an adult ruler beside his father in any pre-1249 coinage. It is much more likely that one of the two figures on the types in question was, if it was a real person at all, noncontemporary.251 Second, the issues which depict the Epirote ruler in subordination to John III (anyhow bearing the name of Michael in some instances) are obviously limited to the immediate post-1249 period.252 This clarification has freed a number of types (four at least, more if Bendall’s and Oikonomidou et al.’s types are also incorporated) which can be attributed to Michael’s sole rule in Epiros. Since one of these is associated with an iconographic form of the late 1230s, it is possible to spread these issues across a number of years, about a decade. In summary, four or more successive types of billon trachea were minted in the name of Michael II alone in the years ca. 1236–1249, followed by a likely couple of short-lived types after 1249. This typological and chronological arrangement has given the issues of Michael II more the appearance of a regular coinage which at least sought to match the contemporaneous output of his Thessalonican rivals [his uncle Manuel and his cousins John and Demetrios; finally John III Vatatzes], and is befitting therefore of his own status.253 Any interpretations of this coinage beyond these basic observations would be premature. We lack the clear evidence of hoards, or of distinctive distribution patterns amongst excavated material, which might reveal the nature of at least some of his issues. In keeping with the theme of warfare, developed for the coinages of Nicaea and Thessalonike, I refer in closing merely to Michael’s campaigns against Manuel in Corfu in 1236, against Thessaly in 1241,254 and his conquest of Bulgarian-held territories in western Macedonia and the defence against 250  P LP, no. 223. 251  See Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, nos 14 and 17 (= DOC IV, pl. 54, no. 9, and pl. 47, no. 3). 252  For these issues see Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18, nos 15 and 16 (= DOC IV, pl. 47, nos 1 and 2). 253  See Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 5–6, in correction of his own earlier interpretations in Epiros I, and following some criticisms [e.g. by P. Lemerle in BZ, 51 (1958), p. 401]: “Michael Komnenos Angelos Doukas has more claim than either his father or his uncle to be called the founder of what came to be known as the Despotate of Epiros.” 254  T IB 3, p. 62.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1243

John III in the mid-1240s, a conflict which had arguably brought Thessalonican and Nicaean coinage to Epiros (see above). 1.B.8

Billon Trachea of the Byzantine Empire after 1261 Hoards containing billon trachea of the Byzantine empire after 1261: «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina», «69. Capstan Navy Cut». Excavation and single billon trachea of the Byzantine empire after 1261: «231. Andros», «237. Arta», «254. Berat», «257. Butrint», «263. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «288. Epiros», «295. Ioannina», «346. Pharsala», «350. Skotoussa», «351. Sparta», «354. Thebes», «381. Τrikala». Later stratigraphical fills containing billon trachea of the Byzantine empire after 1261: Appendix I.13, no. 17. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #128–#132.

In my introduction to the billon trachea,255 I indicate that the later chronological development of this denomination, as it becomes smaller and flatter toward the middle of the fourteenth century, remains ill-defined. Amongst the Greek finds there are no trachea of the restored Byzantine empire later than those of Emperor Andronikos II (1272–1328). It is possible that the later mutations of denomination negatively affected their spread to Greece. Prior to this, the picture of the appearance in our area of issues of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261–1272), and of his son Andronikos II, is remarkably close to that which has just been discussed for the coinage of the empire at Thessalonike (from 1224).256 There is evidence that some of this movement continued into the Adriatic region.257 That the early Palaiologan empire managed to maintain this kind of presence in Greece is undoubtedly down to the fact that the two imperial mints of Constantinople and Thessalonike maintained or even increased their outputs, as can be deduced from some of the Balkan hoards and

255  Appendix II.1.B, p. 1209. 256  The billon trachea of the early Palaiologan period have been most extensively worked on by Bendall and Donald (see the two co-authored monographic works Billon Trachea and Later Palaeologan), although the fruit of their labours is most conveniently accessed in the relevant Dumbarton Oaks volume: DOC V, pp. 116–124 and 147–160. 257  See Callegher, “Monete medioevali dei secoli XI–XIII in Friuli”, p. 340, for a Slovenian find of a coin of Andronikos II.

1244

appendix ii

site finds.258 Beside the usual three to four Epirote hoards, we encounter these early Palaiologan trachea as single finds in numerous Epirote and Thessalian locations, as well as at the main sites of southern Greece, Sparta, Thebes, and especially Corinth (see also #128–#132). The Cycladic find from «231. Andros» opens a new perspective and calls for a joint interpretation with the only Greek find of Palaiologan gold, which is from nearby Euboia.259 The context which saw the formations and concealments of «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina» (and maybe «69. Capstan Navy Cut») are discussed in my catalogue: an offensive in 1264 by Michael VIII against Epiros. With regard to some of the single finds, we should note that there were repeated imperial incursions into Greece in the further course of his reign.260 Michael VIII is the single most represented issuer in the hoards, followed by John III Vatatzes (see above). Amongst the coins of the former, those of the mint of Thessalonike are more plentiful than those from Constantinople,261 as they are amongst the single finds, particularly of Epiros and Thessaly.262 Notwithstanding the fact that mint attributions are often based on finds such as these, and the obvious danger of circularity, it would appear that the previous pattern whereby Greece was preferentially supplied by the Thessalonike mint was continued. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that the single Cycladic find I have mentioned is from the Constantinople mint, together with a few other finds from the Aegean area (Corinth, Thebes, Sparta)? 258  The same general body of site evidence that has already been referred to in the context of the Nicaean and Thessalonican issues before 1261 is useful also for the Palaiologan period. The following hoards have also already received mention: Vidin (BG) and Okitsi (MK) (p. 1237, n. 219), «495. Vidin» (BG), «493. Prilep» (MK). In addition there are billon trachy hoards of the Palaiologan period from Aglen, Jasen and Vidin (BG: Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 286–287), Jasen (BG: Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970”, p. 140), Didymoteicho and Macedonia 1988 (GR: Σύνταγμα, nos 119 and 120), Macedonia 1974–1975 (GR: Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, pp. 215, 219, 225), Pella (GR: Bendall, “Longuet’s Salonica Hoard”), Serres (GR: Protonotarios, “Serres hoard”), «494. Thessalonike» (GR), Thessalonike 1980 (GR: Touratsoglou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία”, p. 279), Unknown Provenance/eastern Macedonia (‘CNG’: DOC V, pp. 147–149; see now Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “CNG hoard”), Unknown Provenance (Bendall, “Early Fourteenth-Century Hoard”). An extensive overview of trachy circulation in Palaiologan times is also provided by Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”. 259  Appendix II.1.D.6, p. 1265. 260  Notably, he sends an army into Thessaly in 1277: Nicol, Epiros II, p. 21. 261  By the same measure the site finds from «514 Ohrid» and «500. Agios Achilleios» weigh more towards Thessalonike, the hoards from Pergamon (Appendix II.1.B.5, p. 1234) and Didymoteicho (See n. 258 above) to Constantinople. The main Bulgarian sites have an even balance between the two mints. 262  See also the tabulation in Touratsgolou, “Ο θησαυρός ‘Ιωαννίνων’”, p. 249.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: BILLON TRACHEA

1245

Billon trachea of Andronikos II are found in Greece in considerably fewer quantities than those of his father. They are also rather difficult to date, although a more recent hoard263 has largely confirmed the previous chronological schemes set out by Bendall and Grierson. Accordingly, the latest coins of Andronikos of the period just before 1295 (see «254»), and of his joint rule with Michael IX (1295–1320) («237» and perhaps «257») are all Epirote finds. In line with the military theme which I have already developed for the preceding reigns, it should be pointed out that the early years of Andronikos saw a continuation of the empire’s aggressive policies towards Thessaly and Epiros, with major campaigns in 1283 and 1292. Thereafter, relations between Constantinople and the Greek mainland were more variegated: a major Catalan movement linked the two territories in the first decade of the fourteenth century. Thereafter, Byzantium engaged in diplomacy and another major military campaign (1314–1319), until by the end of the second decade of the fourteenth century large parts of Epiros and Thessaly were again within the imperial fold.264 According to the numismatic evidence that is presently available, no Byzantine coin entered Greece between this period and the final years of the same century.265 1.B.9

Billon Trachea of the Bulgarian Empire Hoards containing billon trachea of the Bulgarian empire: «66. Arta 1923», «67. Arta 1983», «68. Ioannina». Excavation and single billon trachea of the Bulgarian empire: «237. Arta». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #133.

The Bulgarian and Serbian states issued signed billon trachea respectively in the names of Ivan II Asen (1218–1241) and Stefan Radoslav (1228–1233), at the Ohrid(?) and Ras mints,266 both aided by Thessalonican technology.267 Only the first of these issues have been found in our area of interest, in the usual Epirote find-complexes and together with the Thessalonican issues with which they circulated.268 In fact, it would appear that these Bulgarian coins were produced in much larger quantities and circulated much more extensively 263  Bendall, “Early Fourteenth Century Hoard”. 264  Laiou, Andronicus II, pp. 38–43, 181–183, 257–259. See also Chapter 3, pp. 285–287. 265  See below, Appendix II.1.E, pp. 1268–1274. 266  D  OC IV, pp. 635–643; see also Ivanišević, “Novac kralja Radoslava”. 267  Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, p. 187–188. 268  A useful discussion of the spread of these coins is now provided by Avdev, “Ioan Asen II”.

1246

appendix ii

than their Serbian counterparts, being found in discrete quantities in certain hoards269 and sites,270 and in single-type hoards mostly in the Republic of North Macedonia.271 The coinage of Radoslav is confined to one hoard from the fortress of Ras, which has also produced the evidence for minting.272 As with other trachy coinages, a military context for these respective issues can be presumed. Avdev has argued that the issuance and spread of the coins of Asen must be brought in direct relation with the conflict with Byzantine Thessalonike and the Bulgarian conquests in Macedonia, Thessaly and Epiros (1330/1331).273 1.C Electrum and Silver Trachea The electrum trachy is another denomination which was introduced in 1092.274 As I have mentioned,275 contemporary sources applied the name ‘aspron trachy’ to this as well as to the billon cup-shaped coinage. The modern construct ‘electrum trachy’ remains the most convenient term for us to distinguish the two denominations, even if occasionally sources provide us with other distinctive names for the electrum coinage (see below). It was the physical and metrological continuation of the last pre-reform ‘gold’ histamenon,276

269  Amongst the hoards that have already been discussed, see those from ‘Thrace’ (p. 1235, n. 214), Okitsi (p. 1237, n. 219), Preslav (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, no. 154), or «489. Dolna Kabda 1961». 270  Preslav (p. 1235, n. 215), «500. Agios Achilleios», «514 Ohrid». 271  Ohrid and Prilep (Mirnik, Coin Hoards, nos 383 and 425), and the Bulgarian Sandanski (Penčev, “Ivan Asen”), close to the border with the Republic of North Macedonia. 272  See Mirnik, Coin Hoards, no. 428 and Ivanišević, “Novac kralja Radoslava”, with ulterior bibliography. 273  Avdev, “Ioan Asen II”. 274  As with the other denominations of the Komnenian period, the standard reference work is DOS XII and DOC IV, pp. 43–44 and passim. See also Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 105 on the general context of this denomination, and Weber, “Elektrum-Skyphaten” on its production technique. Touratsgolou “Ήλεκτρα τραχέα”, which offers a discussion based on a catalogue of hoards, reached me too late to be used in Appendix I. Importantly, this article has indicated a hoard from present-day Albania (Vërzhezha, municipality of Skrapar, Berat county), first published in 1983, which I had been unaware of. This hoard of 50 electrum trachea of Isaac II (15) and Alexios III (35) was almost certainly deposited in 1204 or shortly thereafter, and should rightfully have held a place in Appendix I.A, just after «7. Unknown Provenance». The other very useful precision to the finds made by Touratsoglou concerns this latter hoard: he points out on p. 88, on the basis of information held at the NM, that it might have originated in Albania. 275  Above, Appendix II.1.B, p. 1208. 276  See Chapter 1, p. 8–12, on the pre-1092 system, the ‘Palaia kai Nea Logarike’, and the monetary reform of Alexios I Komnenos.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: ELECTRUM TRACHEA

1247

designed as a third of the gold hyperpyron within the new system,277 and initially holding a central position in the fiscal cycle of the Komnenian period. This is established by the treatise known as the Nea kai Palaia Logarikè. In fact, much as in the case of the gold hyperpyron, the written sources make a fundamental contribution to our understanding of this coinage, especially its quality, usage and spread. Already by the turn of the thirteenth century its gold content had dwindled to a fraction of its former standard, and it was continued by the Byzantine successor states as a pure silver coinage (the ‘silver trachy’). It is possible that this transition from an electrum to a silver denomination occurred precisely in the period July 1203–April 1204, when Alexios IV, Isaac II, and Alexios V, might have continued issuing the type of Alexios III.278 It is evident that these coinages are conceptually the same,279 which is corroborated by some of the hoarding behaviour which will be analysed. Narrative sources comment on the debasement of this coinage towards the end of the twelfth century,280 a fact which is confirmed by modern analyses.281 Whether debased or not, the electrum trachy enjoyed a bad reputation, as suggested by terms such as ‘mochthèron’ (wretched),282 by virtue of being an alloy which is naturally prone to uncertainties and exploitation. This particular characteristic also ensured that, arguably, it increasingly came to be alienated from regular usage and the fiscal cycle, and to be used instead in military or tertiary/commercial contexts, or to migrate to areas towards the edges of the empire and beyond,283 as had been the case for other sub-standard gold coinages in previous periods of Byzantine history. At the same time, the predebasement electrum trachy of the time of Manuel I retained a high profile and a traditional exchange rate of 3:1 to the hyperpyron also in much later periods, as in the case of a Pisan document of 1199,284 where it is called manuelatus. The treaty of 1219 between the Venetian podestà at Constantinople and the empire at Nicaea makes mention of the same manuelati, although there is some ambiguity in the wording, and it might well be referring to gold rather 277  On the gold hyperpyron, see the discussion below, Appendix II.1.D, p. 1252. 278  See Appendix II.1.B.2, p. 1221. 279  Grierson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 246–247. 280  Hendy, Studies, p. 517, on Zonaras and Arnold of Lübeck; Morrisson, “Monnaie et finances”, p. 304, n. 38, on Choniates. 281  D  OS XII, pp. 10–12; Hendy, Studies, p. 514; Morrisson, “Alterazioni e svalutazioni”, p. 100. 282  Hendy, Studies, p. 517, n. 341: the Anatolian document is referred to in Angold, Byzantine government in exile, p. 107, n. 90. 283  For an analysis of these phenomena, see Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 356; Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”. Also the treatment of Touratsgolou “Ήλεκτρα τραχέα” hints at the same. 284  D  OS XII, p. 23.

1248

appendix ii

than electrum issues.285 The treasure of the monastery of St. John at Patmos, which was plundered in 1220, contained amongst other monies and items, 200 ‘manuelatos angelatos’, which shows in an unambiguous fashion the presence of pre-1204 specimens.286 The electrum trachy therefore had a very distinctive pattern of usage and circulation, and enjoyed also a greater longevity than other twelfth-century denominations. This denomination is well represented in other thirteenth-century sources. The mochthèra, which have already been cited, come from an Anatolian context, another document from Patmos (1254)287 features ‘trikephala’,288 as do entries in the cartulary of Lemviotissa near Smyrna,289 as well as the 1247 typikon of Maximos of Boreine near Philadelphia,290 and, further afield, that for Machairas monastery in Cyprus (1210).291 In Epiros and the Ionian islands the same denomination is frequently encountered. The documents emitted by the chanceries of the churchmen Chomatianos and Apokaukos often mention trikephala, with different descriptors suggesting perhaps that some specimens were older (‘protimomena’: the preferred), others more recent (‘prattomena’: current; ‘angelata’, as also in Patmos: of Isaac II, or even the empire at Thessalonike, or simply bearing an angel).292 In 1211 it was decreed that ten Corfiotes were jointly responsible for the yearly payment of 500 manuelati to Venice;293 and in the same period the archbishop of Durazzo received fiefs from Venice for an annual payment of twelve pounds of manuelati.294 These were probably electrum trachea, though one cannot be entirely certain (see above). Trikephala are also mentioned in two acts of exemption issued by

285  D  OS XII, pp. 27 and 225–226; Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 203. The treaty also refers to billon trachea: see Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1223. 286   Saint-Guillain, “L’Apocalypse et le sens des affaires”, pp. 784–786. 287  Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, p. 152, and n. 13, referring to Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, Έγγραφα Πάτμου, no. 65. 288  See DOS XII, pp. 31–34, on the term trikephalon, which only gradually came to denote exclusively the electrum third-nomisma and its silver successor. See also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, pp. 484–486. 289  Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 270, n. 54. 290  Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 270, n. 60, citing BMFD, no. 35. 291  B MFD, no. 34. 292  Laiou, “Epiros”, pp. 208–209. See also Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, p. 190. Compare also Saint-Guillain, cited in n. 286 above. 293  Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 2, pp. 129–36, no. 229. 294  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, pp. 44–45, no. 141; Nicol, Epiros I, pp. 26–27; Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane, p. 95; Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 132, 147, n. 133.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: ELECTRUM TRACHEA

1249

Michael II of Epiros for the peasantry and the clergy of Corfu respectively,295 and in a praktikon concerning the lands of the Latin bishop of Kephallonia in 1264.296 There is, to conclude, ample evidence of the denomination in question, or of a system of account based on it,297 both in the western Balkans and in Asia Minor in the first half of the thirteenth century. Perhaps the trikephalon persisted in Epiros as a money of account into the fourteenth century.298 This concentration around the edges of the former empire of the twelfth century is reflected in the coin finds: once we accept that the three hoards to be discussed below («4», «5», «7»), and also the Vërzhezha hoard, date to the thirteenth century, the primary area treated in this book is devoid of any twelfthcentury finds of electrum trachea,299 with the exception of two single coins of Manuel I at «238. Athenian Agora», whose dates of loss cannot be determined. Even northern present-day Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia have yielded only one hoard each for that century.300 Modern Bulgarian territory has produced a few more finds,301 which is reasonable given the generally high number of hoards there, but the real surprise are the Anatolian and eastern finds.302 This prevalence in Asia Minor, as we shall see, is continued in the thirteenth century, with a secondary cluster of Balkan finds of Thessalonican issues. The real enigma is the almost total lack of available electrum or silver trachy finds for the Epirote region, either for the period before or after 1204, 295  Lemerle, “Trois actes du despote d’Epire Michel II”, p. 416, no. 8 (1236) and p. 422, no. 11 (1246). See also Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 79. 296  Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 270, n. 57, citing Tzannetatos, Πρακτικόν. Morrisson has demonstrated that the enigmatic term ‘gellion’ is none other than a mis-reading of trikephalon. 297  See Appendix III.2, p. 1522. 298  See Nicol, Epiros II, p. 86, with reference to the 1319 chrysobull for Ioannina. 299  It is worthy of note that the small hoard from Cape Sepias in the Pelion peninsula, Thessaly, once thought of as an electrum trachy hoard, is now known to contain only gold hyperpyra: Σύνταγμα, p. 87, no. 67, and Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 581, n. 54. 300  See Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards”, p. 71 (Thessalonike), and Mirnik, Coin Hoards, p. 95, no. 384 (Siričino). Compare also Touratsgolou “Ήλεκτρα τραχέα”, p. 93. 301  Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 139, no. 10; pp. 146–147, no. 27; p. 156, no. 52; p. 179, no. 102a; Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, p. 37. 302  Turkey: Adana, Aphrodisias I, and Trabzon (Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenthcentury Hoards”, p. 62, no. 233, p. 62, no. 242, and p. 71); Izmir 1981 [CH, 7 (1985), p. 237, no 355]; Turkey [AD, 27 (1972), NM, p. 7]; the eastern Aegean islands: «462. Lindos 1902»; Cyprus: Nicosia I (DOS XII, p. 371). For some of these finds, see also the comments in Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 352 and 356. There are a number of twelfth-century hoards from the former Soviet Union which might also have contained electrum trachea (or, alternatively, hyperpyra): Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, pp. 9, 63, 70, 82.

1250

appendix ii

given their prominence in the sources and the fact that some were issued at Arta. 1.C.1

Byzantine Electrum Trachea in Post-1200 Greece Hoards containing earlier Byzantine electrum trachea: «4. Ithomi 1900», «5. Naxos 1967», «7. Unknown Provenance». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #134–#137.

These three hoards (and additionally the Vërzhezha hoard) date, numismatically, to the years around 1200. I suggest that they are most likely conquest or post-conquest concealments because of the general dearth of electrum trachea in twelfth-century Greece, because of the greater longevity of this denomination, and because the previous denominational separations within the Aegean area were broken up precisely by the events of the conquest themselves, and the change in the political order. Such an interpretation is confirmed by a Bulgarian hoard of similar composition.303 The concealment and non-retrieval of all these hoards, inside and outside of the covered area, can probably be brought in relation with the Latin conquests of these localities and subsequent population movements. The overall quantity of electrum trachea is very small indeed. 1.C.2

Silver Trachea of the Byzantine Empires at Nicaea (1204–1261), Thessalonike (1224–1261) and Constantinople (after 1261), and of Arta Excavation and single silver trachea of the Byzantine empire at Thessalonike: «237. Arta». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #138–#143.

Greece has yielded only one certified find of the silver trachy coinage of the thirteenth-century successor states, a Thessalonican issue found at Arta. Thessalonican silver trachea are otherwise found in a hoard from Niš in Serbia304 and in a mixed grave hoard from Ohrid which has already been

303  Lakite: DOS XII, pp. 359–360. 304  Mirnik, Coin Hoards, p. 100, no. 417; Radić and Ivanišević, Byzantine Coins, p. 72.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: ELECTRUM TRACHEA

1251

discussed,305 as well as individually at Štip (MK)306 and «525. Tărnovo». Four hoards from Turkey, conveniently summarised by Bendall and Sellwood,307 contain almost exclusively silver trachea of the Nicaean state. «483. Pergamon» has produced a single specimen. These hoards underline the strict separation of the Balkan and Anatolian issues. By occasionally including small quantities of earlier electrum trachea they also prove that the silver trachy is the natural successor of the electrum trachy. It is, finally, useful to emphasize the early datings of these hoards, and the fact that even the later hoard from Torbali is still heavily weighted towards the earliest issues. Whereas the written documentation suggests to us a viable denomination until well into the second half of the thirteenth century, the finds suggest otherwise: Nicaean silver trachea from John III onwards, and those of the Palaiologan emperors, are rare and only some small hoards have been recorded in the trade.308 This strengthens our conviction that this denomination had become, under different guises (manuelati, trikephala), a money of account.309 This is a relevant theme to my final consideration, the issues of the Arta mint. Unlike the billon trachy coinage, which is confined to the rule of Michael II before and, for a short time, after his submission to John III Vatatzes in 1249,310 silver trachea were minted apparently at Arta by four Epirote rulers after ca. 1204: Michael I (ca. 1204–1215), Theodore (ca. 1215–1230), Manuel (ca. 1230–1236), and Michael II.311 It would be nice to believe that the emphasis on the so-called trikephalon coinage of the sources pertaining to Epiros and the striking of silver trachea by the rulers of the area were no coincidence.312 This might well have been the case, but it is nevertheless difficult to imagine that all the documented trikephalon payments, many of which dating well before 1224, the earliest date at which Theodore Komnenos Doukas could have started his prolific issues at the Thessalonike mint, were met entirely with any 305  Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1237, n. 219. 306  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 210. 307  Bendall and Sellwood, “Method of striking scyphate coins”, p. 93: Istanbul, Iznik, Torbali, Turkey. 308  Bendall and Donald, “The Silver Coinage of Michael VIII”; Bendall, “Clipped silver trachea of John III”. 309  See Appendix III.2, p. 1522. 310  See Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243. 311  D  OC IV, pp. 623–624. On the issue of the first of these rulers Hendy has taken the side of Protonotarios (“Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire” and “Michael I or II of Epeiros”), against the opinion of Oikonomidou (“Michel II d’Epire” and “Ανασκόπηση της νομισματοκοπίας του ‘Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου’”). On the Artan electrum trachy coinage, see also Marchev and Wachter, Late Byzantine coins 1081–1453, pp. 564–569. 312  Laiou, “Epiros” implies such a relationship.

1252

appendix ii

electrum or silver trachy issues at all, be they those of Nicaea, Arta or the pre1204 empire. Despite the extensive discussions and illustrations of the various issues of the Arta mint, the number of specimens on which this scholarship is based is truly minute: of this coinage, which spans a good thirty years, merely six specimens are currently recorded.313 It is therefore more than likely that the silver trachy coinage of the rulers (later despots) in Epiros was little more than symbolic or representational. 1.D Hyperpyra The hyperpyron, meaning ‘highly-fired’ or ‘refined in fire’,314 is the name given to the main gold coinage of Byzantium and some successor states until the mid-fourteenth century. It was the product of the Alexian coinage reform of ca. 1092.315 This coinage,316 at least in its initial phase, raises fewer problems than the other Komnenian denominations which are discussed in this appendix: its fineness of 20½ carats was fairly consistent,317 and its method of production at the main Constantinople mint is well understood, thanks to Hendy’s painstaking work especially with regard to the officina markings.318 The apparently secondary products of the Thessalonike mint in the twelfth century are however controversial (see below). 313  Michael I’s two specimens from the NM and the Protonotarios collection, in DOC IV, pl. 46.1.1 and 1.2 are the same as Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 17.1 and 2, and Protonotarios, “Michael I or II of Epeiros”, nos 1 and 2, and as Oikonomidou, “Michel II d’Epire”, figs 3 and 4, and as Oikonomidou, “Ανασκόπηση της νομισματοκοπίας του ‘Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου’”, nos 5 and 6 (the numbering system of the latter is not accurate as a result of the fact that the entire plate is re-produced in mirror image). The second of these pieces went to auction on 10 May 2006 (Auction LHS, 97, p. 71, no. 207).    For the issue of Theodore, the one specimen from the BM in DOC IV, pl. 46.1 features in Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 17.3, and in Protonotarios, “Michael I or II of Epeiros”, no. 4.    For Manuel, the one specimen is located in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: DOC IV, pl. 46.1. The same coin is reproduced as Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18.10, and as Protonotarios, “Michael I or II of Epeiros”, no. 5. See now Lianta, Late Byzantine coins, p. 182, no. 469.    Until recently only one specimen of Michael II was known, that published by Longuet: see DOC IV, pl. 46.1, and Protonotarios, “Monnayage du ‘Despotat’ d’Epire”, pl. 18.11, and Protonotarios, “Michael I or II of Epeiros”, no. 6, and Oikonomidou, “Ανασκόπηση της νομισματοκοπίας του ‘Δεσποτάτου της Ηπείρου’”, no. 7. Bendall (“Michael II”, nos 1a and 1b) has located Longuet’s piece in the BnF, and has found another specimen in Vienna. 314  Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, p. 267, n. 34. 315  For the twelfth-century coinage system, see Chapter 1, pp. 8–24. 316  On which see specifically: DOC IV, p. 43 and passim. 317  D  OS XII, pp. 10–12. 318  D  OS XII, pp. 157–187 and tables 6–8; DOC IV, passim; Metcalf, review of DOC IV, p. 397.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1253

During the reign of Alexios I, the hyperpyron and its sub-divisions, 24 carats or keratia of weight, replaced the old nomisma as the main unit of measure for the empire. As in the case of other monies of account, the hyperpyron of account was soon divorced from the actual coin of this name. Already in the twelfth century, and almost universally in the post-conquest period, citations of hyperpyra in whatever language in the literary or documentary sources did not necessarily relate to any specific issues, and might well have referred to totally different coinages altogether, thereby creating potentially false impressions of the monies in usage.319 Therefore, my main analysis of the hyperpyron as it is encountered in the sources occurs in Appendix III. There remain, however, some very important citations which contribute unmistakably to our knowledge of the production and circulation of the hyperpyron gold coinage, especially for the post-1204 period, and these are discussed in the relevant passages below. Unlike the electrum trachy coinage with its peculiarities in usage and circulation,320 the gold hyperpyron displays an even spread throughout the twelfth-century empire and the neighbouring areas,321 including the Greek peninsula.322 A number of hoards have been recorded for Greece, three alone from Ancient Corinth,323 while the nearby «3. Mapsos 1991» is treated as a probable post-conquest concealment and therefore discussed below. A single hyperpyron is also recorded for Corinth for the excavation period 1896–1914.324 An additional Peloponnesian hoard was found at Grivitsa, historical region of Pylia, more precisely in a location called Depentziko just to the east of Methoni.325 One or even two twelfth-century hyperpyron hoards

319  See for example Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, pp. 268–269, where it is wrongly asserted for thirteenth and fourteenth century Crete that “les parties … utilisent constamment la monnaie byzantine”, or “La Crète connaît donc une longue survivance du système monétaire byzantin.” See also Baker and Stahl, “Morea” in this respect. 320  See here above, Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. 321  See Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 108–110, for an overview of the material. 322  See Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988” for hyperpyron circulation in Greece; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 357, and Papadopoulou, “Big problem of small change”, p. 209, for the differences between electrum trachea and hyperpyra. 323  Corinth 1907, containing one hyperpyron of Alexios I amidst French pennies (Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 4–6); Corinth 1914, two hyperpyra of the same emperor; Corinth May 1938, 30 hyperpyra of Manuel I (Penna, “Life in the Byzantine Peloponnese”, p. 232, no. 1, and p. 235, no. 13). 324  Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, p. 141. 325  Σύνταγμα, pp. 84–85, no. 64: 9 hyperpyra of Alexios I. See also Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988”, pp. 367–369, for an extensive analysis.

1254

appendix ii

might have been found in Athens,326 another kept in the NM is without provenance.327 From Thessaly two hyperpyron hoards are known: one entitled Naos Theotokou 1907 from Cape Sepias in the Pelion peninsula, previously thought to have contained electrum trachea;328 another from Melivoia 1998 in the nomos of Larisa.329 It is of some significance that these hyperpyron hoards are either extremely small, containing just one or two pieces each, or are larger and connected to monasteries, according to Penna and Touratsoglou (Grivitsa, Melivoia, and Corinth May 1938 for our area, and others from further north: see below). Moving outside of the area of analysis, Greek Macedonia has produced four hoards apparently dating to the twelfth century, from Veroia330 and Kastoria in the west,331 and, from the Chalkidike (Adrameri 1995/1996332 and Vrasta333). The picture is completed by hoards from Bulgaria334 and Turkish Thrace,335 from Anatolia,336 and outliers in Croatia337 and the East.338 The sizes of these hoards show a greater variation than their Greek counterparts. By far the larg326  The first from 1862 has been mentioned in Touratsoglou, “Άρτα”, p. 217, n. 22, though not since. The second hoard, entitled ‘Athens’ before 1970 (Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988”, esp. p. 371), is nevertheless of unknown provenance. 327  Two hyperpyra of John II: AD, 22 (1967), NM, p. 11. 328  See Appendix II.1.C, p. 1249, and Σύνταγμα, p. 87, no. 67, Nikolaou, “Θεσσαλία”, p. 581, n. 54: 3 hyperpyra of Manuel I. 329  Σ  ύνταγμα, p. 94, no. 80; Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988”; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 357, n. 40. 330  Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988”, pp. 371–372. 331  Σ  ύνταγμα, pp. 90–91, no. 75; Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988”, pp. 372–373. 332  Σ  ύνταγμα, p. 95, no. 81; Penna and Touratsoglou, “‘Θησαυρός’ Μελιβοίας/1988”, pp. 373–374 and 382–383. 333  The important Vrasta 1974 hoard (see Touratsoglou, “Βραστά”) is further discussed in the catalogue entry for «41. Agrinio 1978/1979» and in this Appendix (p. 1262) in the context of the imitative gold coinages of the thirteenth century. 334  From Pisaratsi in the Loveč province (Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, p. 51); two hoards from the Pernik province [CH, 6 (1981), p. 56, no. 235, p. 57, no. 245]; two hoards from the Pazardžik province (Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, p. 43, and DOS XII, p. 401). Further, hoards from Săedinenie (DOS XII, pp. 386–387); Stara Zagora (Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 109, n. 26); Osoïtsa (Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, p. 62); Novo Selo (DOS XII, pp. 372–373); Gornoslav (DOS XII, p. 343). 335  Pınarhisar: R. Ashton in NC, 154 (1994), p. 284, no. 59 (= CH). 336  From the Muğla province: Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 351–352, with further bibliography. Another Anatolian hoard does not have a precise provenance: Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, p. 93. 337  The island of Korčula: Mirnik, Coin Hoards, p. 94, no. 374. 338  I am referring to some gold hoards from the former Soviet Union which might have contained either electrum trachea or hyperpyra: Appendix II.1.C, p. 1249, n. 302.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1255

est hoard of the twelfth century, from Gornoslav, can nevertheless be proven to have had an unmistaken monastic connection, even if some of the technical details are disputed.339 The hyperpyron was the clear coinage of choice for the storage and safe-keeping of private or institutional wealth and shows a stable presence in the heart of the twelfth-century empire and in its key economic structures, the large estates. 1.D.1

Byzantine Hyperpyra in Post-1200 Greece Hoards containing earlier Byzantine hyperpyra: «3. Mapsos 1991», «41. Agrinio 1978/1979». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #144–#148

The Corinthian «3. Mapsos 1991» is, similarly to some tetarteron, billon and electrum trachy hoards,340 a hoard which dates numismatically to ca. 1200, but whose concealment and non-retrieval might conceivably be pushed into the conquest period after 1204. The previously mentioned hoard from Lakite (BG) provides another example of twelfth-century hyperpyra in slightly later contexts.341 Containing merely two specimens, the hoard from Mapsos adheres to the earlier hoarding pattern described above. From the neighbouring Arkadia we know of a single hyperpyron of Alexios III (1195–1203: not included in the appendices, though illustrated as #147) The majority of the hyperpyra contained in «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», a hoard from the 1230s, is already dated to the thirteenth century. The internal structure of the 53 twelfth-century issues demonstrates nevertheless that no large-scale process of culling of these older issues had taken place. 1.D.2 The International Profile of the Hyperpyron Coinage after 1200342 In the thirteenth century, the hyperpyron managed not merely to maintain its previous importance and its prolific production, circulation, and hoarding rates, but in fact increased its profile in all of these respects. It was internationally 339  See the propositions by Hendy, “Gornoslav”, and by Lefort and Smyrlis, “Gestion du numéraire”, p. 196, n. 43. Consider, nevertheless, that this hoard has a substantial so-called Thessalonican component and might have been concealed in the thirteenth century: see below, p. 1262, and Chapter 2, p. 136–137. 340  Appendix II.1.A.1, p. 1201; Appendix II.1.B, pp. 1210–1211; Appendix II.1.C.1, p. 1250. 341  Appendix II.1.C.1, p. 1250. 342  The international profile of the ‘bezant’ – whether Arab or Byzantine – has relatively recently been assessed by Bompaire, “Besant”.

1256

appendix ii

important, and there is a wealth of documentary sources which attest to the presence and usage of the Byzantine gold hyperpyron in a number of contexts. This coinage set the standards, sometimes indirectly, for other gold coinages of Mediterranean, such as those of the Kingdoms of Jerusalem and of Sicily.343 Some Italian wages might have been paid in hyperpyra.344 Private and public wealth in England was stored and exchanged in this currency.345 The French and English royal treasuries of the thirteenth century held fractions of their wealth in this coinage,346 and the issues of John III Vatatzes found usage in a French mathematical manual of the same period.347 Documentation in connection with the famous shipwreck off Trapani in western Sicily, which occurred in the course of the 1270 preparations for the Tunisian crusade, shows small quantities of hyperpyra amongst a much larger collection of moneyed and non-moneyed metals.348 ‘Romanini’ are amidst a number of foreign coinages which are to be prevented from circulating in the Regno according to a decision taken a year later.349 An act of 1279 shows this ban enforced in Puglia by a representative of King Charles, who intervened personally to return the confiscated sum of 89 florins and 17 hyperpyra to their owner, the abbot of Bellaville.350 Official valuations of the hyperpyron (at two tarì each in 1281351) testify to the continued arrival of such specie in south Italy. The yearly dues paid by the monastery of Fiore in Calabria for the exploitation of salt were measured in hyperpyra.352 This is reminiscent of the ‘michaelaton’, another southern Italian system of account based on a Byzantine gold coinage, the histamenon of Michael IV (1034–1041).353 The popularity and longevity of the michaelaton, according to Morrisson, was precisely due to the fact that it was easily converted into the local tarì system. Even if the hyperpyron also took on an accounting function in south Italy, the fact that it was embraced in instances such as the cited ones must be the reflection of a certain spread and usage of this coinage. 343  Morrisson, “L’ouverture des marchés après 1204”, pp. 220, 227, 231. 344  Saccocci, “Wage payments”, p. 153. 345  Cook, “Bezant”. 346  Morrisson, “La diffusion de la monnaie de Constantinople”, pp. 88–89, nn. 33 and 34. See also Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 200. 347   Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 500, n. 6. 348  Registri, 6, p. 176, no. 915 (24 May 1271); Carolus-Barré, “Trapani”. See Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1310, and Appendix II.11.A, p. 1500. See also Chapter 2, p. 154. 349  Registri, 7, p. 295, no. 41 (24 May 1272). 350  Registri, 23, p. 170, no. 13 (13 Sept. 1279). 351  Registri, 24, p. 167, no. 146 (17 May 1281). 352  Registri, 26, p. 10, no. 58 (1284). 353  Morrisson, “Michaèlaton”.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1257

Beside these sporadic mentions of hyperpyra in Italian contexts, scholars have used different bodies of sources to postulate large-scale movements of Byzantine gold coinage to Italy. Laurent used the combined evidence of Byzantine and Italian narrative sources to document direct Byzantine payments to various Italian political factions in an attempt to undermine the position of Charles of Anjou during the period from 1268 to the Sicilian Vespers in 1282.354 Another possible Italian recipient of hyperpyra was the Republic of Venice, often as the result of claims made for certain damages incurred by Venetians in Byzantine territory.355 The precise form in which these payments were made and their order of magnitude often escape us.356 Their importance and impact are even more uncertain. Laurent sought to link some of the debasements of the hyperpyron to precise payments to Italy, though his scheme rests on the wrong usage of some documents357 and can be disproven by more recent metallurgical analyses.358 Other scholars have concluded that these payments, together with an alleged Byzantine negative trade balance, led to the birth of the Italian gold coinages.359 This is problematic in more than one respect: the ducat and florin360 might have first been minted in the mid- to late-thirteenth century, though it was only in the first half of the fourteenth century that they began to make a significant impact. It is also more than likely that other, namely African and South Italian, gold sources contributed substantially to these coinages during their periods of inception. If anything, the production of the Byzantine hyperpyron, as we shall see, actually increased in the fourteenth century, and when it finally declined the recipients of this bullion were arguably locations in the Balkans, the Black Sea, and Anatolia, rather than the Latin west. With regard to a supposed negative 354  Laurent, “Vêpres siciliennes”. 355  Compare the main discussions in Chapter 3, pp. 268–271. 356  Only some actual arrivals of monies in Venice are documented: Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 99, no. 74 (14,000 hyperpyra in 1302); Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, p. 139, no. 77 (14,000 hyperpyra in 1320); Predelli, Commemoriali, 2, no. 405 (14,000 hyperpyra in 1324) (the last three refer in all likelihood to the same incident); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 187–8, no. 450 (4,000 hyperpyra in 1325); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 23, no. 3 (the same sum in 1329: again presumably from one incident). 357  Laurent refers to Zakythinos, “Crise monétaire”, pp. 24–25, who had erroneously used local rather than metropolitan hyperpyra of account in his calculations of exchange rates. 358  On debasements and analyses see below, p. 1258, n. 365. See also Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 271–272, who responds directly to Laurent’s scheme. 359  See Bratianu, “L’hyperpère” and, more recently, Brezeanu, “L’apparition de la monnaie d’or”. 360  On these Italian gold coins see Appendix II.4.D, pp. 1306–1314. Compare also Chapter 1, pp. 61 and 67.

1258

appendix ii

trade balance one should point out that the presence of the Venetian grosso in Byzantine lands, and the subsequent minting of the basilikon in large quantities, suggest quite the opposite, certainly for the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.361 Looking also beyond the thirteenth century, one should finally note that the hyperpyron of Constantinople of account362 can be found in the sources relating to the territory under discussion. This might imply the presence of actual hyperpyron coins, even though there is a dearth of corresponding numismatic evidence. 1.D.3

Hyperpyra of the Byzantine Empire at Nicaea 1204–1261 Hoards containing hyperpyra of the Byzantine empire at Nicaea: «40. Athens 1928», «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», «42. Albania»(?), «45. Erymantheia 1955», «46. Patra before 1940»(?), «47. Seltsi 1938», «53. Corinth 15 June 1925», «62. Trikala 1949», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915»(?). Excavation and single hyperpyra of the Byzantine empire at Nicaea: «263. Corinth»(?). Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #149–#150.

That the hyperpyron coinage should have survived so well the political upheavals caused by the Fourth Crusade needs to be attributed to the diligent maintenance of older specie by public and private users, and eventually the terrific success of the hyperpyron issues of the empire at Nicaea, and of the Latin empire at Constantinople.363 Nicaea minted gold substantially from the reign of John III Vatatzes onwards (augmenting production sometime in the 1220s).364 The Nicaean hyperpyron initiated the significant debasements of the hyperpyron: there are seven more or less clear stages during which the standard of the gold coinage is lowered up until ca. 1320, after which its freefall is more difficult to chart.365 Judging from the record of finds and from the 361  Chapter 1, pp. 52–54. 362  Appendix III.1, pp. 1510–1522. 363  On monetary matters in the wake of the events of 1204, see also Chapter 1, pp. 46–57. 364  D  OC IV, pp. 475–478 (although some of the described hyperpyra are imitations of the Nicaean type, a phenomenon which Hendy does not contemplate). See Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Imitative gold coinage”, p. 499, for a proposed, though minute, issue of Theodore I Laskaris. 365  Morrisson L’or monnayé, pp. 158–170; Hendy, Studies, p. 236; Morrisson, Barrandon, Bendall, “Proton activation”; Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”, figs 3 and 4; DOC V, pp. 128– 130. On the debasement of the hyperpyron, see also Chapter 1, pp. 43, 50–52.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1259

surviving specimens, issues of the Nicaean type, perhaps in part because of their lower standards, might have been produced in larger quantities than those of the twelfth-century predecessors. This impression might in the future be strengthened if more issues currently held to be twelfth-century are attributed to the thirteenth, as is likely. Recently, some serious attempts have been made to identify hyperpyron issues produced by political entities other than the Byzantine empire at Constantinople and Nicaea, for instance by the Latin or Bulgarian empires (see below on both these accounts). Many typologies, chronologies and attributions remain to be fully understood, and this state of uncertainty also has some serious repercussions on the analysis of hyperpyron circulation patterns in the first half of the thirteenth century. It is nevertheless clear that circulation in Greece itself received a major impetus once the Latin empire started minting a gold coinage from the 1240s. Before that date there is a short if important phase during which the issues of Nicaea appear in Greece. This phase is all the more interesting since it has provided us with the single most valuable medieval assemblage found in the primary area of analysis, «41. Agrinio 1978/1979».366 This hoard, together with «40. Athens 1928», suggests that the availability of hyperpyra rose in the postconquest period, and was freed from some of the previous constraints that I have described. If we accept that the main high-value money and money of account in early thirteenth-century Epiros was the electrum trachy,367 then sporadic mentions of hyperpyra in the relevant documents are perhaps indications that actual gold hyperpyra became available also there in this period, although the same sources occasionally reveal supply problems in this currency.368 After this initial phase, Nicaean hyperpyra arrived in Greece more sporadically. It is perhaps telling that two certified later finds («53» and «62») are from Thessaly and Corinth. Perhaps only some parts of our area of analysis continued to be supplied with monetary specie from the Byzantine empire, for the commercial and geo-political reasons which are also explored for the billon trachy coinage.369 The gold issues of Theodore II Laskaris are actually quite rare and I know of only one hoard, in addition to «53. Corinth 15 June 1925», which closes in these hyperpyra.370

366  Chapter 2, p. 131. 367  Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. 368  Laiou, “Epiros”, pp. 209–210. 369  Appendix II.1.B.5 and 6, pp. 1235 and 1239. 370  From the Romanian Stoeneşti (Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 131). See also a Crimean grave which contained a single such coin (Strässle, “Beitrag der sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Numismatik”, p. 102).

1260 1.D.4

appendix ii

Hyperpyra of the Latin Empire at Constantinople 1204–1261 Hoards containing hyperpyra of the Latin empire at Constantinople: «42. Albania»(?), «45. Erymantheia 1955», «46. Patra before 1940»(?), «47. Seltsi 1938», «52. Xirochori 2001», «53. Corinth 15 June 1925», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915»(?), «70. Corinth 8 May 1934». Excavation and single hyperpyra of the Latin empire at Constantinople: «263. Corinth»(?), «270. Corinth», «300. Karditsa». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #151–#156.

The main hyperpyron type of John III Vatatzes from the Magnesia mint was imitated by the Latin empire in Constantinople. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt quite recently.371 However, inspired by a famous passage in Pegolotti’s merchant handbook citing ‘perperi latini’, and to a much lesser extent the treaty of 1219 between the Venetian podestà and Theodore I Laskaris,372 other writers such as Metcalf, Morrisson or Bertelè had previously sought such imitations amongst the coins of John III.373 Pegolotti indicates some obv. mint marks which he identifies as Latin. Pegolotti’s descriptions had to a certain extent confused the cited numismatists because these marks are nevertheless not all exclusive to the Latin issues. The criteria which were established by Oberländer-Târnoveanu, according to which one can discern such Latin specimens from the genuine issues of the Magnesia mint, are somewhat different to those given by Pegolotti, namely style (particularly the clumsy features of the obv. Christ) and the shape of the nimbus:374 on the latter, consider for instance #153, #154, #155. As it happens, 371   Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”. 372  Both are referred to in Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”. See also Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 237–238, for a convenient summary of the evidence as it stood until relatively recently; further Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 203; Penna, “Βυζαντινό νόμισμα και λατινικές απομιμήσεις”, pp. 14–15; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 537. 373  Summarised in Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 506, nn. 55–58. Note that DOC IV (p. 477), which appeared a couple of years before the article of OberländerTârnoveanu, had not contemplated the existence of Latin imitatives. The Σύνταγμα also fails to classify hyperpyra according to the new system. Metcalf’s premonition on the solution to the problem of perperi latini is also interesting (SE Europe, p. 131): “The implication that John’s gold … was imitated by the Latin emperors … cannot … usefully be pursued until illustrations of the finds … and in particular the very large Mihail Kogalniceanu … have been published …”. Actually, this Romanian hoard, also known as Uzun Baïr, forms the basis of Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s classifications. 374  Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 506ff.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1261

the great majority of coins which are accordingly identified as Latin display the obv. mint marks which Pegolotti prescribes. The reason why it took so long for this distinction to be made by modern scholarship lies in the additional fact that these coins appear to be surprisingly rare in some contexts, for instance at DO375 or the BM,376 and the fact that the much-used and well illustrated «41. Agrinio 1978/1979» is too early for these issues to have made an appearance. Oberländer-Târnoveanu dates the beginning of the Latin Imitative hyperpyra to ca. 1240, on stylistic grounds. This is later than the early Latin Imitative series of billon trachea,377 but can be reconciled with some of the substantial payments which reached Constantinople from the west in this period, or indeed the increasing economic prosperity of certain sectors of Latin society in the metropolis, according to the recent research of David Jacoby in opposition to some of the older views on the supposed decadence of later Latin Constantinople.378 Unlike the earlier Latin billon trachy imitatives, it is possible that the Venetian podestà in Constantinople was responsible for the production of these issues.379 It is certainly to be excluded that these hyperpyra were minted anywhere in Latin Greece, the Peloponnesian mint of Clarentza having been put forward.380 This is improbable from virtually every point of view, numismatic and historical.381 Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s classification of some of the specimens in the name of John III as Latin has made a decisive impact on our knowledge of the general pattern of hyperpyron production and circulation in the first half of the thirteenth century, the latter especially in Greece, though further work on this series still remains to be undertaken. The typological links between thirteenth- and twelfth-century issues are complex: the main hyperpyron type of John III, copied by the Latin empire, is itself based on a Thessalonican issue of John II (1118–1143).382 There are, in fact, individual specimens of the main type whose placements in the twelfth or thirteenth century according to the presently-established criteria are not entirely obvious, even before one 375  D  OC IV, plates 29–30. 376  B MC, pl. 67; BMC Vandals, pl. 29. Many of these coins are from the large find from Izmir (see below, p. 1266). 377  Appendix II.1.B.3, pp. 1223–1226. 378  Compare also Chapter 1, pp. 32 and 45; Chapter 3, p. 232. 379  The evidence is summarised in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 247–248. See also Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 203. 380  Leonard, “Effects of the Fourth Crusade on European gold coinage”, p. 83. Another attempt to sub-divide further the Latin hyperpyra in the name of John III has been undertaken by Avdev, “Perperi comunali i perperi latini”. 381  Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 382  Metcalf, “John Vatatzes and John Comnenus”.

1262

appendix ii

contemplates, in the case of the latter, whether they are Latin or Nicaean. But research into imitative processes in the hyperpyron coinage at the turn of the thirteenth century into other directions is also ongoing, and there are already some hints at further discoveries to come. Jordanov studied the Tvărdica II hoard and he believes to have found a Bulgarian hyperpyron coinage, in the shape of sub-standard specimens of Thessalonican coins of John II and Manuel I.383 Oberländer-Târnoveanu agrees with the typological observations but wonders whether the supposed gold production in Komnenian Thessalonike might be called into doubt altogether.384 Such an approach would certainly alleviate some of the problems regarding the basic attribution to the twelfth or thirteenth century, which have just been mentioned. As for an actual Bulgarian gold coinage in this early phase, he prefers to identify it rather in a crude gold imitation of an electrum trachy preserved in the National Bank of Romania. Somewhat later, a hyperpyron was produced under the reign of Ivan II Asen (1218–1241),385 though again only one specimen survives. As far as the supposed twelfth-century hyperpyron issues of Thessalonike are concerned, which had been identified as a coherent group by Hendy on typological grounds, much has conspired against their traditional interpretation in recent scholarship. In addition to Jordanov’s and Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s analyses, their rather peculiar hoarding pattern has been commented upon,386 as has the strange transitional phase leading up to the main issue of John II (or III?).387 Lianta has in fact inadvertently furthered the case by focusing on coins of this phase contained in the hoards from Vrasta and «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», on the level of die identities.388 Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s explicit statement that the twelfth-century gold coinage from Thessalonike – especially of emperors John and Manuel – should be transposed more or less wholesale into the thirteenth century, which I mentioned above, is based on these different typological, numismatic, and archaeological considerations. This might imply that also some of these issues are, most likely, to be considered Latin Imitative hyperpyra from a mint in Constantinople.

383  Jordanov, “The perpyra of Tsar Kaloyan (1198–1207)?”. 384   Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Imitative gold coinage”, esp. p. 499. 385  Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, p. 188. 386  Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, pp. 175–176, with reference to the Gornoslav and Vrasta hoards, mentioned above (p. 1254), which have larger proportions of supposed Thessalonican issues than usual. 387  Touratsoglou, “Monnaie byzantine aux XIIe–XIIIe siècles”, p. 388. 388  Lianta, “John II Comnenus”. See also my comments for hoard 41.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1263

These scholarly developments are potentially as ground-breaking and farreaching as Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s original identification of imitations by the Latin empire of the main issue of John III, but they would affect much more the picture in Bulgaria and Macedonia rather than in Greece proper, perhaps for reasons of production/circulation which defy easy explanation: none of the cited Greek hoards containing coins of John II and Manuel I appear to be obvious candidates for re-assessments and re-datings on the proposed lines.389 The impact on Greece of the hyperpyra of Nicaean type which have been classified as Latin according to Oberländer-Târnoveanu’s original identification is all the more significant:390 hoards from the present-day Peloponnesian nomoi of Achaïa («45», «47») and Elis («52», «63»), and from Corinth («53», «70») are reported, single pieces again from Corinth and Boiotia («270», «300»). In other cases we lack the relevant typological information to determine whether we are dealing with Latin or Nicaean issues: «42. Albania»; «46. Patra before 1940»; «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915»; «263. Corinth». Hyperpyron hoards in Greece in the thirteenth century assumed a wider geographical spread than in the twelfth, especially as they became more heavily weighted towards Latin issues in mid-century. In this period, too, the overall quantities of hyperpyra contained in hoards diminished again, after the interval marked by the impressively large «41. Agrinio 1978/1979», and the hoards now usually contained many more specimens of western-style silver coinages, which are discussed elsewhere in the appendix. The overall developments of the hyperpyron coinage in Greece in the period 1204–1261, as compared to the twelfth century, were partially shared by other Byzantine and formerly Byzantine areas. The number of finds also increased there quite impressively, especially in the territory of present-day Bulgaria and Romania: many hoards close in issues of the type of John III Vatatzes, while such coins are also found individually.391 The main difference lies in the 389  The hoards are discussed in an earlier part of the present discussion, pp. 1253–1254. 390  The evidence is summarised in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 246–248. 391  Regarding all finds of hyperpyra of the type of John III – whether Nicaean or Latin: the Bulgarian hoards are summarized in Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 130. See additionally Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970”, p. 140; Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, p. 185, no. 117, p. 197, no. 142, p. 226, no. 200. The hoards from Pisaratsi and Preslav have already been referred to in Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1237. Bulgarian stray finds are reported for Preslav and Stara Zagora (Jordanov, Moneti i monetno, pp. 122–124 and 127–128), for Vulchitrum (Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 130), «524. Šumen» and «525. Tărnovo». From northern Greece we know the Drama hoard (Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 338, no. 146; Σύνταγμα, p. 121, no. 111), and a single piece from «521. Rentina». For Romania, three Danubian hoards [Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 130, and CH, 3 (1977), p. 86, no. 251] and a remarkably large quantity of single finds (Iliescu, “L’hyperpère byzantin au Bas Danube”),

1264

appendix ii

apparently smaller relative presence there of hyperpyra attributed to the Latin empire in Constantinople, with merely Asia Minor attaining perhaps a similar circulation of such issues as Greece.392 The fact remains, however, that the vast majority of hyperpyra of the type of John III have not yet been published to the required level of detail. Relatively little progress has been made, therefore, since Metcalf marvelled more forty years ago393 at the wealth of gold in circulation in the Balkans in the period 1204–1261. Fundamental questions regarding issuing authorities and chronologies, and the causes behind coin circulation, are yet to be comprehensively clarified. 1.D.5

Counterfeit Hyperpyra Excavation and single counterfeit hyperpyra: «238. Athenian Agora». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #157.

The only currently known hyperpyron counterfeit from Greece is a single specimen from the Athenian Agora, not mentioned in Thompson’s catalogue: this is a crudely executed and plated version of the standard Nicaean/Latin type, which may well post-date the medieval period. 1.D.6

Hyperpyra of the Byzantine Empire after 1261 Excavation and single hyperpyra of the Byzantine empire after 1261: «228. Aktaio». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #158–#159.

including from «516. Păcuiul lui Soare», have been published. For a Rhodian hoard see Kasdagli, “Medieval Rhodes”, p. 329; for three Anatolian hoards see Hendy, “Seventeen Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century Hoards”, pp. 65–66, no. 263 (Bergama); p. 68, no. 264 (Koçaeli); p. 70 (Sinekli). See also Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 359–360. More recently a very significant hoard of ca. 30 hyperpyra has come to light in a grave at Anaia. These remain unpublished: Mercangöz, Kadıkalesi, p. 15. 392  Certified Latin issues amongst the material listed in the last note are rare: OberländerTârnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”, p. 508, lists some Latin hyperpyra from Balkan locations, which are usually from hoards dating to the Palaiologan period [see for instance Čanakli (MK) and Uzun Baïr (RO), also cited here below, p. 1266]. See further Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 247. The illustrated specimen from Šumen is Latin. Also the Anaian hoard would appear to have contained Latin issues, according to what I have been able to ascertain. 393  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 132.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1265

The only gold hyperpyron find of the period after 1261 reported for Greece is a single coin of Michael VIII Palaiologos, found on the north coast of the island of Euboia. Rather more plentiful Greek finds of billon trachea of this emperor are described elsewhere in this appendix:394 these are either from northern (Epiros/Thessaly) or from eastern (Cyclades, eastern Mainland and eastern Peloponnese) parts of the analysed area. Amongst all of these finds, the single trachy from «231. Andros» is geographically the closest to the gold hyperpyron from «228. Aktaio». Both were minted at Constantinople, the former being a type 11, the latter a type IIIb issue, and are to be situated in the middle to later part of Michael’s reign (†1282). The imperial offensive in the Aegean of 1261, which might have led to the concealment and non-retrieval of the large Naxian hoard («58»), cannot therefore provide us with a context, and these coins were either brought to the area during Michael’s later campaigns, or as part of more regular exchanges between the territories. It has to be assumed that the hyperpyron of Michael VIII from Euboia is the sole known representative of a minor wave of early Palaiologan gold coinage which would have come to Greece, in parallel perhaps with billon trachea of the same issuers. In neither case were these Byzantine coinages hoarded, with the exception of the Epirote cluster,395 and, given the different individual loss rates of gold and copper coinages, it is only logical that trachea should have left a much stronger imprint on our record of finds. A curious testimony to the further availability of Byzantine hyperpyron coins in Greece stems from the pen of Marino Sanudo, who, erroneously, describes Michael VIII as holding the infant John IV in his arms: “li liperi d’oro se battevano con la sua effige con il puttino in brazzo”.396 Nevertheless, the eventual disappearance of Byzantine gold from Greece is a dramatic development, which could be averted neither by exceptionally large production rates at Constantinople,397 for which the involvement of private parties may have been partially responsible,398 nor by the possible existence of Thessalonican issues under emperors Michael VIII and Andronikos II.399 394  Appendix II.1.B.8, pp. 1243–1245. 395  See again Appendix II.1.B.8, pp. 1243–1245. 396  Sanudo, p. 123. 397  On this coinage DOC V, pp. 47–48, 106–112 (Michael VIII), 128–141 (Andronikos II with coemperors), 162–163 (Andronikos III), 176–177 and 183 (John V with Andronikos III/Anna/ John VI). Since the appearance of DOC V, Bendall has written further on the hyperpyra of Andronikos IiI and John V in the light of two hoards (see below, n. 409), and with respect to the most recent hyperpyron issue in Bendall, “Hyperpyron of the sole reign of John VI”. 398  See Chapter 1, p. 40. 399  See DOC V, p. 60, with further references to Bendall’s articles. Consider also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 467, and Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, p. 190, n. 92.

1266

appendix ii

In fact the remainder of the southern Balkans experienced quite the opposite tendency: a large number of late Byzantine gold hoards has been recorded there, and some of these contain the largest number of specimens and represent the largest accumulations of wealth known for any Byzantine period.400 Three hyperpyron hoards dating to the reign of Michael VIII (1261–1282) have been reported, from Macedonia, Romania, and Izmir.401 The period of the sole reign of Andronikos II, and his joint reigns with Michael IX and Andronikos III (1282–1328), has provided us with a mass of evidence: from Bulgaria alone about fifteen hoards are known,402 from the Danube Delta two,403 from northern Greece maybe two,404 another hoard from the eastern Aegean.405 Constantinople itself has produced two or three hoards, perhaps the so-called Early Palaiologan hoard,406 and the Cerrahpaşa and Istanbul 1959/1960 hoards.407 For the period after 1341 about five hoards have been

400  See DOC V, pp. 12–15 for an overview. 401  The hoard from Čanakli (MK) has been referred to in Appendix II.1.B.6, p. 1237; for Giurgiu (RO) see Iliescu, “L’hyperpère byzantin au Bas-Danube”, p. 117; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 284. The so-called Smyrna hoard was presented separately by Borrell, “Unedited coins of the Lower Empire” and Rollin, “Monnois d’or des empereurs de Nicée”. See also DOS XII, pp. 234–235; 246ff and Appendix II.1.D.4, pp. 1263, nn. 391 and 392, 1264, above. It should also be noted that a single hyperpyron of Michael VIII has been published for «474. Ephesos», the latest Anatolian hyperpyron find known to me. 402  The evidence is presented in Gerasimov, “Hyperpères d’Andronic II et d’Andronic III”; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 281–283. See further Gerasimov, “Trésors monétaires trouvés en Bulgarie au cours de 1968, 1969 et 1970”, p. 134 (Veličkovo); Mosser, Byzantine Coin Hoards, p. 28 (Draganovo); E. Georgantelis in NC, 155 (1995), p. 344, no. 42 (= CH) (Paiduško). See also the hoard referred to in Bendall, “Note on the Palaeologan Hyperpyra, A.D. 1320–1325”. 403  Isaccea: CH, 3 (1977), p. 86, no. 253; Uzun Baïr: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Jean III Vatatzès”. Both hoards receive mention in Iliescu, “L’hyperpère byzantin au Bas-Danube”, pp. 112 and 117, and in Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 284. 404  See Penna, “Κατάσχεση Κομοτηνής 1996”, and maybe AD, 18 (1963), NM, p. 8, although the latter is not included in Σύνταγμα. I have in the meantime published a number of additional Thracian hyperpyra in hoards and as strays, summarised in Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 405  Kasdagli, “Medieval Rhodes”, p. 331. 406  Bendall, “Early Palaeologan gold hoard”; CH, 7 (1985), p. 241, no. 368; DOC V, p. 13. On these finds, see again Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 407  On the first of these, now partially at the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, see Veglery and Millas, “Gold Coins for Andronicus III/ 1–3”; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 275 and 301; Gökyıldırım, “Cerrahpaşa”. On the second: Protonotarios, “Proskynesis”, p. 285; Protonotarios, “Monnayage d’or et d’argent d’Andronic III”, p. 82, n. 25; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 272, n. 25. See also DOC V, p. 14. In fact, it is quite possible that these were from the same hoard.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: HYPERPYRA

1267

reported, all from Bulgaria,408 and additionally a significant and very large assemblage which appeared on the market in about 1996.409 The finds of Palaiologan gold coinage are therefore impressive, although they call for a rather mixed verdict: the fact alone that many of these coins were deposited outside of the confines of Byzantium shows how the empire was losing control over the most valuable metal. There is amongst this large number of hoards also very little evidence of any systematic culling by the state, which one would usually have expected to find in the light of the progressive debasements which have been discussed. This resulted in a situation which made Pegolotti’s famously long-winded description of the different hyperpyra in circulation a necessity.410 The fantastically large sizes of some of the hoards from inside (Constantinople and Izmir) and outside (Draganovo near Tărnovo) of the empire are further testimony to structural problems. In the Balkans, concealers of hoards were increasingly inclined to include also specimens of other medium- to high-value (silver) coinages, as they had done in Greece already in the mid-thirteenth century. Some interpretations are, however, possible which shed a more positive light on the history of the hyperpyron in the fourteenth century.411 Maybe the empire was to some extent resigned to debasing and alienating this currency for specific purposes – the purchase of Black Sea grain412 or the employment of mercenaries,413 for instance – because it had switched its main fiscal cycle to silver? The almost complete lack of hyperpyron finds of the Palaiologan period in Greece is perhaps just another manifestation of the general crisis in the Byzantine gold coinage which led in the Balkans and in Byzantium to its withdrawal from circulation and massive hoarding. Apart from a short period under Michael VIII, hyperpyra either failed to arrive at all in Greece and Anatolia, or if they did were swiftly taken out of circulation and their metal re-used.414 These phenomena are naturally linked to broader historical developments, po408  See Gerasimov, “Hyperpères d’Andronic II et d’Andronic III”, pp. 223–224; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 282–283; DOC V, p. 15. Further: CH, 6 (1981), p. 61, no. 265. 409  Bendall, “A Hyperpyron of Andronikos III and John V (AD 1341)?”; Bendall, “A Note on the Hyperpyra of John V and VI (1347–1354)?”. A more in-depth presentation of this hoard had been promised by Bendall. 410  Pegolotti, pp. 288–289. See also Grierson, “Pegolotti”. 411  See in this respect Chapter 1, pp. 50–52. 412  Hendy, Studies, p. 279. 413  Chapter 1, p. 52–54. 414  See Appendix II.1.D.2, pp. 1255–1258, above on the possible movement of Byzantine gold to the west; see Appendix II.4.D.3 and 4, pp. 1315–1317 on ducats and florins minted in Anatolia, the eastern Aegean, and the Peloponnese.

1268

appendix ii

litical and commercial, although the qualitative deterioration of the hyperpyra in terms of weight and alloy standards must have been a major factor in this coinage’s fall from favour.415 1.E Tornesi The Byzantine ‘tournesion’ denomination is usually referred to in the numismatic literature, which took its lead from Pegolotti and Badoer, by its Italian name (tornese, pl. tornesi). It evolved in the course of the Palaiologan period: the main differences are generational and stem from similar changes in the coinages of Latin Greece on which the Byzantine tornesi were modelled, more precisely the transition from the tournois to the tornesello as the main coinage of choice in the course of the fourteenth century.416 The second generation of Byzantine tornesi was minted in Constantinople and in Lakonia, and represents therefore the only coinage issued by the main imperial authorities in the territory and period under consideration in this book. The tornese was also arguably issued at Byzantine Thessalonike, where it does not precisely adhere to the overall developments described for the Peloponnese and the imperial capital. In the written sources this denomination, in its Italian or Greek forms, is occasionally documented for Byzantine territory. Nevertheless, I would argue that these written testimonies refer in the first instance to a standard of value, and secondly to a generic tornese denomination which could be comprised of actual Latin or Byzantine specimens. Any overly confident or literal interpretation of these written passages is misplaced,417 particularly in the light of the fact that Frankish Greek coins were readily available even in Constantinople, as we emphasise throughout this book. These passages are considered in the main section on the tournois denomination in this appendix,418 and also in Appendix III.

415  The possibility that the Palaiologan hyperpyron was produced at profit, and with the involvement of private initiative, might nevertheless suggest that it was appreciated by the commercial sector: Chapter 1, pp. 39–40. 416  See Appendix II.3, II.4.F, II.9, pp. 1283–1293, 1325–1335, 1374–1491. 417  See Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, p. 154, and DOC V, p. 31, “… the word used by Pegolotti  … is to be identified with the coins of Andronikos II and his immediate successors …”. 418  Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1378–1384.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TORNESI

1.E.1

1269

Earlier Byzantine Tornesi from the Constantinople Mint Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #160.

The first generation of Byzantine tornesi was arguably based on the denier tournois of Frankish Greece, in terms of standard and format, if not iconographically. This Frankish coinage became available in Byzantium in the course of the thirteenth century. Its Byzantine equivalent was produced between the reigns of Andronikos II and John V, alone, perhaps from ca. 1304419 to the 1350s, and was a flat billon (ca. 20–25% silver) piece of ca. 0.5–1g.420 This coinage has been barely studied at all, owing no doubt to the scarcity of relevant finds,421 even though it is complex and intriguing. The format and purpose of the tornese, more precisely the existence of imperial, civic (politikon), and anonymous types, in different combinations sometimes on the same coin, await further clarification.422 For the purposes of this book it will be sufficient to note that early tornesi from the Constantinople mint, which were after all based on a Greek prototype and initially produced at a good standard, remained nevertheless confined to a small area around the imperial capital and the extreme southeast of the Balkan peninsula, and completely absent from the territory under analysis. 1.E.2

Later Byzantine Tornesi from the Constantinople Mint Excavation and single later Byzantine tornesi of the Constantinople mint: «271. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #161–#165.

419  Perhaps the tornese was introduced at the same time as the silver basilikon (Appendix II.1.F, p. 1275), but this is speculation. 420  D  OC V, pp. 51–53, 147–148, 167, 185, 193–197, 247–251. See also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, pp. 486, 490–491, 493. 421  See merely the small assemblages referred to in Bendall, “Late 14th Century Hoard” and Bendall, “Palaeologan Billon Tornese”, and individual pieces reported in Zikos, “Μακεδονία και Θράκη”, and Žekova, “Moneti na Paleolozite”. There are no hoards of this denomination: Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 422  See Bendall’s effort to assemble all the available data (“Palaeologan Billon Tornese”). See also the classic study on the politikon coinage (Laurent, “ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ”) and a recently identified forgery (Bendall, “Recent Forgery”).

1270

appendix ii

The coins which I describe here as tornesi are usually termed ‘follari’ in the numismatic literature.423 As part of my discovery of a local Lakonian coinage of the same description (see below) I postulated that also their Constantinopolitan counterparts were likely conceived as Byzantine versions of the Venetian tornesello, with at least the pretence of being a silver-based denomination,424 rather than a lowly copper coinage as the name follaro implies.425 This interpretation was based on weight profiles and the cross patty which appeared on some of the issues, and was also inspired by the silvering which Gökyıldırım had described for some of the specimens contained in the first hoard from the Belgrade Gate (1986).426 My interpretations have since been confirmed by the XRF analyses presented by Georgiades:427 specimens of the main varieties of the Christ in Mandorla type in the names of John and Manuel (DOC V, nos 1391–1393 and 1603–1609) were revealed to contain 6% and 3.6% silver respectively. More recently yet, a number of tornesi were analysed as part of an attempt to describe the reforms of John V, and the nature of the tornese denomination in general, with greater precision.428 This information shows that we are dealing with a billon coinage, and may explain furthermore the value of 12:1 to the Turkish aspron (akče) given to ‘tornexi’ in the account book of Badoer.429 A little bit earlier, in the early fifteenthcentury ‘Rechenbuch’ relating to Constantinople, the tornese-aspron rates are different, fluctuating between 8 and 16:1.430 These divergencies within and across sources are no doubt due to the fact that this mathematical exercise book refers to Byzantine eighth stavrata (aspra),431 which had just undergone a metrological change and were quite light by this stage, and also due to the fiduciary nature of the tornesi themselves. The results of Georgiades’ analyses and the subsequent ones conducted in the Ashmolean Museum, combined 423  See for instance PCPC, pp. 61, 66, 71; DOC V, pp. 27 and 54. 424  Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”. On the tornesello see Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 425  See, however, Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 181, who still prefers to identify as folles the light pieces of merely ca. 0.8g for which I would propose the term tornese. 426  See «497» for further references to this hoard, Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 491 for a rejection, and Baker, “Later medieval monetary life in Constantinople”, p. 35 for a confirmation of Gökyıldırım’s observations. 427  Georgiades, “Ανάλυση”, pp. 200 and 205, nos 61–62. 428  Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 429  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 221. For the aspron, see Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1275–1277, and II.6.G, pp. 1350–1353. For the hyperpyron system of account in Constantinople, see Appendix III.1, pp. 1511–1522. 430  Hunger and Vogel, Rechenbuch, nos 39, 52, 55, 69. See also Bertelè, “Monete del Rechenbuch” and Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 174. 431  See Appendix II.1.F, p. 1276.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TORNESI

1271

with a small hoard from the island of Lemnos,432 attribute also the first of the Christ in Mandorla issues to the reign of John VII (1399–1403) (#163), and not VIII (1425–1448), as we find it in some of the cited literature. We can therefore confirm that this coinage was launched as part of John V’s general reform of 1372 in the shape of DOC V, nos 1394–1395 (attributed wrongly to John VII in DOC) (#161), and that this coinage was a direct reaction to the appearance of the Venetian tornesello in the Aegean. Its production was most heavily concentrated around the turn of the fifteenth century, with three successive types by Manuel II and John VII: DOC V, no. 1610 (Manuel II, after 1391), followed by DOC V, nos 1603–1609 (Manuel II, ca. 1393/4–1399:433 162), followed by DOC V, nos 1391–1393 (John VII, 1399–1403). Some lesser quality issues of the Mandorla type may have followed in the further course of the fifteenth century. The second generation of Constantinopolitan tornesi was therefore supposed to be an intermediary coinage between the pure silver and pure copper denominations. However, being light and of extremely low quality silver, it was evidently particularly prone to casual loss: a good number are reported at sites, for instance, at «508. Istanbul» and «526. Thasos», and a single piece at «527. Thessalonike». Again, our area of analysis fails to participate in these developments, with merely one single find known from the Kraneion basilica at Corinth («271»: #165). An unpublished specimen of the Christ in Mandorla type of Manuel II or John VII was found on the island of Leipsoi in the eastern Aegean, and is now in the Ashmolean Museum. The thin and coppery Byzantine tornesi of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century, based on the Venetian tornesello, but bearing a mixture of Byzantine and western iconographical features, were relatively successful. They had the largest presence and widest geographical spread of any of the Byzantine denominations produced after 1372. They were also part of a more general fashion for later tornesi issued and encountered around the northern and eastern fringes of the Aegean. A few specimens of the Latin states in the eastern Aegean are discussed elsewhere in this appendix according to their finds in Greece.434 The Knights of St. John in Rhodes,435 and the Maona Company in Chios,436 actually issued a good number of pennies in the course 432  Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”, p. 314. 433  In line with the dating proposed for the Lakonian tornesi of the same emperor: see below. 434  Appendix II.6.D, pp. 1346–1347 (Rhodes), II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349 (Chios), II.6.F, pp. 1349– 1350 (Lesbos). See also Appendix II.9.N, pp. 1490–1491. 435  See Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 302–303; Kasdagli, Clerkenwell, pp. 87–99. 436  Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, pp. 193, 196, 221–222; Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις”, pl. 4, 5, 7; Mazarakis, “Chio”, pp. 892–893, 897, 898; Mazarakis, Τα νομί­ σματα της Χίου, pp. 162, 175, 194, 197–198.

1272

appendix ii

of the fourteenth and fifteenth century which might be termed tornesi, but which are otherwise difficult to define and date. In the northern Aegean the ‘tornese’ issues of the Gattilusio at Ainos437 can be found in the area between «526. Thasos», Samothrace,438 and the Thracian areas to the west and east of the Evros river.439 Even the Bulgarians had adopted a penny-style format in the middle of the fourteenth century which repeats the main iconographical aspects of the Byzantine tornesi, the standing frontal emperor and the cross patty.440 However, these coins, minted in the northeastern part of present-day Bulgaria, are apparently absent from Thasos, just as the main Bulgarian sites have not produced finds of the tornesi of Byzantium or of Latin Thrace. 1.E.3

Later Byzantine Tornesi from a Lakonian Mint Hoards containing later Byzantine tornesi from a Lakonian mint: «194. Sparta 1926A & B», «198. Delphi 1894A»(?), «211. Chalkida», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Excavation and single later Byzantine tornesi from a Lakonian mint: «351. Sparta», «352. Sparta», «355. Thebes». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #166–#180.

During the period in which later tornesi were being emitted in the largest quantities at Constantinople there was a Lakonian issue at a short-lived Byzantine mint.441 Only one type was produced, featuring Christ in Mandorla and a standing or three-quarter Emperor Manuel II on the reverse. However, a number of varieties with different sigla and other iconographical details can be described. The style of this coinage is better, more three dimensional, than the metropolitan counterparts. A date in the 1390s, or perhaps 1408/1415–1416 were originally suggested by me, and the mint might have been at Monemvasia or Mystras. In the light of more recent work on the parallel tornese coinage of

437  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XVII.16, 17; Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, p. 274. 438  In the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (inv. 25752). There are also finds unearthed by the American excavations on the island. 439  Baker, “Ainos”; Baker, “Edirne”; Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 440  Dimnik and Dobrinić, Medieval Slavic Coinage in the Balkans, pp. 132–134 and 223–224. 441  On what follows, see Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, where this coinage is presented in much greater detail. See also Laiou and Morrisson, Byzantine economy, p. 221, n. 118, and Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 199, n. 1.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: TORNESI

1273

Constantinople it would seem that these coins are most likely attributed to Monemvasia in the very last years of the 1390s (see also here below).442 Such coins have been found in the Peloponnese and in the eastern Mainland (and now at Thasos). The largest accumulation of this issue is from one or two reject hoard(s) from Sparta («194»), excavated by the BSA, which provided the basis for my classification. Two specimens went up for auction after the completion of my original contribution;443 and two further provenanced specimens from Thasos and Akronauplia have come to my attention since Appendix I was completed.444 In a recent contribution I analysed further the numismatic links between the eastern Peloponnese, and the adjoining areas of the Mainland (Phokis and Boiotia) at the turn of the fifteenth century.445 The most likely scenario which brought the Lakonian issue first to Corinth, and then Delphi and Thebes, are the activities of the Knights of St. John: these ruled over the eastern Peloponnese after 1397, and made a major inroad on the other side of the Corinthian Gulf in 1402. In view of this, it becomes most likely that the coinage in question was minted from 1393/4 at Monemvasia, and then provided the inspiration for the Constantinopolitan issue of the same type (DOC V, nos 1603–1609, see above). Lagos and Karayanos, in a recent contribution on the castle of Mouchli in eastern present-day Arkadia, have put their fingers on some interesting facts: during the decade in question both Monemvasia and Mystras were periodically out of Theodore’s control, and the despot was often based in the north of his territories while engaging with the other powers of the Peloponnese.446 Perhaps it is correct not to search automatically amongst the most significant urban centres for a possible mint location. 1.E.4

Byzantine Tornesi from the Thessalonike Mint Hoards containing Byzantine tornesi from the Thessalonike mint: «178. Athenian Agora 1936». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #181.

442  Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. Compare also Chapter 3, p. 372. 443  J ean Elsen, 9 Dec. 2006, lot 496; Harlan J. Berk Ltd., 23 Oct. 2007, no. 156, lot 589. I thank Simon Bendall and Richard Kelleher for help on the second of these catalogues. 444  See the entries «321. Nauplio» and «526. Thasos», though without specific listings for these coins. There is a further specimen in the storerooms of the former 25th EBA at Corinth, found at the ‘Justinianic walls’: #167. 445  Baker, “Corinthe”. 446  Lagos and Karyanos, “Μουχλί”, p. 201.

1274

appendix ii

The mint of Thessalonike is yet to receive a comprehensive treatment for the period after the copper issues of Anna of Savoy (ca. 1352–1365).447 Elsewhere I have suggested that there was minting of parallel folles and tornesi in the city during the regency of Manuel II (1382–1387).448 These tornesi were found in a small hoard at Athens («178»). Even though they post-date the introduction of the tornesello (1353) and the Constantinopolitan tornese (1372), they appear to be heavier: the range of weights is relatively large, but the coins seem to average at about a gramme. This might be a nod to the older tournois issues which still dominated the Aegean. The circulation of the tournois in Macedonia is discussed elsewhere.449 In mid-century the Thessalonike mint had still converted inferior Artan tournois in the name of John II Orsini450 into copper-denomination coins.451 It has to be assumed that older but betterquality tournois of, for instance, the Clarentza mint,452 remained unscathed in the area, and continued to be used into the second half of the century. There is another rather striking testimony to the tournois in Macedonia and the north: a copper issue of John V and Anna which shows the empress on the rev. beside a Tours-style castle. This issue was then apparently copied by the John’s son-inlaw Francesco Gattilusio at Lesbos.453 1.F

Late Byzantine Silver Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #182–#186.

During the fourteenth and fifteenth century (more precisely from ca. 1304 and ca. 1372 respectively), Byzantium produced two major silver coinages and their fractions, sometimes of good and reliable quality, and in good quantities.454 These coinages were also intended to convert easily into other coinages and systems of account which were in general usage in the Aegean, the Balkans, and in Anatolia. The total absence of any late imperial Byzantine silver in the 447  In fact Metcalf, “Mint-activity in Byzantine Thessaloniki”, Touratsgolou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία” and Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, barely consider these later years, if at all. For the period of John V and Anna, and later Thessalonican issues, see principally DOC V, pp. 197–199 and 203–206. 448  Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos” esp. p. 408. 449  Chapter 2, pp. 99–100. 450  Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1466–1476. 451  These overstrikes have been extensively worked on by Bendall: see most recently Bendall, “An Update on Palaeologan Overstrikes”. See also «494. Thessalonike». 452  Appendix II.9.A, pp. 1376–1427. 453  Geiger and Füeg, “Neues zur Münzprägung der Palaiologenzeit”, pp. 10–13. 454  The background to these coinages is also analysed in Chapter 1, esp. p. 52ff.

COINAGES: BYZANTINE AND BYZANTINE-STYLE: LATE SILVER

1275

area of analysis in this book is therefore a significant negative manifestation, and links in with some of the themes which have already been explored for the gold coinage under the Palaiologan emperors.455 The Byzantine basilikon (#182–#183) was probably introduced in 1304, and its first striking has been brought in connection with the needs of the Catalan Company in the service of Andronikos II.456 The basilikon was based on, but was slightly inferior to, the Venetian grosso,457 and deteriorated further over time. Basilika were first hoarded around Constantinople and in Thrace,458 and then rather belatedly, in mid-century, in Macedonia and Anatolia.459 Stray finds are from this region, and also from somewhat to the west: note the specimens from Agios Achilleios («500») and from Albania (Kruja). In the sources, actual basilika are usually hidden behind terms such as argyria, doukata, trikephala, or aspra. Very occasionally they reveal themselves unmistakably, yet again only for areas lying within the fourteenth-century empire.460 Although the Byzantine basilikon is absent from Greece, «239. Athens» has produced a single Chiot issue of this denomination.461 The term aspron was mostly applied to the various Anatolian and Black Sea silver denominations minted from the twelfth century onwards, but also to some particular coins of Byzantium and of the Latin allies of Byzantium in the eastern Aegean:462 the basilikon of the empire and Chios, as we have seen, the one eighth stavraton and possibly the related aspron from Lesbos (see below), and the main silver denomination of the empire at Trebizond. The Trapezuntine aspron coinage of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries held a regional profile in Anatolia and the Black Sea, but is even documented in the Balkans463 (#186). A most unusual find of such issues is preserved in the NM 455  Appendix II.1.D.6, p. 1264–1268. 456  On what follows, see DOC V, p. 144ff; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 205 and ff. 457  See Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. 458  The evidence is now summarised in Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 459  Basilikon finds are summarized in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 211–215. 460  See Laurent, “Le basilicon”; Kutlumus 2, p. 52, no. 8 (1313), line 25; Docheiarou, no. 53 (1409); Schreiner, Texte, texts 8 and 55; Hunger and Vogel, Rechenbuch, nos 21, 48, 58, 95. See Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, p. 153; Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 176. 461  See Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 462  See DOC V, pp. 23–24, 36–39. 463  A number of issues spanning a range of thirteenth to fifteenth century rulers are noted in Radić and Ivanišević, Byzantine Coins, pp. 52 and nos 1094–1106. See also Georganteli, “Trapezuntine money” and, recently, Guruleva, “Trebizond coins in Crimea”. The standard reference for these issues remains Retowski, Trapezunt, but Bendall, Coinage of the Empire of Trebizond has offered a very useful update.

1276

appendix ii

(«114»). As I argue in the entry for this find in Appendix I, because of its composition a Greek findspot may be assumed. A late Trapezuntine copper may also have been excavated relatively close to our area, in the county of Korçë in southern Albania (Gradishta).464 Given the geopolitical situation, the aspra which one expects to encounter most in Greece are nevertheless those minted by the Ottomans (the akče), the Latins in the eastern Aegean, and later by Byzantium itself. Some rare finds of the former two issuers are discussed elsewhere in this appendix,465 but no Byzantine silver coin finds of the later Palaiologans are forthcoming. The Byzantine aspron, just like the second generation of tornesi,466 is the product of the monetary reform of John V in ca. 1372.467 This introduced the new, heavy silver coin called the stavraton, said to be valued at half-a-hyperpyron, of which the aspron was an eighth (see #184 and #185). The stavraton also probably represented the value of two gigliati, the coinage of Neapolitan and Provençal origin which became prominent in the Aegean.468 The new Byzantine silver coins were conceived for the empire in ca. 1372 in order to make certain payments to the Ottomans,469 and only possibly in order to maintain the Constantinopolitan hyperpyron system of account.470 It may also have helped to integrate the latter with two prevailing foreign systems of the area. Since the appearance of the DOC volume, new work on the stavraton coinage and its fractions, particularly in terms of mints, production and circulation, and chronologies, has been ongoing.471 A distinct periodisation of the stavraton phase is now coming to the fore: while the years ca. 1372–1391 need 464  Karaiskaj, “Gradishta”. The coin in question is probably to be identified as Sabatier, Description générale, 2, pl. LXIX.14, probably of Manuel III or Alexios IV (1390–1446): Retowski, Trapezunt, pp. 176–183; Bendall, Coinage of the Empire of Trebizond, pp. 63–64. 465  Appendix II.6.F (Lesbos) and G (Ottomans), pp. 1349–1353. 466  Appendix II.1.E.2, pp. 1269–1272. 467  See DOC V, pp. 200–203, 208–209, 211–212, 215–222, 225–226, 230–234, 236, 238, on the Byzantine silver coinage of the period. The date of the reform was established as ca. 1372 by Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde” and further developed by Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 468  See Appendix II.11, pp. 1494–1508. 469  The main argument of Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 470  On which see Appendix III.1, pp. 1510–1522. 471  Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 491; Morrisson, “Badoer”; Lianta, “Palaeologan half-stavrata”; Georgiades, “Κυκλοφορία του σταυράτου”; Lianta, “Sigla”; Lianta, “A die-study of the half-stavrata of Manuel II Palaeologus”; Lianta, “Some ‘Stavraton’ Hoards Re-examined”; Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde”; Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”.

COINAGES: STERLINGS

1277

to be considered closely in the light of the relations of John V (and Andronikos IV) with the Ottomans, during the difficult but ambitious reign of Manuel (1391–1425) great innovations took place in terms of types and output, and mints (Constantinople, perhaps Thessalonike, in addition to Monemvasia?, as we have seen). The very narrow area of circulation of late Palaiologan silver coins is all the more disappointing.472 They are completely absent from Greece proper. The documentary sources largely corroborate this confined circulation: with respect to our area, whether the 200 aspra which Thomas Preljubović received 1379 for the release of the abbot of Metsovo473 were Byzantine eighth-stavrata, or Ottoman issues, is impossible to tell. The evidence relating to Byzantine Constantinople and Thessalonike in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century seems to suggest the predominance there of the stavraton and its eighth,474 although one can also here never be entirely sure as to the extent of the usage of actual gigliati and Turkish aspra.475 Venice offered 20,000–40,000 aspra to Despot Andronikos in 1423 to facilitate the sale of Thessalonike to the republic.476 Venetian Thessalonike was always in a precarious position. The pay-offs to high Ottoman officials, a form of tribute, are all recorded in the same currency,477 as are internal matters relating to the administration of the city, such as the payments of guards and other public employees.478 2

English and Related Sterling Pennies479 Hoards containing sterling pennies: «39. Methana», «54. Berbati 1953», «58. Naxos ca. 1969», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «70. Corinth 8 May 1934».

472  A list of hoards is contained in Lianta, “Some ‘Stavraton’ Hoards Re-examined”, p. 122. 473  See Appendix III.4, p. 1564. 474  Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten”; Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, pp. 156–157; Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 480; Morrisson, “Badoer”, pp. 224– 225; Morrisson and Ganchou, “Lingots de Thessalonique”. See also the aspra discussed in Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1270. 475  See the doubts raised by Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde”, esp. pp. 599–603. 476  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 207, no. 1898 (1423). 477  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 225–226, no. 1980 (1425), pp. 234–235, no. 2018 (1425), p. 245, no. 2066 (1427), pp. 253–254, no. 2011 (1428). 478  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 229, no. 1995 (1425). 479  The particular subject matter of British sterlings outside of the domestic context is presented in Stahl, “The sterling abroad”. In Appendix I sterling pennies from the Balkans have not been included. On these, see Allen, “Hoards and Circulation”, p. 124, and Stahl,

1278

appendix ii

Graves containing sterling pennies: «221. Palaiochora». Excavation and single sterling pennies: «223. Acrocorinth», «236. Argos», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «296. Isthmia», «334. Nemea». Hoards in the eastern Aegean, Asia Minor, the Near East, Crete, containing sterling pennies: «460. Belmont Castle 1987», «461. ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard», «462. Lindos 1902», «463. Paphos ca. 1995», «465. Ras Shamira 1966», «466. Plakes before ca. 1971», «467. Patsos ca. 1968». Excavation and single sterling pennies from Asia Minor and the Near East: «471. Acre», «473. Caesarea Maritima», «477. Jerusalem», «484. Pilgrim’s Castle», «485. Priene». Later stratigraphical fills containing sterling pennies: Appendix I.13, no. 44. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #187–#194. The most significant attribute of the English penny of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is its fine silver content, the so-called sterling standard (92.5%). At an official weight of 1.44g, this is also a comparatively heavy penny.480 The vast majority of coins concerning us here are pennies of the short cross rev. design, minted by the kings of England between 1180 and 1247.481 This coinage bears the name of Henry II on the obv., although it was also minted by his sons Richard and John, as well as by Henry III. For this reason, numismatists have devised a comprehensive system of eight classes, which are chronologically progressive, and bear different stylistical features and – occasionally diagnostic – mint and moneyer combinations on the rev. The hoards and single finds of Appendix II aim to record these details as best as possible.482 In 1247 Henry III reformed the English penny and introduced the long cross on the rev..483 This coinage has provided some of the same problems and “The sterling abroad”, p. 135. The rise of the silver currencies in the west, and the importance of the English coinage and also of the English numismatic data, are all discussed in Chapter 1, pp. 58–61. 480  English coins from 1180 onwards and related series are discussed in great detail in Stewartby, English Coins. 481  The English short cross series is most comprehensively treated in Mass, English short cross coins. See also Stewartby, English Coins, pp. 13–71. 482  The system of referencing is contained in North, English Hammered Coinage, 1. A useful guide to the classification system is Wren, Short-Cross Coinage. 483  See Stewartby, English Coins, pp. 72–107. Again, North, English Hammered Coinage, 1, provides the numbering system, Wren, Long-Cross Coinage an identification guide.

COINAGES: STERLINGS

1279

opportunities as its predecessor: a seemingly static typology, which can nevertheless be broken down according to numismatic criteria. Only a few stray finds of the English long cross coinage have been made in Greece, at Argos and Corinth («236», «264», «266»).484 The Naxos hoard («58») is the single most important Greek repository of these issues, and is also one of the most valuable of the recorded medieval Greek hoards.485 The only other certified find of long cross pennies from the wider area is the Cretan «467. Patsos ca. 1968», while the nearby «466. Plakes before ca. 1971», and «485. Priene», might be additional finds of this coinage. I have stated elsewhere that the desire to continue the sterling coinage after 1247 was evidently confined to the narrow geographical strip between the northeast of the Peloponnese, the central Cyclades, Crete, and perhaps the opposite coastal area of Anatolia.486 However, even there the full impetus of the long cross coinage was never felt. «58. Naxos ca. 1969» contains trifling quantities of English long cross issues as compared to the earlier short cross ones (67 and 1293 specimens respectively), especially in consideration of the fact that the hoard was deposited more than a decade after the inception of the new design. In the same period, the 1260s, the long cross coinage was already totally dominant in some very substantial and famous English and continental coins hoards.487 The Cretan hoard is very similar in composition to the Naxos hoard, which had initially induced scholars to believe that these coins were from the same find. It is now clear that this is not the case, and I would consider both of these hoards quite genuine reflections of the sterling currency in usage in the Cyclades and Crete at this point in time. The exceptional size of the Naxos hoard is perhaps testimony to a dramatic event which caused its abandonment, such as the military onslaught under Michael VIII Palaiologos in 1261. This find contains other pennies of the sterling standard, which were minted by King John of England in his capacity as lord of Ireland,488 by the kings of Scotland, who adopted the short cross format,489 or by official and unofficial

484   Some of this find information was already presented in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 245–256. 485  See Chapter 2, p. 129: I estimate it to be the eighth most valuable hoard found in medieval Greece. 486  Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. 487  Archibald and Cook, English Medieval Coin Hoards, pp. 59–142; Haeck, Middeleeuwse Muntschatten Gevonden in België (750–1433), pp. 97–117. 488  Stewartby, English Coins, pp. 60–62. 489  Bateson, Coinage in Scotland, pp. 42–45. Both of these coinages are most conveniently classified according to Coins of Scotland.

1280

appendix ii

German issuers in the short and long cross styles.490 In the British Isles, the Low Countries and the Rhineland and Westphalia, finds of sterling pennies were similarly mixed, with English issues usually prevailing by a significant margin.491 The fact that Scottish, Irish and German issues make a showing in «58. Naxos ca. 1969» and in none of the other hoards from our area of analysis is testimony to the large size of the hoard, and not to any peculiar formation processes which it might have undergone. Similarly, the Cypriot hoard «463. Paphos ca. 1995», at a total of eight sterling pennies, contains one Scottish issue. With the exception of «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», the remainder of the Greek finds in fact contain even fewer sterling pennies, which reduces the scope for any statistical deductions. This Corinthian hoard includes two counterfeit short cross pennies (#193 and #194): the respective class 5 and 8 issues of Iohan/Canterbury and Nichole/London are characterised by very schematic renderings of the obv. head of King Henry, and are quite unlike the German imitations of short cross pennies.492 Most likely, these are to be considered Greek counterfeits. Within the earlier period of the minting of the short cross coinage of 1180– 1247, the most significant development was the introduction of class 5, first minted in the early months of 1205, and the partial withdrawal of circulating coins of all previous classes.493 The dating of this event is particularly interesting in view of the chronology of the Fourth Crusade, the departure from Venice in autumn 1202, the events in Constantinople in 1203 and 1204, and the subsequent conquest of Greece. As a rule of thumb we can assume that short cross classes 1 to 4 were brought to Greece in this precise period around 1204. This concerns specimens from the following finds: «39. Methana», «58. Naxos ca. 1969», «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «268. Corinth», and perhaps some others for which information on the classes are currently not available. The 1202 negotiations between the crusaders and Venice specified payments in sterling.494 As the Balkan finds and the «461. ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard» containing specimens of early classes 1b and c testify, sterlings (and ingots495) were the preferred forms in which northerners transported their requirements in fine metals during 490  See the classic works by Chautard, Esterlin; Berghaus, “Perioden des Sterlings”; Rigold, “Trail of the Easterlings”, and Stewartby, English Coins, pp. 62–63 and 98–99. 491  See the various hoards presented in Archibald and Cook, English Medieval Coin Hoards, and those discussed by Berghaus and Rigold; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, p. 133. 492  Compare the specimens discussed in Stewartby, “German Imitations”. 493  Mass, English short cross coins, p. 6. 494  Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 201; Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”, p. 322; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, p. 135. 495  See Chapter 2, pp. 153–157.

COINAGES: STERLINGS

1281

the Third and Fourth Crusades, and also subsequently.496 In fact, this pattern might have started even before the inception of the short cross coinage in 1180: the hoard from Lindos on Rhodes («462») contains pennies of the so-called Cross and Crosslets or ‘Tealby’ design of 1158–1180,497 and also the ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard included two ‘Tealby’ pennies. Such coins, which were minted less carefully, though still of fine sterling silver, are absent from Greece, and made their way across the Alps only in small quantities.498 But sterling pennies were not merely used by northerners for the purpose of long distance travel. In Italy by the turn of the thirteenth century, the time of inception of the first indigenous fine silver coinages, this currency had already gained a certain standing and been embraced locally: wages were paid and commerce was conducted in this currency.499 None of the Greek finds of classes 5 to 8 (1204–1247), which are the majority of short cross issues found there, can be brought in relation with the conquest itself. They are very conscious subsequent imports into our area, inspired by the presence of earlier classes 1–4, and enabled by the fact that this currency was already known to Italians, the most likely importers of this currency. Such an interpretation is also supported by the neareastern finds of sterling pennies listed above, which date very similarly and might even be testimony to relations between Greece and the coast of Syria and Palestine.500 However, within Greece the sterling penny was of rather limited spread, confined to small quantities and to the islands and the Peloponnese, and even there to the eastern half, with «63. Kordokopi 1972» the only exception. The arrival of the sterling penny was also facilitated by its easy convertibility to the French tournois, at 1:4,501 and to other currencies in circulation. This is underlined by the fact that sterlings are barely hoarded alone in Greece, but usually in combination with tournois, grossi, and hyperpyra. The sterling eventually took its position beside the local hyperpyron of account.502 The documentary sources place this sterling-based accounting system in contexts 496  During the Seventh Crusade (1248–1254) Louis IX received shipments of sterlings: Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 201; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, p. 136. 497  The classification system developed in Allen, Tealby is used in North, English Hammered Coinage, 1, pp. 216–218. 498  See Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 354, for some Italian finds; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, p. 134. 499  Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach”, p. 314; Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”, p. 322; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 549. 500  And in fact most sterling finds there date much earlier than the Seventh Crusade (see above, n. 496) and seem to be the result of more regular contacts. This material is also discussed in Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”. 501  See the next Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293. 502  Appendix III.3, pp. 1525ff.

1282

appendix ii

which go well beyond the numismatic record, into the fourteenth century, and also in Mainland areas of Greece. A Corinthian stratigraphic fill (Appendix I.13, no. 44) is the only archaeological evidence for a fourteenth century circulation of short cross pennies. It is difficult to assess to what extent the coin find evidence presently available might be unnaturally narrow, geographically and chronologically speaking. Nor can one say in how far the sterling as an accounting system had become divorced from the coinage it was originally based on, and might have been applied in areas that had never seen any sterling circulation (e.g. Thebes or Negroponte). Some documents from the higher echelons of political life, relating to the already cited crusade of St. Louis, or to the negotiations surrounding the employment of Spanish knights to defend Latin Constantinople in 1246,503 clearly use sterlings as an internationally recognised standard. The first more domestic reference to sterlings in the Greek context, a 1255 loan of 2740 ‘hyperpyra of sterlings’ in Thebes,504 is already ambiguous: we will never know whether this loan was really paid out in sterling pennies, or whether ‘hyperpyra of sterlings’ was a shorthand for a particular hyperpyron which could be paid in any number of specie, including deniers tournois, grossi, or gold hyperpyra. In the nearby Regno of Sicily, acts of 1279– 1280 of Charles I of Anjou, who was also prince of Achaïa, imply that sterlings were still present, and were to be evaluated at 31 tarì of account per mark in weight.505 Beside the rapid rise of the English sterling penny in post-conquest Greece we should also note its rapid demise in the second half of the thirteenth century. The penny of the Edwardian type, introduced in 1279,506 was if anything even more prolifically produced than the previous short and long cross types,507 and enjoyed an even more overwhelming success in the British Isles and on the adjacent continent. Its absence not merely from Greece, but from Italy, the Balkans, and the Near East, is a significant development on a panEuropean and pan-Mediterranean scale.

503  Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 201; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, pp. 135–136. 504  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, no. 833; Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 202; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, p. 136. 505  Registri 20, pp. 81–82, nos 26 and 27 (1279); Registri 20, p. 196, no. 523 (1279); Registri 22, pp. 29–31, no. 153 (1280); Registri 23, pp. 318–325, no. 11 (1279–1280). On tarì and marks, see also Appendix III.3 and III.7, pp. 1529 and 1583–1584. 506  Stewartby, English Coins, p. 108ff. 507  On the rates of English penny production in these periods, see also Chapter 1, p. 64.

COINAGES: FRENCH TOURNOIS

3

1283

French Deniers Tournois508

The next western penny to concern medieval Greece is the French penny of the Tours type, the denier tournois. Initially an issue of the abbey of St. Martin in that city, the fate of this type changed dramatically when King Philip II conquered the Touraine in 1204.509 Not only did the abbatial issues, which are known in Greek finds, arguably cease at that date,510 but the tournois became a royal coinage emitted at a number of unspecified mints. Possibly prior to that date, Philip had already minted at the abbey in his capacity as lay abbot:511 the issue in question is included in standard works both on royal and feudal coinages: Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176/Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, no. 1653ff. It combines obv. and rev. legends bearing the names of the king and of St. Martin, and it too has been found in Greece and is treated as French royal in this appendix and in the catalogues of Appendix I. After 1204, successive royal issues, which cease to refer to the patron saint of the abbey and city, were minted.512 The overall format of the abbatial and royal issues, with the basic obv. cross patty / rev. châtel tournois types, and simple legends, remained static over long stretches of time. None of the series have been sufficiently well broken down according to stylistical or other criteria, which is especially problematic since the king’s name featuring on royal coins for the period 1223 to 1270 is Louis (VIII and IX respectively). The spelling of the rev. legend, which bears the reference to the city of Tours, nevertheless has an internal evolution: in his writings, Metcalf had increasingly shown to be dissatisfied with a post-1266 dating of the TVRONVS CIVIS variety (Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193).513 More recently, Duplessy dated its 508  On French tournois in Greece, see specifically Metcalf, “Berbati” and Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 247–248. The literature which deals with these issues in the French context is cited in the course of this discussion. 509  Fournial, Histoire monétaire, p. 70; Belaubre, Histoire numismatique, pp. 60–63. 510  Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 101. 511  Belaubre, Histoire numismatique, p. 61. 512  The tournois type, and types based more loosely on the châtel tournois, became popular in thirteenth-century France, and it is not always obvious which issues are to be considered as deniers tournois, purely for the sake of numismatic classification and argumentation. The present discussion deals with the coins of the abbey of Tours, the kings of France, and the royal appanages. Amongst the second category we might consider a rare Greek find («268»), a denier tournois from the duchy of Brittany emitted in the name of Philip II during a period (1206–1213) in which he performed the function of baillistre for a minor (see also Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 27). By contrast, an issue of Châteaudun which ressembles the tournois type (see «264») is considered in Appendix II.5.A, pp. 1335–1337. 513  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 219; Metcalf, “Berbati”, p. 120; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 248.

1284

appendix ii

beginnings to 1240–1250 on the evidence of hoards.514 Greek finds of abbatial and royal tournois are usually quite vaguely dated. Thankfully, a third grouping of French tournois soon entered Greek circulation, and has enhanced the (chronological) profiles of hoards and sites. These are the issues of the so-called royal appanages, in the names of the brothers of Louix IX, Charles of Anjou and Alphonse of France. Charles and Alphonse were granted the right to mint tournois in 1249.515 The first issue of Charles as count of Provence is datable to the same year.516 Alphonse minted as marquis of Provence, as count of Toulouse, count of Riom (Auvergne), and count of Poitou, and it would appear that the tournois type was introduced in these territories in one sweep, in 1251.517 All these tournois probably ceased to be minted in the course of the 1260s in line with two momentous monetary decisions by Louis IX: the feudal issues were suppressed in 1263,518 and the royal tournois pennies were probably halted as part of his monetary reforms in 1266.519 Perhaps significantly, shortly afterwards tournois first began to be minted at Clarentza.520 As a general pattern, the three groups of French deniers tournois – abbatial, royal, feudal – dominated Greece in successive periods. The analysis of the individual issues and their circulation will occur in this sequence. Although tournois are frequently encountered in written sources relating to Greece, either as coins or as monies of account, these sources never disclose the precise issue, French royal or feudal, or Greek.521 There are abundant French sources, and a handful of southern Italian ones, which reveal nevertheless minting standards and exchange rates between the issues (see below). 514  Duplessy, “Saint Louis”, p. 887. See also Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, p. 92, where the new legend is brought in relation with the preparations for the Seventh Crusade, 1245–1248. 515  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 240. 516  Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 202. 517  Certain rare tournois issues might have commenced a bit earlier: see Teboulbi et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, pp. 77 and 78. 518  On the relevant acts see Depeyrot, Histoire de la monnaie, p. 177 and Telbouli et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, pp. 67–68. See also Bisson, “Languedoc”, p. 457ff; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 253. The denier tournois types of Charles of Anjou for Provence which prevail in Greece were most likely discontinued in 1263 (Poey d’Avant, monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos 3947–8; nos 3952–3; no. 3954). Other rarer types which bear his title of king of Sicily were minted again after 1266, but these have not been found in Greece. 519  Metcalf, “Bretagne”, p. 175; Belaubre, Histoire numismatique, pp. 68–71. 520  Appendix II.9.A.2, pp. 1385–1391. 521  See therefore the general discussions in Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1378–1384, and Appendix III.3, p. 1529.

COINAGES: FRENCH TOURNOIS

3.A

1285

Deniers Tournois of the Abbey of Tours Hoards containing deniers tournois of the abbey of Tours: «49. Eretria 1962A», «54. Berbati 1953», «60. Nemea 1936», «61. Attica 1971», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «75. Salamina», «83. Xirochori 1957», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», «125. Eleusina 1894», «198. Delphi 1894A». Graves containing deniers tournois of the abbey of Tours: «221. Palaiochora». Excavation and single deniers tournois of the abbey of Tours: «223. Acrocorinth», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «275. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «284. Delphi», «351. Sparta», «385. Zaraka». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of the abbey of Tours: «400. Sicily». Excavation and single deniers tournois of the abbey of Tours from Italy: «421. Collecorvino», «458. Velia». Hoards in the eastern Aegean containing deniers tournois of the abbey of Tours: «464. Samos 1932». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #195–#201

Abbatial deniers tournois have been found in a number of hoards and sites in Greece, especially in the Peloponnese and Attica, but also in Euboia («49») and Phokis («284»). Assuming that the +TVRONVS CIVI / +SCS MARTINVS (Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 1, nos 1642–1646) issues were discontinued in 1204, interesting possibilities of Greek circulation present themselves, akin to what has been said for English short cross classes 1–4.522 The same is true for Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 176, minted by Philip Augustus as lay abbot presumably before 1204. The two issues in fact appear in the same Greek and other contexts in complete harmony with one another, the only exceptions being single finds of the latter in Elis («317») and Palestine («473»). As with the early English pennies, we have to assume that these early tournois came to Greece in the sweep of conquests that followed the taking of Constantinople in the spring of 1204, or just possibly at slightly earlier moments. However, the size and status of the tournois currency during the first years of Latin rule is even more difficult to determine than that of the sterling currency: 522  Appendix II.2, pp. 1280–1281.

1286

appendix ii

the earliest hoards («49»ff) already contain many more issues of Louis IX and date to the mid-thirteenth century. Comparing sterling and abbatial tournois finds in Syria and Palestine also suggests that in the early thirteenth century the first have a much more significant international profile. One hoard from Samos in the eastern Aegean («464») with 111 abbatial tournois, compensates for this dearth of material. Problems surround the formation and concealment of this hoard, discussed in the relevant entry in Appendix I. The typologies and datings of the tournois themselves are also far from certain, so much so that we cannot determine whether these particular coins would have arrived in the Aegean during the Third or Fourth Crusade, or on another occasion. Whatever the case may have been, «464. Samos 1932» is an amalgam of coinages that were available in the area in the early thirteenth century and not simply a collection of money transposed there from elsewhere,523 and the hoard might therefore be testimony to a certain importance of the tournois in the early thirteenth century. Some of the Corinthian finds, and those from Sparta («351») and Zaraka («385»), with good relative quantities of abbatial issues, confirm this impression. The Italian finds of issues of Tours are, by contrast, very few and all rather problematic, suggesting that this coinage only became available much later together with subsequent tournois imports.524 The weight and fineness standard of the last abbatial issues at Tours has been established by modern analyses: ca. 35% silver in coins of ca. 0.95g weight, resulting in total silver weights of ca. 0.325g.525 3.B

Deniers Tournois of the Kingdom of France Hoards containing deniers tournois of the kingdom of France: «49. Eretria 1962A», «50. Sparta 1926C», «51. Athens 1963B», «54. Berbati 1953», «58. Naxos ca. 1969», «60. Nemea 1936», «61. Attica 1971», «62. Trikala 1949», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «75. Salamina», «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «84. Agrinio 1973», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «94. Naupaktos 1977»(?), «105. Thessaly 1992», «119. Ioannina 1986», «125. Eleusina 1894», «135. Orio 1959», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A»(?), «168. Elis 1964», «196. Delphi 1894B».526

523  Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 355. 524  Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 276. 525  Dumas and Barrandon, Monnaies sous le règne de Philippe Auguste, pp. 47–48. 526   An additional hoard containing such issues is Argos 2005b: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”.

COINAGES: FRENCH TOURNOIS

1287

Graves containing deniers tournois of the kingdom of France: «221. Palaiochora». Excavation and single deniers tournois of the kingdom of France: «223. Acrocorinth», «225. Agios Stephanos», «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «317. Mazi/Skillountia», «351. Sparta», «361. Thebes», «385. Zaraka» Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of the kingdom of France: «399. Naples 1886»(?). Excavation and single deniers tournois of the kingdom of France from Italy: «447. Santa Severina», «454. Sepino». Excavation and single deniers tournois of the kingdom of France from the Near East: «471. Acre», «473. Caesarea Maritima», «484. Pilgrim’s Castle». Excavation and single deniers tournois of the kingdom of France from the Balkans: «508. Istanbul», «522. Seuthopolis». Later stratigraphical fills containing deniers tournois of the kingdom of France: Appendix I.13, nos 34, 38, 48. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #202–#208 Together with English sterlings of short cross classes 5ff, royal French tournois minted between 1204 and 1266 dominated coin circulation during the first half-century of Latin rule in Greece. As in the case of the English pennies, the tournois type possibly first became known in the Aegean as a result of the Third Crusade in the 1190s, and it increased its profile further after 1204. Nevertheless, the bulk of the specimens in evidence were subsequent imports, inspired by these earlier successes. The French issues in question were produced under Philip II, Louis VIII, and Louis IX (Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos 177, 187–188; 193–193A). They were available in a similar, if larger, range of locations as the earlier issues that have just been discussed, including places in the Cyclades («58»), Thessaly («62», «105»), Epiros and the western Mainland [«84», «94» (?), «119»]. The Italian finds of royal coins are as sparse as the abbatial issues, and suggest a similar arrival there, quite possibly via Greece.527 By contrast, finds of tournois in the Near East have augmented since the inception of the royal issues, and are otherwise noted for Constantinople and Bulgaria. It would be possible to go so far as to say that sterling pennies of class 5 and later and royal French deniers tournois perpetuated one another in their 527  Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 276.

1288

appendix ii

spread into the eastern Mediterranean, aided by the fact that even within France their joint usage and circulation was at least tolerated,528 and by an easy exchange rate of 4:1. It is assumed that the royal French deniers tournois at the time of Louis IX, were minted at a fineness of ca. 30% (.299), while the average weight of the best preserved specimens comes in at more than one gramme.529 The tournois of Philip II, whether those minted at the abbey of St. Martin (#202) or subsequently elsewhere, may have been somewhat lighter, though modern analyses suggest that they were also a bit finer.530 Tournois in the names of the French kings Philip II to Louis IX contained therefore very similar total silver weights as the abbatial issues of Tours: four tournois pennies, whether those of the abbey of St. Martin or of Louis IX, and one English sterling penny, were quite consistently the equivalent of ca. 1.3g of fine silver. This lent the monetary affairs of Greece in the first half century of Latin rule a degree of stability: for instance, there is no suggestion that during this period any dramatic interventions into the circulating stock occurred, such as cullings and preferential hoardings, newer issues being simply added gradually to what was already available. However, by the 1260s the situation had changed. As we have said, no tournois were minted in France under Louis IX from 1266 to his death in 1270. During these years tournois issues began in Greece. Although in France tournois of Philip III (1270–1285) appear in hoards in respectable if somewhat lesser quantities than the issues of his father,531 they are not very common at all in Greece: they feature occasionally in much larger and later hoards («83», «85», «92», «168»). In the case of «75. Salamina» the single coin of Philip is particularly significant, since it dates the find and suggests that Greek tournois only 528  See the following hoards, which are almost all from the western half of France: Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, Gisors (no. 149), Mareuil-sur-Lay (no. 203), Le Poiré-sur-Velluire (no. 272), Pontmain (no. 278), Royan (no. 300), Veniers (no. 408), Villardonnel (no. 414). 529  Lafaurie, Monnaies des rois de France, p. 24, no. 201; Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, p. 95, no. 193. A roundabout calculation through a later document relating to feudal issues establishes the weight for the royal issues at 1.127g : Fournial, Histoire monétaire, p. 71, and Telbouli et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, p. 73. About 217 pieces were cut from the mark (see also Belaubre, Histoire numismatique, p. 69), although one document suggests tolerable weight fluctations within a batch of tournois cut from a mark. With regard to fineness, surprisingly high mean figures of ca. 34% have been established by analyses of actual coins by Teboulbi et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, p. 93 (on these data, see also the discussion of the feudal issues below). 530  Lafaurie, Monnaies des rois de France, p. 22; Dumas and Barrandon, Monnaies sous le règne de Philippe Auguste, pp. 47–48. 531  Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, s.v. Philippe III.

COINAGES: FRENCH TOURNOIS

1289

reached this part of the Saronic Gulf after 1270. An obol of the tournois type of Philip IV (1285–1314) was found at «268. Corinth» (#208). For the period 1204–1266, a few noteworthy tendencies in royal French tournois circulation in Greece may be described: there are no hoards at all dated during the minting of the royal tournois of Philip II (1204–1223), but 11–12 in the period before Greek tournois were first minted in ca. 1267 [hoards «49»–«70» («75») from the above list, in addition to Argos 2005b]. Some of these hoards have very low quantities of tournois, and others are insufficiently published. It seems nevertheless true to say that the hoarding of tournois began in Greece only in the fourth decade of the thirteenth century. We know from some of the larger and later French hoards that Duplessy, Monnaies fran­ çaises royales, no. 176, of Philip II was minted in significantly smaller quantities than Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, nos 187 and 188 of Louis VIII (1223–1226) and/or Louis IX.532 The TVRONVS CIVIS variety of Louis IX (Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, no. 193) was minted in larger quantities still, between the mid-40s and 1266. Our Greek hoards manage to reproduce the French pattern to some extent, though with more emphasis on the central period represented by issue nos 187 and 188, and less so on the early years after 1204, and on the later issue no. 193. This is underlined in an admirable fashion by some of the large single find units at Corinth («263», «264», «266», «267», «268», «271»), and to a more limited degree at «238. Athenian Agora», «351. Sparta», «385. Zaraka». In the light of this we can state that royal deniers tournois began to arrive rather slowly in Greece after 1204, that the 20s to 40s saw the high point of imports, but that this movement continued at a slower pace into the 50s and 60s: «63. Kordokopi 1972» and «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», concealed in the 1260s, show the royal issues at their most mature, with the Corinthian hoard being compositionally more ‘conservative’ than the western Peloponnesian hoard.533 3.C

Deniers Tournois of Alphonse of France (1249–1271) Hoards containing deniers tournois of Alphonse of France: «51. Athens 1963B», «54. Berbati 1953», «60. Nemea 1936», «61. Attica 1971», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «75. Salamina», «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «84. Agrinio 1973», «85. Unknown Provenance

532  See for instance from Appendix I the hoards from «530. Aurimont» and «532.Puylaurens». 533  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 245.

1290

appendix ii

June 1975», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «168. Elis 1964», «196. Delphi 1894B», «198. Delphi 1894A».534 Excavation and single deniers tournois of Alphonse of France: «238. Athenian Agora», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «354. Thebes». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Alphonse of France: «388. Filignano». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Alphonse of France from Asia Minor: «483. Pergamon». Later stratigraphical fills containing deniers tournois of Alphonse of France: Appendix I.13, nos 14, 55. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #209–#212. Tournois minted in the names of the two brothers of Louis IX appear in the Greek hoards beside the French royal issues from «51. Athens 1963B» onwards, that is to say from the 1250s. The various coinages in the names of Alphonse of France and Charles of Anjou were conceived, minted and discontinued during approximately the same periods. They also moved to Greece and Italy according to the same rules. The metrological relationship of these issues to one another, and to the royal issues, is not entirely certain: it was initially stipulated that Alphonse’s tournois (in this case from Toulouse) should be minted on the royal standard (1251 and 1253).535 Modern analyses have produced some unduly high figures for the silver content of the issues of Alphonse, due no doubt to surface enrichment in the coins themselves, but these are the same as those achieved for the royal issues in the same run of tests referred to above (ca. 34%).536 Metcalf has pointed out that Sanudo’s famous narrative in which King Louis grants William II of Villehardouin the right to mint tournois537 might well be fictitious and a memory of a similar act towards the king’s two brothers.538 The implication of this passage would then be that they were minting at the same standard of fineness as Louis IX, and that this was ca. 28% silver. In certain Neapolitan sources French royal and feudal issues are also treated on a par, although Genoese documents suggest that in the 1260s 534   An additional hoard containing such issues is Argos 2005b: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”. 535  Fournial, Histoire monétaire, p. 71; Teboulbi et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, pp. 73–74. 536  Teboulbi et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, pp. 93–94. 537  See also Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1381. 538  Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 210; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 237 and 240.

COINAGES: FRENCH TOURNOIS

1291

a Provençal tournois was worth only 94% of a royal French one.539 We do not know whether the inferior issue in question was of Alphonse or of Charles of Anjou, and we cannot really ascertain whether perhaps one or the other of Alphonse’s tournois issues were not, similarly to those of Charles (see below), deficient in weight and/or fineness. A recent study of the respective monetary policies of these two brothers suggests that Alphonse was generally keener to adhere to the royal stipulations and to toe the official line.540 Whether or not Alphonse’s issues were, like those of Charles, inferior to the royal tournois, the margins were perhaps also too small to have influenced their behaviours in the Greek context. There are maybe six known Greek hoards which contain jointly the issues of royal France and of the royal appanages, and which were concealed while one or the other of these was still in production (until 1263/1266): «51»–«70» from the above list. We notice that the issues of Alphonse usually prevail over those of Charles of Anjou, but that both are still outnumbered by royal issues. This is in complete conformity with the pattern observed for French hoards of the same date.541 Subsequently, the two territories diverge. Our hoards from «81» onwards, that is to say in a period when the coinages of Louis IX, Alphonse, and Charles of Anjou had already been discontinued by more than a decade, are now dominated by the issues of the appanages. In France, by contrast, the opposite tendency can be observed. This confirms beyond any reasonable doubt, as Metcalf had first proposed,542 that the domestic ban in 1263 had brought these coins to Greece.543 «388. Filignano», which lacks French royal issues altogether, demonstrates that this specific movement of specie also affected southern Italy, this time directly and not by necessity via Greece. 3.D

Deniers Tournois of Charles of Anjou, Count of Provence (1246–1285) Hoards containing deniers tournois of Charles of Anjou, count of Provence: «54. Berbati 1953», «60. Nemea 1936», «61. Attica 1971», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «75. Salamina», «77. Corinth 1992», «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963»,

539  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238. 540  Telbouli et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, esp. p. 70. 541  Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, pp. 167–168, hoards dated after 1249. 542  Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 48–49; Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 213. 543  The numismatic data is set out in Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 240; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, pp. 276–278.

1292

appendix ii

«131. Attica (?) 1967», «152. Unknown Provenance ca. 1964», «196. Delphi 1894B», «198. Delphi 1894A».544 Graves containing deniers tournois of Charles of Anjou, count of Provence: «213. Aliartos». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Charles of Anjou, count of Provence: «230. Andros», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «263. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «312. Lamia». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Charles of Anjou, count of Provence: «388. Filignano», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886»(?). Excavation and single deniers tournois of Charles of Anjou, count of Provence, from the Balkans: «526. Thasos». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #213–#215 In the period after 1270/1280, the percentages taken up by the issues of Charles of Anjou from Provence, as compared to the other feudal French issues, increased somewhat in the Greek hoards (see also the grave find «213. Aliartos»). It is of course quite possible that the main issue of Alphonse as marquis of Provence was predominantly minted rather early in the period 1251–1263, and Charles’ much more closely to the latter date, thereby affecting the Greek finds. Although I have denied this elsewhere as an explanation which is perhaps too obvious,545 the fact that Charles was king of Sicily from 1266, suzerain over Latin Greece from 1267, and prince of Achaïa from 1278, might have given his Provençal issues something of a privileged outlet into these territories. We must nevertheless assume that the movement of feudal tournois from France to south Italy and Greece was largely the result of private initiative. Lastly, at a theoretical weight of 0.996g and a theoretical fineness of ca. 31%,546 his coins were also demonstrably less valuable than most other French issues. In which precise way the different French royal and feudal standards had a bearing on early Achaïan minting is not entirely certain,547 but their somewhat lower standards may just have spared some – if not all – of the Provençal issues from being culled from circulation once local tournois were 544   An additional hoard containing such issues is Argos 2005b: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”. 545  Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 278. 546  Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 121; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 237; Teboulbi et al., “Alphonse de Poitiers”, p. 75. 547  See Appendix II.9.A.2, pp. 1385–1391.

COINAGES: FRENCH TOURNOIS

1293

being minted at Clarentza. Beside these observations regarding the central period ca. 1220 to ca. 1270, the circulation of French royal and feudal tournois in Greece and neighbouring territories is quite unremarkable in later periods of the middle ages, being largely confined to small areas and small quantities of finds. 3.E

French Denier Tournois Counterfeits Hoards containing French denier tournois counterfeits: «92. Pylia 1968/ 1969». Excavation and single French denier tournois counterfeits: «264. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «268. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #216–#218

Counterfeits of French royal and feudal deniers tournois are encountered very sparingly in Greece: they are confined to one hoard («92. Pylia 1968/1969») and one site (Ancient Corinth) from the Peloponnese. One of the TVRONVS CIVIS coins of Louis IX in «61. Attica 1971» might also, according to Metcalf’s assessment, be a copy. With regard to types, an early hybrid French-Greek counterfeit known from the older numismatic literature makes a contribution to our understanding of the early minting activity at Clarentza.548 The Peloponnesian hoard, which was concealed early in the fourteenth century, contained a single French-inspired counterfeit beside seven other counterfeits, and amongst more than 3,000 genuine deniers tournois. The coin in question (Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 216, no. 20, pl. XLII.20) bears an obv. akin to the Provençal variety Poey d’Avant, monnaies féodales de France, 2, nos 3952–3 of Charles I of Anjou, although the rev. is closer to the royal French legends. At Corinth we find mostly counterfeits that reproduce the royal French legends, just occasionally the abbatial ones of St. Martin. The finds from Pylia and Corinth would suggest that counterfeits of Greek tournois already heavily outnumbered those of French tournois by the first decade of the fourteenth century. On this evidence, a very low level of counterfeiting might have been underway in the mid-thirteenth century, but this activity increased exponentially by the end of the century.549

548  Appendix II.9.A.2, p. 1390. 549  See the discussion on Greek tournois counterfeits: Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490.

1294 4

appendix ii

Venetian and Related Coinages

English and French pennies of the sterling and tournois varieties came to Greece in good quantities during and after the Fourth Crusade. Venetian coins – base pennies and especially grossi, which fitted into the same system of account as the French and English pennies550 – constituted the second important grouping of early western imports into Latin Greece. In the further course of the middle ages, with fewer European coinages circulating there, successive generations of imported Venetian coinages dominated the area more and more. The story of medieval Venetian coinage is of course vast and has been much written about.551 Its particular presence in Greece552 was complex and spans a number of periods, which began before 1200 and continued throughout the fifteenth century and later. 4.A

Pennies and their Multiples Excavation and single Venetian pennies and their multiples: «238. Athenian Agora», «266. Corinth», «268. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #219–#220

The penny (‘piccolo’) was the earliest and, until the late twelfth century, the only coin of the Venice mint. The presence and importance in Byzantine and Latin Greece of this low quality denomination is particularly difficult to define: on the one hand, it is an elusive object of archaeological discovery, being present merely at «238. Athenian Agora» and in Ancient Corinth («266» and «268»), in the shape of thirteenth/early fourteenth century quartaroli and 550  Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”. 551  Amongst the large number of relevant bibliographical items, the following four might be singled out particularly, in order of appearance: Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia, the standard guide through all the issues emitted by the Venetian state, and the relevant source material; Cessi, Problemi monetari veneziani, which added greatly to the documentary sources; Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, written, in a similar vein, as a narrative of Venetian monetary affairs, mostly from the point of view of the republic. Stahl, Zecca, covering the workings of the Venice mint, Venetian monetary policy, but also the usage and impact of Venetian coins. 552  Specific bibliography on Venetian coins in Greece will be referred to in the relevant discussions. An overview on this subject matter has been attempted by Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”. On the particular interaction of Venetian and Byzantine coins, see the rich and important if somewhat unwieldy and outdated Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: PENNIES

1295

their doubles.553 A certain link between the Venetian and Byzantine monetary systems at the turn of the thirteenth century has been argued. This would assume at least a certain availability of Venetian piccoli in the Aegean area. Unfortunately, this case has not been made particularly convincingly and we cannot infer the presence of such coins on this basis.554 Nevertheless, such a possibility cannot be dismissed either, and it is in this respect quite compelling that no detailed archaeological data are available for any of the Venetian colonies in Greece.555 Further, the piccolo and the Venetian pound (of piccoli) does appear in sources relating to medieval Greece. Applied in certain periods and in certain ways, the Venetian piccolo and its pound of account will more likely than not denote their actual presence: This is the case in some wills and dowries for Coron recorded by Pasquale Longo in the late thirteenth century.556 There are 273 piccoli to the local hyperpyron. There are also Venetian pounds and piccoli in some fourteenth century acts for Coron and Modon.557 Plenty of these concern payments within Venice, others between people residing in Venice but in which cases we cannot really determine the place of exchange. There are some acts in which all exchanges evidently took place in Coron-Modon, though the one-time specification that this ‘libra denariorum Venetorum’ is to be paid ‘in bonis ducatis auri’558 is certainly a warning that any value system was easily convertible into most forms of specie. Later in the same century the grosso and parvo (piccolo) could also be integrated into the gold system of account, in which case the latter would be mere fractions of the gold ducat (1152 piccoli to the ducat), rather than being a freestanding denomination in its own right.559 553  See also Stahl, Zecca, p. 207, on the wider circulation of these coins. 554  The Venetian grosso is said to have been created to fit in with a Byzantine system of account based not so much on the Venetian but on the Veronese penny (Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach”); the quartarolo is said to have been conceived as a Venetian tetarteron (Saccocci, “Quartarolo”). The level of interaction between Venice and the East in monetary matters is generally played down in Travaini, “Quarta crociata” and Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”. Compare also the relevant discussions of the Constantinopolitan and Venetian systems of account Appendix III.1 and III.6, pp. 1511–1515 and 1573–1574. 555   The medieval coin finds from some Venetian-held towns («259. Chalkida», «320. Methoni», or «475. Irakleion») amount, characteristically, to no more than a handful of pieces in total. 556  Pasquale Longo, pp. 33–34, no. 42; p. 24, no. 30; p. 30, no. 37. Compare also Appendix III.3, p. 1526. 557  See Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, s.v. libra; Venezia – denarius Venetus, libra denariorum, etc. 558  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, no. 6.243 (1335). 559  Compare Chapter 3, p. 372; Appendix III.6, p. 1578.

1296

appendix ii

In other Venetian colonies the piccolo and its pound are also occasionally encountered: at Durazzo and Corfu the short period of Venetian rule at the beginning of the thirteenth century left a mark on the later Angevin period and on the persistence of these monies.560 Cretan notaries use piccoli as dividers for grossi.561 Especially since the rate of the grosso and piccolo was re-adjusted in the later thirteenth century, it remains possible that this was sometimes, though perhaps not always, simply a way of accounting grossi or, in later times as we have seen, gold ducats. Pegolotti states that in Negroponte (Chalkida) Venetian coins circulate at the same rates as domestically, and gives the equivalent of one tournois to three bagattini.562 In about the same period, a servant in Coron was paid three pounds of ‘bagadini’ per year.563 These were either Venetian or Veronese pennies.564 Such piccoli might have been distributed to the Venetian colonies by individuals operating within the colonial network.565 In view of both of these considerations – the lack of viable archaeological investigations and the rather sporadic evidence of the documentary sources – one may suppose that in such urban and Venetian colonial contexts the Venetian penny and its multiples were in usage. 4.B Grossi Hoards containing Venetian grossi: «43. Corinth 1898», «52. Xirochori 2001», «58. Naxos ca. 1969», «62. Trikala 1949», «63. Kordokopi 1972», «64. Ioannina 1821», «65. Kirkizates Artas 1915», «70. Corinth 8  May  1934», «74. Thebes 1998», «77. Corinth 1992», «80. Athens/Agios Andreas 1937», «81. Troizina 1899», «82. Larisa ca. 2001A», «83. Xirochori 1957», «88. Delphi 1933», «96. Kapandriti 1978», «99. Delphi 1927», «106. Unknown Provenance», «107. Unknown Provenance», «110. Arta 1985A», «113. Unknown Provenance», «122. Thebes 1967»(?), «137. Kafaraj», «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965», «144. Unknown Provenance», «145. Unknown Provenance». 560  Appendix III.4, p. 1556. 561  The sales acts: Franciscus de Cruce, nos 19; 95; 121; 162; 298; 303; 324; 327; 340; 349; 449. See also the one relevant entry in Benvenuto de Brixano known to me (no. 15), and Stahl, Zecca, p. 206, n. 27. See further Appendix III.5, p. 1565. 562  Pegolotti, p. 149. Compare Appendix III.3, p. 1533. 563  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 1, no. 1.64 (1333); Chrysostomides, “Symbiosis in the Peloponnese”, p. 164, n. 43. 564  Stahl, Zecca, p. 25. 565  See the case of an oarsman who fled a galley but was apprehended in Ragusa and ordered to pay back a sum in pounds and shillings ‘de pizoli’: Krekić, Dubrovnik, no. 694 (1424).

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: GROSSI

1297

Excavation and single Venetian grossi: «235. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «253. Ballsh», «254. Berat», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «285. Delphi», «299. Kaninë», «301. Karditsa», «309. Kleonai», «334. Nemea», «351. Sparta», «374. Thessaly», «377. Thessaly», «381. Τrikala». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #221–#245 Two studies have been specifically dedicated to the Venetian grosso coinage in Greece,566 and very few new data or interpretations have been put forward particularly since the appearance of the second of these.567 The present exposition follows therefore largely the paper that Touratsoglou and I contributed to the studies in the memory of Father Loenertz. The Venetian grosso was arguably launched in 1194 as the first Italian largemodule fine-silver denomination.568 Neither its inception, nor its early life, are necessarily to be viewed in the context of the Fourth Crusade or of Venice’s colonial ambitions, but are the results of domestic concerns, principally the arrival of German silver and the need for a more viable denomination than the small and base penny.569 Saccocci’s assumption that the grosso was designed to play the role of the silver miliaresion within the Byzantine hyperpyron system, at 12:1, is particularly unconvincing:570 the miliaresion had by that point in time disappeared within Byzantium even as a unit of account, and in the early thirteenth century the rate of the grosso in any of the current hyperpyron systems was very unstable and often not simply 12:1 (see below). The circulation and usage of the Venetian grosso in Greece and in the wider southern Balkan and Anatolian area needs to be considered in combination

566  Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”. 567  With regard to additional data, numismatic or documentary, see: Morrisson, “Coinage and Money in Byzantine Typika”, pp. 265 and 271–272; Laiou, “Epiros”, p. 211 (negative evidence); Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 246. From the above list, the following grosso finds were not used in the two studies: «52», «74», «82», «137», «253», «254», «334», «351». For interpretations see: Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”, pp. 325–326; Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 366; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 527–528 and 543ff; and Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. See also Chapter 1, pp. 58–60. 568  There has been controversy in both of these regards: see Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 203–204, with detailed references. 569  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, passim; Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 543ff; Baker, “Τα βενετικά νομίσματα”. 570  Saccocci, “Tra Bisanzio, Venezia e Friesach”, esp. p. 322.

1298

appendix ii

with other grosso-based coinages,571 minted in Serbia572 and by Byzantium,573 and by the Genoese colony of Chios.574 The Venetian grosso was minted at a slightly higher standard than all of these: It had a theoretical weight of 2.18g and a fineness of 96.5%, and contained therefore ca. 2.1g of fine silver. The grosso finds of Greece, and especially the almost complete absence of issues of Doge Enrico Dandolo (1192–1205) (see #221),575 demonstrate that this coinage did not play the same role as the sterling or tournois during the Fourth Crusade itself. We have seen fine silver contents for the English sterling penny of ca. 1.3g, and of the royal French tournois of ca. 0.3g. Whereas the relationship between these coinages appears to be clear, the gradual introduction of the grosso into this system in the early course of the thirteenth century adds an element of doubt. Initially, we may assume the following theoretical equivalents: 1 grosso = 1.5 sterling pennies = 6 tournois pennies.576 The royal tournois had in fact less silver than this rate would indicate, and the Venetian grosso appeared in Greece rather belatedly during this century, by which time the main tournois in circulation were the slightly less fine feudal or Greek issues. In practice, therefore, in the further course of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth the rates ranged between 8 and 12 tournois to the grosso.577 The highest component of the post-conquest monetary system was the thirteenth-century hyperpyron from Constantinople and Nicaea.578 Since there was a significant dichotomy between any hyperpyron of account and the actual hyperpyron currencies, it would be difficult to pronounce on a precise equivalent between grossi and these actual gold coins. It is however unlikely that the hyperpyron of the type of John III Vatatzes was ever valued at 12 grossi, a higher figure of 15 may be presumed based on the known gold-silver ratio.579 These coinages were hoarded in different relative constellations. As far as the grosso is concerned, a small and pure hoard from Corinth, presumably from the 1230s or 1240s («43»), was followed by a string of thirteenth-century Peloponnesian and Cycladic hoards in which grossi are the minority coinage

571  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 204–205. 572  Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305. 573  Appendix II.1.F, p. 1275. 574  Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 575  See merely «65». 576  Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”, p. 357. Compare also Appendix III.3, p. 1531. 577  Appendix III.3, p. 1532. 578  Appendix II.1.D.3 and 4, pp. 1258–1264. 579  Compare Chapter 2, p. 128.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: GROSSI

1299

(«52», «58», «63», «70», «77», «81», «83»),580 and another grouping of hoards in Thessaly and Epiros in which they are dominant («62», «64», «65»). From the turn of the century onwards, that is to say a period in which grossi were already largely absent from the Peloponnese,581 an impressively large number of hoards from the eastern Mainland manifests itself in which grossi dominate («74», «80», «88», «96», «99»). Some of these, and the more northerly «82. Larisa ca. 2001A», contain also Serbian grossi which will be addressed in the next discussion. Beside a possible Theban grosso find from the further course of the fourteenth century («122»), the focus shifts to the northern part of our area, with hoards from Arta («110»), Ioannina («143») and Albania («137»). The latter two, concealed presumably in the 1330s, were the latest hoards (again, with the exception of the newlydiscovered hoard from Argos). This reflects the much more pronounced pattern in neighbouring Macedonia, where pure grosso hoards were concealed in large numbers in this period, and also subsequently.582 The second generation of Venetian grossi, introduced in 1379 and found so prolifically in the Near East, is seemingly absent from Greece and mostly from the southern Balkans.583 Considering particularly the large size and high value of individual grosso coins, the number of recorded stray finds is impressive. The evidence of single grosso finds is a valuable addition to the hoard data,584 suggesting a rather longer and more significant presence throughout the entire territory considered in this book. This is particularly the case when compared with English sterlings and French tournois, which were confined to certain territories and to shorter periods. In fact, amongst the single grossi a good number are from Albania («253», «254», «299») and Thessaly («301», «374», «377», «381»), which were largely untouched by these other coinages. The stray record has also provided us with the only evidence of grosso counterfeiting: some time before 1312, two counterfeit grossi were brought to the Frankish complex in Corinth («268») by the authorities and cancelled by halving. The Papadopoli collection has a 580  Not included in Appendix I is a recent hoard from a church at Sagri on the island of Naxos, containing large quantities of grossi closing in Bartolomeo Gradenigo (1339–1342): Dellaporta, Panagia Orfani. 581  Consider merely the single finds «235» and «267», and a single Serbian coin from Corinth, discussed below (Appendix II.4.C, p. 1303). The recent find from Argos (Argos 2005a) which is also not included in Appendix I and also closes in the issues of B. Gradenigo (1339–1342), is the exception: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων”. 582  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 211–212 and maps 5–7. 583  Stahl, Zecca, pp. 23–24 and 35, n. 42. A hoard containing such issues is nevertheless conserved at the Archaeological Museum in Edirne, and another has been found in northwestern Anatolia. Compare Chapter 1, p. 52, n. 300. 584  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 215.

1300

appendix ii

number of grosso counterfeits, although we cannot be sure that they have a Greek connection at all.585 These grosso counterfeits which are now at Venice are all sub-standard in certain design details which render them unlike the official series. At any rate, they do not belong to the kind of grosso counterfeits in the name of Doge Lorenzo Tiepolo noted in the southern Balkans, but not in Greece, which are altogether much smaller specimens.586 There are a number of bodies of primary sources which reveal the usage of the Venetian grosso in Greece and adjoining areas, complementing the numismatic data: changes in the local hyperpyra in private Venetian acts concerning southern Greece, Crete and Dalmatia from the 1220s onwards suggest the first influx of grossi on a significant scale.587 Official Venetian documentation records the transfer of monies from Venice to the colonies in pounds of grossi,588 however in larger quantities only from the second half of the century.589 Other grossi entered the northwestern part of our area in the 1270s and 1280s as official Angevin consignments from Puglia, according to the Registri.590 The evidence of the Albanian finds would suggest that grossi reached the area also subsequently. Ragusan sources also document the grosso as central to commercial relations along the Albanian seaboard and in cross-Adriatic communications.591 Between twelve and thirteen of these grossi made up the local hyperpyron.592 A little bit earlier, and somewhat further down the coast, grossi had not yet been in evidence in the pertinent documentary sources. With regard to the grosso in the relations between Naples and southern Greece, the information gained from the Angevin sources is a bit more sparing, though it still emphasizes the centrality of the grosso to the local accounting system, at 10 to the hyperpyron.593 In 1282 the Venetian authorities 585  Castellani, Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini, p. 255: see #240–#245. 586  Metcalf, “Echoes of the name of Lorenzo Tiepolo”. 587  See Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 218, and Appendix III.3, pp. 1523–1524; Appendix III.4, pp. 1554–1555. 588  On this system of account, see Appendix III.6, p. 1574. 589  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 217; Chapter 3, pp. 269–271 and 298–307. 590  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 217. On grossi in the Angevin system, see also Appendix III.3, p. 1529 and Appendix III.4, pp. 1557–1558. 591  For a number of acts from the 1240s, see Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 188–189. Somewhat later: Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 170, no. 14ff (1281): a number of dowries, work contracts, unspecified payments; p. 173, no. 37 (1284): grossi are amongst other coinages robbed from an individual travelling between Brindisi and Valona; pp. 171–2, nos 23–28: prices for slaves in 1282 are given in this denomination. 592  Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 189, nn. 193–194. See also Appendix III.4, pp. 1557–1558. 593   Registri, 11, p. 67, no. 191: this document of Nov. 1274 stipulates that the mint masters of Brindisi should pay money to two Venetian merchants which had been lent to Barre, the captain general of Charles of Anjou in Achaïa: “ad rationem de sterlingis XIX ed med. pro yperpero (…) ad rationem pred. libris XXVI sol. VIII et den. VI turon. pro yperperis

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: GROSSI

1301

also identified the grosso and the tournois as the main vehicles of trade between the Peloponnese and Puglia.594 In the Greek language sources, grossi are first mentioned for the Pelion peninsula of Thessaly in the 1270s. Already a decade later the Athonite documentation suggests that grossi, referred to as (megala) doukata, were firmly embedded in the hyperpyron of Macedonia and Lemnos.595 After the turn of the century the crisis in the grosso system of the area, with good and new Venetian grossi pitted against worn or broken pieces or specimens of inferior mintage, can be traced in the same sources.596 Early to mid-fourteenth-century merchant handbooks demonstrate that Venetian grossi were still in some usage in southern and central Greece,597 at widely fluctuating rates (10–12 grossi to the hyperpyron in the Zibaldone da Canal, seven in Pegolotti). Some private acts from southern Messenia also reveal grosso usage which lasted a bit longer than the hoards suggest:598 plenty of these acts drawn up in Greece concern payments in Venice in the grosso-based accounting system (pounds or shillings of grossi), others concern two parties of Venetians, only a few clearly express exchanges and values which are confined to the Greek context.599 Some disparate and otherwise problematic Greek-language accounting notes might also suggest that some grossi were still circulating in Greece somewhat later.600 Certain travellers, such as William IV, count of Holland, who passed Clarentza and Modon in 1343–1344, would have continued to bring grossi to Greece,601 if not so much the main political players of the region, Angevins and Venetians.

LXXXI et ducatis III”. Note that the hyperpyron of the Peloponnese is rendered into a rather crooked sterling rate (19.5) in order to accommodate the grossi. The same Barre was also lent 307 hyperpyra and 8 grossi by a Venetian merchant, to be paid back in September 1274 in Calabria: Registri, 12, p. 139, no. 543. In this year, too, a very substantial loan of 150 pounds (= 36000 grossi), which John I Angelos of Neopatra had given Barre, was to be paid back: Registri, 11, pp. 150–151, no. 302. Compare Appendix III.3, pp. 1524. 594  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 41, no. LV. 595  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 224. On Pelion and Macedonia, see also Appendix III.1, p. 1515 and Appendix III.5, p. 1571. For additional megala doukata from the northern Sporades (1324), see Schreiner, Texte, p. 468, appendix VIII.b. 596  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 222–223. 597  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 225. See Appendix III.3, pp. 1532–1536. 598  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, s.v. Venezia – denarius Venetus grossus, libra grossorum, etc. 599  See for instance Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, no. 6.261 (1336): household goods are given values in grossi. 600  Schreiner, Texte, pp. 144–148, no. 8 (second half of fourteenth century / Constantinople, Thessalonike or Peloponnese); pp. 167–170, no. 14 (ca. 1375 / area of Venetian influence); pp. 263–265, no. 55 (later 14th century / southern Greece?). 601  Stahl, Zecca, p. 210, n. 57.

1302

appendix ii

In Constantinople, the presence of grossi from the 1320s onwards is a complex matter.602 There cannot be much doubt that the grosso was present in the imperial capital and the surrounding countryside for a good number of decades, until at least the 1350s, and this is now borne out by the archaeological record.603 We must assume that the era of the Venetian grosso was by this stage nearing its end in our own territories, even in the most northerly fringe thereof which was soon to become Serbian (see below). The grossi of the later Venetian or Ragusan sources pertaining to Albania and Epiros, the Peloponnese, and Crete, are pure ghost monies with which one could account just about all of the available Venetian denominations (ducats, soldini, torneselli), or the local coinages of the Ionian area.604 In summary, for more than a century the grosso had provided the entire region with a stable and high value coinage of truly international standing. It covered this region to different degrees according to local monetary requirements or other geo-political conditions. In certain western areas of our territory the grosso was the first manifestation of a viable coinage for a long time. In Attikoboiotia it might have come into its own after the demise of the Thebes mint in 1311. The decline of grosso usage in the 1330s coincides with, or better contributes to, the marked deterioration of the monetary specie which was available throughout Greece. This is further analysed below with reference to some of the other coinages of the fourteenth century. 4.C

Serbian Grossi Hoards containing Serbian grossi: «82. Larisa ca. 2001A», «88. Delphi 1933», «96. Kapandriti 1978», «99. Delphi 1927», «144. Unknown Provenance», «145. Unknown Provenance». Excavation and single Serbian grossi: «258. Byllis», «268. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #246–#247

602  Appendix III.1, pp. 1518–1519. See also the recent overview provided by Baker et al., “The reformed Byzantine silver-based currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”. 603  Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”. 604  See for instance Chapter 3, p. 393; Appendix III.3, pp. 1549–1553; Appendix III.4, pp. 1560– 1564; Appendix III.6, pp. 1577–1581.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: SERBIAN GROSSI

1303

In the last quarter of the thirteenth century the Serbian kings began issuing silver grossi which resemble very closely – physically, iconographically, as well as metrologically – their Venetian prototypes. Although the Serbian state subsequently produced a large and varied silver coinage for a good century, and despite the key role that Serbia played in the affairs of Greece in the middle years of the fourteenth century, our numismatic evidence is largely confined to the first generation of Serbian grossi.605 The coinage of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1331–1355, emperor from 1346), during whose reign vast parts of northern and central Greece were conquered, is in evidence in our area merely at one site in present-day Albania.606 But even in the Albanian and Macedonian territories adjoining the primary area, Serbian grossi were in mid-century usually spurned for superior Venetian coins.607 The presence of Serbian coins in Greece relied therefore less on the expansion of the Serbian state itself, rather than on the quality and acceptability of its coins. These were the highest in the early period after 1276 and 1282, when Kings Stefan Dragutin and Stefan Uroš II Milutin began issuing grossi in strict imitation of the Venetian coins, with the central banner between king and saint (“de bandera”), in their parts of the split kingdom. The issues of the two brothers distinguished themselves most obviously by the different STEFANVS REX and VROSIVS REX obv. legends (for the latter, see #246). These parallel issues lasted, perhaps with some intermittent gaps in the minting of Dragutin, until 1310, when the banner was exchanged for a cross (“de cruce”). There is only one certified specimen of Greek provenance of these “de cruce” issues in the name of Milutin (†1321), from the Frankish complex at Corinth («268»). The period during which Serbian grossi became available and were concealed in Greece was therefore rather confined: what might have been the first of the hoards («82. Larisa ca. 2001A») dates no earlier than ca. 1290, although this 605  Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje supersedes all previous literature on medieval Serbian coinage. Specifically on the inception of this coinage see Ivanišević, “Début du monnayage des gros serbes”. Serbian coins in Greece are already considered in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”. 606  «258. Byllis». After the completion of Appendix I, I was able to analyse an Epirote find of a western Bulgarian silver coin minted on the Serbian standard by Michael IV Asen in the 1340s: Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”. See #247. 607  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 223–224. See merely the hoards containing issues of Dušan from Durazzo (Ippen, “Münzfund in Albanien”), and from Kičevo and Stobi in the Republic of North Macedonia (Aleksova, “Naodi”, pp. 17–18), and from the county of Korçë in southern Albania (Gradishta), just outside of our area (Karaiskaj, “Gradishta”). The coinage of Dušan can be found in much larger quantities in areas along the Danube, and towards the Black Sea: Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, pp. 213–214.

1304

appendix ii

hoard might even have been concealed considerably later. The first hoard containing Serbian grossi whose dating is more or less secure, «88. Delphi 1933», was concealed in ca. 1305. Meanwhile, the later specimen from Corinth which has just been mentioned will most probably have reached the town and been lost between 1310 and 1312. The most recent hoards, «96. Kapandriti 1978» and «99. Delphi 1927», date to ca. 1311. We are dealing therefore most likely with a period between one and two decades, although conceivably an even shorter timespan of merely five years, during which Serbian grossi reached Greece. Serbian grossi moved into Italy in the same, though somewhat more prolonged (ca. 1280–1320), period, as can be established on the basis of documentary and numismatic evidence.608 It would appear that also in this context the abandonment of the exact Venetian iconography, and the general lowering of the minting standard, made the usage of Serbian coins far less attractive. At the height of the availability of Serbian coins in Greece they were valued consistently at the useful rate of 24 Venetian piccoli.609 At 32 piccoli to the Venetian grosso, and a mean 10 tournois to the latter in around 1300, the Serbian grosso may have been valued at ca. 7–8 tournois. At «99. Delphi 1927» ca. 20% of all grossi are Serbian. It is difficult to ascertain how representative this figure is for overall availability. Contemporary hoards from the Republic of North Macedonia contain vastly more Serbian than Venetian grossi.610 There is no intermediate area, for instance in Greek Macedonia or in Thessaly, where we can find a more harmonious mix of Venetian and Serbin grossi.611 With all of this in mind, it is safe to say that the Serbian grossi found hoarded in southern Greece do not bear witness to any particular links between the respective territories in which the coins were minted and deposited, but are a general reflection of grosso circulation. In particular, the lack of any concentration of Serbian grossi in Greek Macedonia and in Thessaly, together with the early dating of «88», make it unlikely that the movements of the Catalans were substantially responsible for the transfer of such issues.

608  Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, pp. 203–205. 609  Cessi, Problemi monetari veneziani, p. XLV (1299). 610  See the hoards from Dobrište and Usje, which also close their Venetian series with Doge P. Gradenigo (1289–1311): Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, pp. 307 and 325. 611  The cited hoard from Larisa was mostly Venetian, as was the only hoard containing a Serbian piece from this period from Greek Macedonia: Arethousa, Langada 1976: GalaniKrikou, “Grossi”, pp. 172–173.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: SERBIAN GROSSI

1305

The numismatic evidence, or relative lack of it, needs to be complemented with documentary information. The existence of a low value grosso in the Peloponnese (at just seven calculated tournois: compare this to the figure above), which is called “new” in the Zibaldone da Canal, may well be referring to the Serbian issues, but this is hypothetical.612 The so-called “de cruce” standard was current in southern Serbian lands (Ras) throughout much of the reigns of Milutin, his son Stefan Uroš III Dečanski (1321–1331), and his grandson Stefan Uroš  IV Dušan (1331–1355).613 A system of account derived from this standard and based on coins of these rulers, entitled the hyperpyron “de cruce”, can be found in the northwestern parts of the primary area of analysis, primarily in the 1330s.614 These hyperpyra “de cruce” were constituted either by 12 Serbian grossi, or 15–20 of the same, depending on whether one interprets these hyperpyra as a separate money of account, or simply a Serbian way of paying the much more common hyperpyron based on 12 Venetian grossi. Whatever the case, the hyperpyra “de cruce” were a rather short-lived money of account in our territories, but they are nevertheless a sure sign that Serbian grossi of Dečanski and Dušan were available there, despite the negative numismatic evidence. They were brought there primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by Ragusan merchants, and would have been distributed along the coast of Albania and Epiros. The hyperpyron “de cruce” proved to be a local stopgap solution lasting, in explicit accounting terms, not much more than a decade. It is interesting to note that in Macedonia there is in this period not merely a dearth of numismatic but even of any documentary evidence testifying to the presence of Serbian grossi.615 Serbian grossi might nevertheless have been integrated into the plain hyperpyra of Sclavonia and Macedonia of the period, thereby becoming invisible to us.

612  Appendix III.3, p. 1535. 613  Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 207. 614  This system of account is further explored in Appendix III.4, pp. 1559–1560. 615  None of the edited acts preserved in the archives of the Athonite monasteries appear to refer to Serbian coins. The one exception might be the citation of 100 ‘nomismata stavrata’ (Chilandar, 1346), which Grierson has interpreted as gigliati (“Premiers stavrata”, p. 1061; DOC V, pp. 29–31). While gigliati are demonstrably called stavrata in other contexts (Appendix II.11, p. 1499), surely a combination of the date with the fact that we are dealing with a Serbian act and monastery, makes it much more likely that these ‘crossed’ coins are Serbian grossi of the “de cruce” type.

1306

appendix ii

4.D Ducats and Florins The Floretine gold florin was first minted in November 1252,616 the Venetian gold ducat in March 1285.617 These two coinages are best discussed jointly because they shared the same purity of metal, and weights of 3.53–3.54g. As such they were frequently interchanged in the documentary sources, and had similar patterns of usage and circulation within the primary area (see the respective discussions below). They also provided the models for countless Aegean imitations,618 only some of which being directly relevant to this book (also discussed below). The production rates of florins and ducats in the thirteenth century can be measured only with great difficulty – if at all – on the basis of documentary sources. In the fourteenth century, in turn, these suggest an upturn in the third decade, a high point in the fourth and fifth, and a subsequent reduction.619 In 1296 even in Tuscany only 40% of the papal tithes were collected in gold.620 Such a development is clearly reflected by the numismatic evidence cited here below, which in turn helps us to relativise our Greek findings. It should finally be noted that the production and diffusion of florins and ducats can also be measured by the rates of their imitations throughout 616  The standard reference to Florentine coinage is Bernocchi, Monete. A conference marked the coin’s 500th anniversary, the proceedings of which were edited by L. Travaini in RIN, 107 (2006). 617  The standard literature on Venetian coinage cited in the beginning of this Appendix II.4, p. 1294 deals with this coinage extensively. See in the last instance: Stahl, Zecca, p. 28ff. See also the classic study Luzzatto, “L’oro e l’ argento”. 618  See on this topic most recently and in general terms Mazarakis, Δουκάτο της Βενετίας και οι απομιμήσεις του, and the older Ives and Grierson, Venetian Gold Ducat, and Grierson, “Fineness of the Venetian ducat and its imitations”. On the florins from Byzantium and Aydın, see Grierson, “Le dernier siècle du monnayage byzantin”, pp. 109–110, and Reis, “Zur Datierungen der lateinischen Prägungen der anatolischen beyliks”. An overview of the gold coinages of the Genoese colonies, mostly ducats, is given by Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, whose information is more often than not lifted directly from Schlumberger, Numismatique. On Pera: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Pera”. On Lesbos and Phokaia: Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio, and Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Francesco Ier Gattilusio”, further Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, “Cattaneo”. On Chios: Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”; “Some thoughts on the Chios Mint”; “Chio”; “Μαρτινέλλο”; Τα νομίσματα της Χίου; Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις”. On some rare fourteenth-century Rhodian ducats, known almost exclusively through the Papadopoli collection, see Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 299, with further references. On Anatolian ducat imitations: Bendall and Morrisson, “Ducats d’imitation”. On possible Ottoman imitations: Babinger, “Zur Frage der osmanischen Goldprägungen”. 619  On Venetian ducats, see Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, esp. pp. 479– 480; Stahl, Zecca, pp. 47ff and 373ff. On florins: Spufford, “First century of the Florentine florin”, p. 432; Travaini, Monete e storia, p. 54 (both with reference to Bernocchi). 620  Spufford, “First century of the Florentine florin”, p. 425 (with reference to John Day).

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: DUCATS AND FLORINS

1307

Europe, which only began after the turn of the fourteenth century, and took off in the 1330s and 1340s.621 4.D.1

Distribution of Ducats and Florins622 Hoards containing Venetian ducats: «78. Sphaka», «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965», «162. Nea Sampsous», «166. Euboia». Hoards containing Florentine florins: «143. Limni Ioanninon 1965».623 Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #248–#249

Within the primary area, finds of ducats and florins are relatively rare. Leaving aside «78. Sphaka», which is of uncertain composition and might well prove to be modern, the remaining three hoards date to the confined period from the 1330s to the 1350s. Two of these hoards («143» and «162») are from Epiros, the other («166») from Euboia. Greece is surrounded by areas, especially to the west and east, with good quantities of ducat and florin finds: In the Aragonese and Angevin kingdoms of Sicily (Naples) a number of hoards dating between the mid-fourteenth to mid-fifteenth centuries have been recorded.624 In northern Italy hoarding of ducats begins in ca. 1320, and augments throughout the century and later.625 Dalmatia has produced a respectable quantity of ducat hoards, which began to manifest themselves only from the 1370s onwards.626 Only one ducat hoard is known from Crete, dating

621  See especially the extensive treatment in Day, “Chivasso”; also Day, “Carretto”, esp. pp. 456, 458. On the much rarer instances of ducat imitations in the west, see Ives and Grierson, Venetian Gold Ducat, p. 9ff. 622  The relevant finds have already been discussed in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, passim. 623  To this single find should be added the Argos 2005a hoard not listed in Appendix I, containing four florins beside other coinages, concealed in ca. 1340: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”, p. 228. At a first glance at the signs on the rev., all four coins belong to a tight period of mintage, 1315–1325. 624  Cappadocia (L’Aquila) 1 and 2: MEC, p. 416, nos 18 and 19 (some ducats respectively from the mid-fourteenth and mid-fifteenth century); Cermignano (Teramo): MEC, p. 416, no. 24 (3 ducats to ca. 1405); Giulianova (Teramo) 1 and 2: MEC, p. 417, nos 31 and 32 (good quantities of ducats deposited about 1400); Montella (Avellino): MEC, p. 419, no. 51 (212 florins, from Florence and elsewhere, to about 1354); Syracuse: MEC, p. 423, no. 102 (91 ducats and florins to about 1415); Vasto (Chieti): MEC, p. 423, no. 109 (9 ducats to ca. 1370). 625  Stahl, Zecca, pp. 433–441, nos 21, 26, 28, 39, 45, 46, 48, 49. 626  Stahl, Zecca, pp. 435–439, nos 27, 35, 43.

1308

appendix ii

to the first half of the fourteenth century.627 For Anatolia in the mid-fourteenth century one may report the hoard of imitative ducats published by Bendall and Morrisson,628 a similar hoard from Phokaia which arrived on the antiquities market after 1989,629 while it is almost certain that other parcels of the same issue, and presumably from a similar area, were contained in the nineteenthcentury collections of Lambros and Papadopoli. In 2003 a hoard of 48 ducats in the name of Doge Andrea Dandolo (1343–1354) was excavated on the island of Chios.630 A hoard dating about a century later, containing 14 Venetian and two Chiot ducats, beside local and imported silver coins, was excavated in the basilica of St. John, at Selçuk/Ephesos.631 Beside Dalmatia and the Danube Delta632 – the latter linking in with a number of other finds from the northern fringes of the Black Sea633 –, no other regions of the Balkans have produced finds of gold florins or ducats. This observation applies most importantly also to the remaining Macedonian and Thracian territories of the Byzantine Empire, and to Constantinople itself. It has been suggested, however, that the florin motifs on billon trachea of Michael  VIII Palaiologos (1259/1261–1272) were inspired by the early presence of gold florins in Byzantium.634 While the presented data heavily converge in the fourteenth century, a few finds of florins date considerably earlier, including a hoard now conserved in Pisa,635 and two remarkable finds from the Levant: the Aleppo hoard of 1953–1955,636 and the Acre harbour hoard of 1993–1994.637 It is possible that both of these were deposited when the respective towns were sacked by the Mamluks in 1291. Our Greek finds of ducats and florins can be understood better in this wider framework. There were none of these early, but quite remarkable, 627  Monofatsi, Irakleion 1991: Galani-Krikou, “Grossi”, pp. 172–173: one ducat amidst grossi and a soldino. 628  Bendall and Morrisson, “Ducats d’imitation”. 629  Stahl, Zecca, p. 216, n. 92, citing Numismatic Fine Arts, 9 Sept. 1993, lots 826–843. See also below. 630  Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου, p. 24. 631  Ölçer, “Chiesa di S. Giovanni”. 632  Stahl, Zecca, p. 438, no. 40, for a hoard deposited ca. 1400. 633  Stahl, Zecca, p. 435, no. 30, Crimea, deposited ca. 1382. See also Strässle, “Beitrag der sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Numismatik”, pp. 122–123. 634  Touratsoglou, “Lily-type issues”; Touratsgolou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία”, p. 271; Morrisson, “Thessalonike”, p. 184. 635  Grierson, “Fiorino d’oro”, p. 417, deposited ca. 1265. 636  The hoard has been referred to on numerous occasions. See, amongst others, Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, p. 259; Kool, “Gold Florins”, p. 306, n. 32; Grierson, “Fiorino d’oro”, p. 417. In 1996 Robert Kool made an attempt at reconstituting this dispersed hoard: Kool, “Gold Florins”, pp. 313–315. 637  Kool, “Gold Florins”.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: DUCATS AND FLORINS

1309

manifestations of the florin, yet the tight and quite early profile of the four specimens at Argos is nevertheless noteworthy. The beginning of ducat and florin hoarding only from the second or third decade of the fourteenth century onwards is quite a common pattern in the adjacent territories. More unusual, and disappointing, is the rapid disappearance of ducats and florins from the Greek numismatic record already shortly after mid-century. In this apparent absence of gold, Greece can be compared to much of the remainder of the Balkans, and to Byzantium itself. We should also note that the Kingdom of Naples, despite some of the gold hoards which have been cited, was also an area in which throughout the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries only trifling gold coinages were actually produced under Charles II (1285–1309) and Joanna I (1343–1382),638 and in which most wealth was apparently stored and exchanged in the silver gigliato coinage.639 4.D.2 Ducats and Florins in the Documentary Sources Ducats and florins are to be found in countless sources relating to medieval Greece. Like many other denominations, the line between actual gold coins, and values expressed through them, is thin. The broad development of the various systems of account, and the incidental information which is associated with them, is similar to the overall numismatic picture which has been drawn up:640 as an accounting system relating quite closely to actual specie, ducats establish themselves in southern Greece and Crete in the earlier fourteenth century; from mid-century onwards they establish themselves also in places such as Constantinople, Chios, and Sclavonia, as currency and a system of account. In South Greece from the 1350s onwards, more often than not ducats relate to the Venetian soldini and torneselli. On rare occasions sources of the area are as explicit as to insist on ducats “de bono et puro auro, […] de cunio Venetiarum”.641 The dichotomy between money and money of account becomes apparent when the money owed to Cremolisi is given as “[…] in oro contadi ducati otomilia […] in soldi e tornesi perperi VIM val […] ducati”.642 In the present discussion I will confine myself to early citations of ducats and 638   M EC, pp. 218 and 232. 639  See Appendix II.11.B, pp. 1502–1504. 640  Compare Appendix III, specifically pp. 1516–1522 on Constantinople; pp. 1536–1540 on Catalan Athens; pp. 1530, 1540–1545 on Venetian and Angevin South Greece in the earlier fourteenth century; pp. 1545–1553 on the same areas in later years; pp. 1555–1564 on Sclavonia; pp. 1565–1568 on Crete. See further the relevant discussions in Chapter 3, esp. around pp. 306 and 393–394. 641  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 11, no. 9 (1365); p. 196, no. 99 (1391). 642  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 412, no. 212 (1399–1401).

1310

appendix ii

florins, and to those instances in which one is unmistakingly dealing with actual specie of this description: There are some noteworthy comments on the availability of the ducat: in Tana in 1333 they were hard to come by,643 yet Crete in 1344 was apparently saturated.644 According to a much-cited letter of 1361, ducats are also difficult to find in the Peloponnese.645 However, a letter written some time later to Lorenzo Acciaiuoli, informing him of general occurrences in the Morea and those concerning his business, property and estates, uses exclusively the internationally recognisable gold coinages of florin and ducat.646 In 1338, when his father Nicholas resided in Greece, he had at his disposal 2,000 gold florins.647 The conversion of Greek monies into Italian ones, as was the case also of the gold ounces of the Regno or the gigliato coinage into which profits are commuted in the same body of sources,648 thus occurs more in order to facilitate communication than because such specie was necessarily present in the area. The acts drawn up by notary Pasquale Longo in Coron in the years 1289– 1292, record a discrete number of re-payments occurring in Barletta in the florin coinage.649 Ducats do not feature in his acts. Neapolitan and Ragusan sources actually corroborate this rather early presence of florins in the southern Italian and Adriatic areas.650 They appear in the documentation relating to the Trapani shipwreck of 1270.651 Otherwise, legislative attempts to regulate

643  Stahl, Zecca, pp. 212–3. 644  Stahl, Zecca, p. 214. 645  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VIII (1361), p. 145, lns 3–5: “Per la grazia de Dyo, sacczati ca tutta la quantitate de li duo milia ducati fo compluta per tucti li XV di di jennaru, vero e in argentu di soldini; auro non se po trovare de tucte queste parti a cambiare en tanta quantitate”. Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VIII (1361), p. 154, lns 5–6 and 13–15: “Yo so statu en Clarenza di xij. a potere percaczare de cambiare li soldini per ducati. No li ayo potuti trovare. (…) Et se Dyo place, se le galee de Venecia venenu toste, come se dice, che apportaranu auru, serra cambiata la dicta moneta de soldini, et poy per lu primo securu vaxallu serra portata en Pullya”. See further Carile, La rendita feudale, p. 75 and Stahl, Zecca, p. 214. Compare also Appendix III.3, pp. 1547–1548. 646  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. X (1379). Consider also the other letters written by the same Aldobrando Baroncelli to Lorenzo: Luttrell, “Aldobrando Baroncelli in Greece: 1378–1382”; Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 33, no. 16 (1381); p. 41, no. 18 (1382). Intermittently and apparently randomly, Aldobrando refers to florins rather than ducats. 647  Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, p. 3. 648  See Appendix II.11, pp. 1494–1508 for gigliati. 649  Pasquale Longo, pp. 22–23, no. 26; p. 25, no. 31; p. 36, no. 46. 650  See also Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 284. 651  Registri, 6, p. 176, no. 915; Carolus-Barré, “Trapani”.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: DUCATS AND FLORINS

1311

or prohibit the circulation of this coinage in the Regno extend back to 1272,652 but are most frequently to be found in the later years of the same decade and beyond.653 According to the account of Muntaner, not long thereafter, following the siege of Messina, the Catalan Company is able to gain such riches as to be handling florins as others handle small pennies: “que axi menanen florins, com hom menaria los diners menuts …”.654 As far as I am aware the first explicit mention for Greece occurs in relation to supplies sent by the new prince of Achaïa, Charles I of Anjou, to the Peloponnese in 1278.655 A year later florins form part of the money which Sully is in receipt of in the context of his Albanian campaign.656 Little later we witness the plunder of a ship travelling from Valona to Brindisi which was carrying florins, amongst other coinages.657 For Greece this kind of information on the gold coinages skips from the Angevin sources during the reign of Charles I of Anjou (†1285), including the act referring to the florins and hyperpyra returned by the king to the abbot of Bellaville, who had them confiscated in 1279 in Puglia (perhaps having come from Greece),658 to the acts of Pasquale Longo of 1289–1292, and to a single act in the Naples archives for the princeship of Florent of Hainaut.659 In 1308 florins are cited in the context of the yearly tax of the Latin archbishopric of Thebes, although the usage of this denomination may lay in the nature of the (papal) sources.660 In the notarial documentation for southern Messenia, which begins in the 1330s, ducats appear sporadically from the outset:661 for the 1330s and early 1340s we find ducats used in wills and inheritances,662 in business ventures, including loans and ship charters,663 and in the sale of 652  Registri, 7, p. 295, no. 41. 653  Registri, 17, p. 89, no. 168 (5 Jan. 1277); Registri, 18, p. 61 and Registri, 20, p. 96 (1278); Registri, 20, p. 68, no. 91 (1278); pp. 52–61, no. 67 (1278); p. 40, no. 41 (1278); Registri, 18, pp. 46–47, no. 96 (1278); p. 365, no. 734 (1278); Registri, 19, p. 278, no. 588ff (1278); Registri, 18, p. 61, no. 127 (1278); p. 190f, no. 410 (1278); Registri, 20, p. 163, no. 425 (1278); p. 81, no. 26 (1279); pp. 81–82, no. 27 (1279); Registri, 26, p. 184, no. 559 (1283) p. 188, no. 590 (1283). 654  Muntaner, chapter 106. 655  Registri, 20, p. 69, no. 93 (1278); p. 282, no. 533 (28 July 1278). See also Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, pp. 170–171, n. 20. 656  Registri, 22, p. 58, no. 267 (1279). 657  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 173, no. 37 (1284). 658  See above in this appendix, p. 1256. 659  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, pp. 70–71, no. 67 (1293): the prince demanded from Ancona the return of 1,400 florins taken from his liegeman Pietrono of Siena, bourgeois of Clarentza. 660  Loenertz, “Hosios Lukas de Stiris”, p. 29, n. 7. 661  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, s.v. Venezia – ducatus. 662  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, nos 6.176 and 6.243 (1335). 663  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, nos 6.115 and 6.123; no. 6.124; no. 6.136 (all 1335).

1312

appendix ii

slaves and goods.664 However, as early as the 1330s there are signs of ducats used as units of value, initially to represent multiples of grossi, and only much later as multiples of soldini and torneselli. The acts of Venetian notaries based in Crete illustrate another problem inherent in this kind of documentation: despite the fact that the impact of the ducat on the island can be measured with reference to other sources (see above), since the grosso was so intimately linked to the hyperpyron of Crete at a rate of 12:1, there was no need to move away from this hyperpyron of accounting even if an increasing quantity of ducats were involved in the recorded transactions. We find therefore that none of the acts of Franciscus de Cruce (1338–1339),665 or of Zaccaria de Fredo during the years 1352–1357,666 feature ducats, exactly at the time when they are already quite prominent in the Peloponnesian notarial acts. Notaries from the period during which the ducatgrosso rate was still in fluctuation also do not apparently record the ducat.667 One must assume, therefore, that the availability of this denomination on the island post-dated the 1320s, at the earliest. By the time two different grossi of account evolved in the second half of the century, one tied to the ducat at a fixed rate, and the other to the soldino and therefore prone to fluctuate vis-àvis the ducat, actual gold ducat coins might have been much rarer on the island and an acute problem may not have arisen. In the early to mid-fourteenth century, the Italian gold coinages seem to be available in Constantinople itself, according to the complementary indications of Pegolotti and of a Venetian notary Antonio Bresciano.668 In this period the grosso was not part of the metropolitan hyperpyron, and therefore the ducats appear to be genuine reflections of available specie. The much rarer appearance of florins, in addition to ducats, in the notarial sources of Greece is also a reliable indication of the actual presence of gold,669 though even then their usage is sometimes dictated by context and by the kind of people involved: in 1347 we find them in two wills drawn up by Genoese 664  In 1335 money and oil are exchanged between a man from Coron and another from Negroponte; in the same year a female slave is sold for 16 ducats; in 1343 a boat is sold for 24 ducats: 1, 1.112: Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, nos 6.110 and 6.151; 1, no. 1.112. 665  Franciscus de Cruce. 666  Zaccaria de Fredo. 667  As far as I can tell from my reading of the acts of Benvenuto de Brixano and Pietro Pizolo, and of the early ‘buste’ contained in McKee, Wills from Late Medieval Venetian Crete. 668  Antonio Bresciano, p. 139, no. 51; Pegolotti, pp. 50–51. 669  See the receipt for a dowry within Modon of 200 gold florins: Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, no. 6.217 (1336).

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: DUCATS AND FLORINS

1313

men in Modon;670 in 1394 in an act drawn up on behalf of a Milanese person residing in Patra.671 Two additional western sources give, each in its own way, invaluable details on the actual presence of gold coinages in the later medieval Aegean. The first of these is the account book kept by Antonio Barbier during the expedition of the Green Count of Savoy in 1366–1367, which covered Dalmatia, Greece, the northern Aegean and the Black Sea.672 Gold florins and ducats are the main staple of monies coming into and going out of the count’s coffers, even though these are also used as standards which can express other, lesser coinages.673 These coins are clearly useful since they are recognisable throughout the entire area, even though in Dalmatia and Greece the same entries document also the popularity of the Venetian soldino,674 whereas further north the different amalgams of coins known as the hyperpyra of Constantinople, of Pera, or of Mesembria are current.675 Badoer’s Libro dei Conti of the later 1430s is of interest not merely because it underlines the predominance of gold, but because it distinguishes the various issues: therein we find, side-by-side, Venetian ducats, Peran ducats, Florentine florins, and Turkish ducats, as actual and well accounted-for coins.676 The latter are also documented in a Tuscan context of approximately the same period.677 Greek-language sources have a penchant for the florin, since the term ‘doukaton’ was already used for the Venetian grosso.678 Often, these are tellingly called ‘floria venetika’: we encounter them in early fourteenth-century Thessalonike,679 and in the later Constantinopolitan mathematical exercise book.680 Private revenues and expenditures in fourteenth-century Rhodes are

670  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, nos 7.42 and 7.48. 671  Krekić, Dubrovnik, no. 453. 672  The full text is reproduced in Conte Verde. On the expedition see Cox, Green Count, pp. 211–236, and Soustal, “Antonio Barbier”. 673  This can be deduced from the frequent citation of fractions of florins and ducats (Conte Verde, passim), and from the respective lists of total receipts and expenses (Conte Verde, pp. 25–27 and 277–278). 674  Appendix II.4.E, pp. 1317–1325. 675  Appendix III.1, pp. 1511–1522. 676  Morrisson, “Badoer”, pp. 220, 224, 226, 230, 233. 677  Piccinni and Travaini, Libro del Pellegrino, no. 369. 678  See Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1300–1302. Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 178, proposes that florin might be the preferred term since many ducats of the Aegean were bad quality. 679  Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten”, p. 149, no. 53. 680  Hunger and Vogel, Rechenbuch, nos 1, 7, 18, 39, 40, 41, 52.

1314

appendix ii

recorded in florins,681 as they are in an area which might have been controlled by Latins: the document in question, which otherwise uses hyperpyra and kokkia for accounting, states that one payment is in fact made in floria.682 On another occasion in the fourteenth century, in Constantinople, Thessalonike, or the Peloponnese, we find florins,683 as we do in a Constantinopolitan accounting note of mid-century.684 But even in this body of sources there are indications that the florin was primarily a value rather than a coin: one of the documents, which dates considerably later than any of the other cited ones, states that a florin sum is to be paid “in gold”.685 This is again a sign that also other ways of making this payment were possible. The later medieval diplomatic and narrative sources in all languages relating to medieval Greece, which describe a cut and thrust world of conquests, purchases of lands and privileges, pay-offs and tribute, bribes and ransoms, are heavily dominated by systems of values expressed in terms of ducats and florins.686 In summary, written references to ducats and florins can be both misleading and illuminating. We can certainly state that the general tendency in the public and private Venetian sources is the closest to the numismatic record, and also to the actual broader contemporary availability of the specie of these names: within the fourteenth century there is an ark which rises very gradually towards mid-century, and then diminishes again in the second half of the century. Before 1300 the ducat/florin was the preserve of certain individuals/ institutions and contexts, but these coins were too rare to have left a material mark. In our last phase, by contrast, potentially large quantities changed hands at the highest political and economic levels of Greece. In these cases, the way the currency was handled left it perhaps less prone to loss. For this reason the impact of gold on Greek monetisation in this period is difficult to measure.687

681  Schreiner, Texte, texts 2 and 11. 682  Schreiner, Texte, text 9. 683  Schreiner, Texte, text 8. 684  Schreiner, Texte, text 68. 685  Schreiner, Texte, text 7. 686  Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, p. 257. I have made a point of citing such payments in Chapter 3, p. 360. 687  See Chapter 2, pp. 181–184.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: DUCATS AND FLORINS

4.D.3

1315

Was There a Peloponnesian Ducat Issue?

Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #250 In the auction catalogue John J. Slocum Collection, nos 838–842, we witness the resurrection of a Peloponnesian attribution of a particular ducat issue which had already long gone out of fashion.688 Lambros was the first to attribute the common ducat issues in the name of Doge Andrea Dandolo (1343– 1354) with the small K and KO (or indeed R and RO according to him) at the foot of the rev. Christ to Robert of Taranto, prince of Achaïa (1332–1364), at the Clarentza mint:689 compare specimen #250 from the Papadopoli collection. Lambros’ attribution has lingered in some subsequent studies,690 although the weight of scholarly opinion had turned against it since the time of Schlumberger,691 and Bendall and Morrisson’s publication on this issue, in which they located its production in the eastern Aegean, is now considered the standard treatment.692 While it is certain that it was not minted within the primary territory treated in this book, its place and authority of minting is still debatable. Yvon suggested that it was the Crusade of Smyrna (1344) which brought substantial issues of Andrea Dandolo to the region, inspiring their direct imitation. On the basis of pertinent documentary information, Grierson believed that they were minted at Lesbos in the period before 1357,693 and a recent hoard from Phokaia694 seems to underline such an attribution. Other sources695 suggest equally strongly that these are issues of the Anatolian emirates, perhaps from a mint in Ephesos, a position which was endorsed by Bendall 688  The story of these varying attributions is summarised in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 207, n. 19; Day, “Carretto”, p. 457, n. 53. 689  Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα κοπέντα εν Γλαρέντσα, pp. 1–7 (in French translation: Lambros, “Monnaies inédites en or et en argent frappées à Clarence”; in posthumous English translation: Lambros, Unpublished coins struck at Glarentsa). 690  For instance Gorini, “Le imitazioni orientali dello zecchino veneziano”, and Savio, “Imitazioni e contraffazioni del ducato d’oro di Venezia”. 691  See the doubts on the part of Schlumberger (Numismatique, p. 320), Hasluck (“Imitations of the Venetian sequin”), Grierson (Grierson, “Moneta veneziana nell’economia mediterranea”, p. 97); (and Ives) (Venetian Gold Ducat, p. 24, n. 45; “Fineness of the Venetian ducat and its imitations”, p. 97, nn. 16–18), Yvon (“Monnaies et sceaux de l’Orient latin”, p. 101). 692  Bendall and Morrisson, “Ducats d’imitation”. See also Mazarakis, Δουκάτο της Βενετίας και οι απομιμήσεις του, p. 41ff. 693  This documentation has been referred to on other occasions: e.g. Stahl, Zecca, p. 241, n. 68, and Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Francesco Ier Gattilusio”, pp. 225–226. 694  Stahl, Zecca, p. 216, n. 92, citing Numismatic Fine Arts, 9 Sept. 1993, lots 826–843. 695  Stahl, Zecca, p. 241, n. 75.

1316

appendix ii

and Morrisson in their study. In summary, neither the Peloponnese, nor any other area of analysis in this book, saw the issue of imitative gold ducats 4.D.4

Was There a Peloponnesian Florin Issue?

Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #251–#252 A florin bearing the obv. legend FLOR eX ch0 was first attributed to Prince Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) and the Clarentza mint by Alvin in 1907.696 This reading found further dissemination through the CNI and the work of Gamberini di Scarfea697 and Bernocchi,698 although serious evidence had been converging against it from the outset.699 Day makes a convincing case for an attribution of this issue to Carretto in Piedmont, which had already been proposed in the mid-nineteenth century. Lambros refers to another florin which may be attributed to the Clarentza mint.700 It reads RøCL@RE3TI0 and is therefore best considered an issue of Prince Robert of Taranto (1332–1364), produced presumably during the period when the same mint was emitting deniers tournois (up until 1353, at the latest, more likely 1347).701 The information given by Lambros was taken on by Schlumberger without further comment, though he added and illustrated a second specimen from the Bibliothèque nationale.702 This collection now holds two specimens of this type,703 and a third went to auction in 2011 and was acquired by Princeton University.704 The obvs and revs of these three coins were all minted from different dies. Since the nineteenth century the issue has been practically ignored by scientific publications dealing with the coinage of 696  Day, “Carretto”, esp. pp. 453, 455, 457, deals with this coinage issue in very great detail. On penny coins of Florent, see Appendix II.9.A.4, pp. 1395–1399. 697  The identification is also repeated in Spufford, “First century of the Florentine florin”, p. 429, n. 33. 698  Bernocchi, Monete, 5, p. 145. 699  See, amongst others, Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, p. 81. 700  Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα κοπέντα εν Γλαρέντσα, p. 5, n. 1, and no. 10 (in French translation: Lambros, “Monnaies inédites en or et en argent frappées à Clarence”; in posthumous English translation: Lambros, Unpublished coins struck at Glarentsa). The attribution was first made by Monsieur Bretagne, the owner at the time of the single piece. On this issue see also Bernocchi, Monete, 5, p. 145; Day, “Carretto”, p. 457, n. 53; Baker, “Chiarenza”; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”. 701  See Appendix II.9.A.12, pp. 1423–1426. 702  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 319–320, pl. XII.33. 703  L1438 220a; A.F. 220. 704  Baldwin’s, London, September 2011 (Auction 70 and 71, lot 1952).

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: SOLDINI

1317

the Morea.705 The issue’s authenticity and the Achaïan attribution have never been called into doubt, and there are no new considerations which would induce one to do so now. Even though the ducat was by far the most prominent gold coin type in the Aegean in the mid-fourteenth century, Achaïa, like Byzantium and the emirate of Aydın, therefore produced a small and shortlived florin issue. There were undoubtedly sound political reasons for doing so, particularly the desire not to offend to Republic of Venice.706 4.E Soldini The soldino was a small but fine Venetian silver denomination of the later medieval period.707 It was first put into production in 1332, and it went through a number of subsequent metrological and iconographical changes. The types which concern Greece are entitled types 1–5,708 and are of the following description: type 1 (1332–1346), obv. doge and rev. lion rampant (#254–#261); type 2 (1353–1369), initial of the mint master added to rev. (#262–#265); type 3 (1369–1379) (#266–#268), initial of the mint master shifted to the obv., lion seated; type 4 (1379–1391), initial of the mint master put behind the doge, star in front; type 5 (1391–1399), the star on the obv. placed above the initial of the mint master. The standard of the soldino in 1332 was ca. 0.96g and 66% silver.709 For type 2 the weight was lowered to ca. 0.5g but the fineness was increased to near purity. Type 2 was therefore intrinsically less valuable than the initial soldino type, and in the course of the further types 3ff the weight of the soldino was steadily decreased. Technically speaking, the Greek finds comprise also types subsequent to type 5,710 but these are distinguished first under Doges Venier and Steno merely by further lowerings in the weight standard, 705  See merely Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, p. 83; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 355 and 370, no. 6: both feature Schlumberger’s illustration and endorse the attribution. 706  See the documentation used in the dating and identification of the Lesbian ducats (above); see also the negotiations with the Naverrese regarding the spread of fake coins (Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1487–1488), and the accords between the Republic and Despot Theodore I in the Peloponnese (1394): Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 406, n. 39. 707  The standard bibliography on Venetian coinage which I have already referred to covers naturally also this denomination. More specifically, see Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, pp. 508–527 and Stahl, Zecca, p. 41ff. 708  Stahl, “Cephalonia”, provides a very detailed overview of the typology and metrology before 1400. The catalogue entries in Appendix I give type classifications whenever such information is available. 709  No detailed information on standards is available and has to be inferred from the numismatic data. 710  Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia, 1, pp. 230–231; 238–239; 252; 270–271.

1318

appendix ii

then by slight iconographical changes for Doges Mocenigo and Foscari, though issues of the latter two are confined to one Greek find («209. Larisa ca. 2001B»). With the introduction of the soldino (and the contemporary mezzanino), the official Venetian systems of accounting based previously on the piccolo and the grosso respectively were continued in different, debased guises, resulting in large profits to the republic. This was the so-called ‘moneta’ system of accounting.711 Accordingly, soldini were introduced as a coin-equivalent of the soldo, that is 12 piccoli, 240 of which (= 20 soldini) constituting the pound of piccoli. With one mezzanino (½ grosso) being valued at 1.5 soldini, and one pound of grossi (10 ducats) being given the value of 480 mezzanini, 720 and 72 soldini respectively were now the equivalent of one pound of grossi and of one ducat. Once it arrived in Greece, the soldino also began to take the position of the English sterling (of account), which was intrinsically twice as valuable, as the intermediary value in the hyperpyra of account.712 The soldino therefore caused the lowering of more than one standard used in Greece, with predictable consequences: harder currencies and the systems of accounting based on them, such as the ducat, would go their own ways. Below these, we find multiple official and unofficial standards of different qualities, reliabilities and desirabilities, and the selective use of certain coinages. Because soldini were so intimately integrated into these accounting systems, they are rarely discernible in the sources. After 1332, initially the soldino may be found behind simple pound of grosso citations (as opposed to those giving ducat equivalents),713 but this was soon no longer the case, and even ducats could quite easily represent a value with which to express soldini.714 The omnipresent soldo of account, whether in the Venetian or Greek systems, is in itself problematic because it was more often than not simply a way of counting tournois and especially torneselli.715 The balance in the relationship between these two Venetian coinages shifted during the period 1380–1400. The soldo-ducat rates in Greece, which changed from ca. 75 in the 1370s, to over 80 in the 1390s, and over 100 after 1400,716 demonstrate how the former was increasingly based on the tornesello rather than the soldino, a development confirmed by the numismatic data. Before this occurred, the soldino was for a number of decades the favoured coinage: there is some evidence that the Republic of Venice insisted on the 711  See Appendix III.6, p. 1575. 712  Appendix III.3, pp. 1540ff. 713  Compare Chapter 3, p. 306. 714  Appendix III.6, pp. 1579–1580. 715  See also the next discussion, Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 716  Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 87–88.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: SOLDINI

1319

payment of soldini, in domestic as well as in colonial contexts.717 According to the documentary evidence, the first foreign area to feel the impact of this coinage was Dalmatia.718 An act of 1357 gives the debts of a Ragusan as 1040 hyperpyra “ad illam monetam de Veneciis”, which must be interpreted as soldini.719 In 1368 soldini were reportedly stolen from public custody in Crete.720 The letters to Mary of Bourbon and the accounts of Amadeus  VI of Savoy stress the centrality of the soldino to Greece in the 1360s.721 In the early part of the expedition of the Green Count the expenditures are recorded evenly in florins or in soldini, whether in Ragusa, Corfu, Modon-Coron, and Negroponte,722 or from late August 1366 in the northern Aegean.723 Such instances cease as the expedition passes into Constantinople and the Black Sea in September of that year, where it remained until June 1367.724 In July, on his return to Italy, the Green Count stopped in Clarentza principally to bury his Captain Giacomo di Luserna,725 and certain soldino payments resumed.726 In this context, a soldino rate of 74, and not 72, to the ducat/florin is also revealed.727 Greek-language usage of the term soldo can be assumed to be an accurate reflection of actual soldino coins, and two accounting notes suggest that the latter, beside florins/ducats and aspra, were still available at relatively advanced medieval dates in or close to areas under Byzantine control. In Catalan Boiotia taxes were paid in soldia.728 The fluctuations in the size of the soldino production is hard to measure on the basis of hoards since the levels of inclusion of specimens of the types varies according the nature of the hoards and the preferences either for older or more recent issues (see below).729 There are also no later data with which 717  Stahl, Zecca, pp. 217–223. 718  Stahl, Zecca, p. 217, n. 95: in June 1332 it is given an official value in Ragusa which is lower than the official Venetian value. 719  Krekić, Dubrovnik, no. 238. 720  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 10, n. 33. 721  Both sources have been cited in the discussion of the ducat and florin: Appendix II.4.D.2, pp. 1310 and 1313. 722   Conte Verde, pp. 39–46. 723   Conte Verde, p. 46ff. 724  For an account of the events see Cox, Green Count, pp. 221–235. 725  Cox, Green Count, p. 236. Compare Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 124–141. 726   Conte Verde, p. 150. Conte Verde, pp. 19 and 25. 727   728  Schreiner, Texte, texts 7 and 68. See also one of the Byzantine mathematical exercise books, and another post-dating 1453: Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, pp. 174–175. The monks of Vatopedi received ten soldia per person in 1398: Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 200. Compare also Appendix III, pp. 1521 and 1537 and 1546. 729  Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, pp. 475–476.

1320

appendix ii

to compare the figures established on the basis of Brunetti’s die study of the soldino issue of Francesco Dandolo (1332–1339),730 though Stahl has projected a figure of 16.5 million soldini p.a. for the same period on the basis of a document specifying the daily production rates of single moneyers.731 4.E.1

Distribution of Venetian Soldini Hoards containing Venetian soldini: «144. Unknown Provenance», «145. Unknown Provenance», «146. Mesochori», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «150. Elateia before 1885», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «155. Lepenou 1981», «156. Shën Jan», «157. Thebes 1990», «158. Petsouri 1997», «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «161. Thespies», «165. Agrinio 1967», «167. Kaparelli», «168. Elis 1964», «169. Ermitsa 1985B», «170. Eleusina 1952» , «172. Soudeli», «173. Lamia 1985», «174. Ancient Elis», «175. Pyrgos 1967», «176. Achaïa», «184. Eretria 1962B», «185. Kalapodi», «188. Gastouni 1961», «189. Unknown Provenance», «190. Mesopotam», «197. Kephallonia», «198. Delphi 1894A», «200. Gortyna», «209. Larisa ca. 2001B», «211. Chalkida». Graves containing Venetian soldini: «216. Clarentza». Excavation and single Venetian soldini: «223. Acrocorinth», «226. Agrapidochori», «234. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «256. Butrint», «261. Chloumoutsi», «262. Clarentza», «268. Corinth», «275. Corinth», «286. Drovolos», «308. Kleitoria», «312. Lamia», «313. Lepreo/Strovitzi», «340. Panakto», «342. Paos», «352. Sparta», «357. Thebes», «368. Thebes», «378. Tigani», «385. Zaraka». Hoards in the Balkans containing Venetian soldini: «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987». Excavation and single Venetian soldini from the Near East: «473. Caesarea Maritima», «478. Khirbet Bureikut», «486. Safed». Excavation and single Venetian soldini from the Balkans: «500. Agios Achilleios», «526. Thasos». Later stratigraphical fills containing Venetian soldini: Appendix  I.14, nos 17, 28. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #253–#269

730  Brunetti, “Soldini di Fr. Dandolo”; see also Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, p. 472. 731  Stahl, Zecca, p. 375, n. 25.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: SOLDINI

1321

The Venetian soldino holds a very solid presence in medieval Greece, as it does in Crete, in the Veneto and in Dalmatia.732 Otherwise in the Balkans, the soldino is limited to a Constantinopolitan hoard and two sites.733 Three sites in the Levant have also produced soldini. I saw a small hoard of soldini in the Bari museum, though this denomination is usually absent from southern Italy.734 In the territory considered in this book, the soldino is represented by a good number of hoards, and even site finds considering that it was a medium-range silver coinage, all along the seaboard from Albania to Elis, throughout the Peloponnese, and also in eastern Mainland Greece. Soldini are significantly absent from Thessaly, with the late exception «209. Larisa ca. 2001B», and also from the Cyclades. Shortly after its first minting in 1332/1333, the soldino can be found in relatively small quantities in certain Greek hoards beside much larger quantities of deniers tournois. This can be regarded as proof that the accounting system which traded these coins at a rate of 4:1 came rapidly into being, otherwise there would have been a much stricter separation of the two denominations especially in this initial phase. Within about ten years of their first minting, soldini had generally overtaken deniers tournois in these Greek hoards, quantitatively and/or in terms of their respective combined values. The first hoard to contain overwhelmingly more soldini than tournois is from Elis («158»); the first to contain solely soldini is Boiotian («161»). The tradition to hoard soldini without any other denominations continued also when, in the late 1360s, Venetian torneselli became the majority coinage in Greece. After that date, most soldino hoards are nevertheless dominated by torneselli. Beginning in the early 1380s, Hungarian denars are added to the soldini in a few hoards, the two coinages being metrologically compatible.735 In the course of the history of soldino hoarding, recent types came to be gradually added to the older ones. There are nevertheless some hoards in which, noticeably, older and more intrinsically valuable types are favourably included: this is the case for most 732  See Stahl, Zecca, pp. 427–464. The soldino finds listed in Appendix I as ‘Balkan’ are confined to Macedonia and Thrace: for the prolific finds from Croatia see: Stahl, Zecca, nos 27, 35, 43, 98, 104, 105, 123, 124. Likewise, I have not inserted the Cretan hoards and stray finds in Appendix I.8 and I.9, since this was a primary circulation area of this denomination, though soldini there are presently confined to one hoard (Monofatsi, Irakleion 1991, referred to in the context of ducat circulation: Appendix II.4.D.1, p. 1308) and one excavation (Knossos: Jackson, “Coins”, p. 107, no. 162). 733  There is also a soldino from Edirne province, not listed in Appendix I: Baker, “Edirne”, no. 177. 734  Baker, “Apulia”, p. 248, n. 178. 735  On denars and torneselli, see the discussions here below in Appendix II.4.E.5, p. 1325, and II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332.

1322

appendix ii

of the hoards dating to the 1350s, following the introduction of type 2, and later for hoards «172. Soudeli», «198. Delphi 1894A», and to a lesser degree «184. Eretria 1962B». With a few exceptions, by the 1380s torneselli were generally more prominent in the hoards than soldini. It is not easy to discern any clear geographical patterns in the way in which the soldino was used within Greece. In its early stages, this denomination seems to have been received the quickest and the fullest, accompanied by the abandonment of the tournois, in the western Peloponnese and in Catalan Attikoboitia.736 Later savings and pure soldino hoards are spread all over the analysed area. The early preponderance of the soldino in the indicated areas is dramatically underlined by the stray data from «238. Athenian Agora», which are totally dominated by the issues of Francesco Dandolo (1329–1339). Soldini of the same doge are also present at the Boiotian «340. Panakto», and at «261. Chloumoutsi», «262. Clarentza», «313. Lepreo/Strovitzi» (all Elis). The overwhelming impression from the Athenian Agora, with this curiously early pattern in soldino losses especially in view of the longevity of the site, cannot belie the fact that soldini are otherwise very evenly spread throughout Greece, both in terms of geography and chronology.737 4.E.2 Was There a Peloponnesian Soldino Issue738? In line with his attributions for certain imitative ducats, Lambros gave some soldino issues in the name of Lorenzo Celsi (1361–1364) to Prince Robert of Taranto at the Clarentza mint.739 Schlumberger was more willing to accept this attribution than he was in the case of the ducats, possibly since a large find of such issues from the Peloponnese was reported by Lambros,740 and probably since the implications of attributing another silver denomination to the principality are much less far-reaching than one of gold.741 One must however 736  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 249 and 250; Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 466ff and 471. 737  Stahl, Zecca, p. 393, and graph 16.3, place a bit too much emphasis on the Athenian data. 738  See on this topic Baker, “Chiarenza”. 739  On the ducats see Appendix II.4.D.3, p. 1315, n. 689. Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα κοπέ­ ντα εν Γλαρέντσα, pp. 8–11 (in French translation: Lambros, “Monnaies inédites en or et en argent frappées à Clarence”, pp. 96–98; in posthumous English translation: Lambros, Unpublished coins struck at Glarentsa). 740  I wonder whether the possible soldino counterfeits in the name of this doge which are now at the Museo Correr in Venice (ex Papadopoli collection) were part of this hoard: Castellani, Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini, p. 257. See also #271–#279, and here below. 741  Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 321.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: SOLDINI

1323

consider, with regard to the dating of the proposed issues, that the mint of Clarentza had probably already been closed for more than a decade by the time of Celsi’s dogeship.742 Cox took up the theme of Peloponnesian soldino issues and expanded on it.743 Her main inspiration were some supposed physical shortcomings of the coins in question,744 and a supposed gap of tournois minting at Clarentza in the years 1333–1346, which she failed to demonstrate, and which is in fact highly implausible.745 Further, to suppose that the stewardship of the Clarentza mint by certain Florentine banking houses might have led to a change in the denomination emitted there, only for the tournois to make a later re-appearance (from 1346), is also highly unrealistic. Lambros and Cox fail to make compelling cases for their theories, which are also in other ways implausible:746 states that obviously required a soldino denomination in their monetary repertoire in these years, such as Hungary and Lesbos (discussed below), chose not to copy the Venetian type but devised new iconographies. Achaïa minted a gold florin in these years, avoiding quite obviously the Venetian ducat as a prototype. The lack of pertinent Venetian documentation, had there been an attempt to imitate the Venetian soldino by the Achaïan authorities, is also conspicuous.747 An official Clarentzan mintage of soldini must therefore be rejected. 4.E.3

Counterfeit Venetian Soldini Hoards containing counterfeit Venetian soldini: «167. Kaparelli», «168. Elis 1964», «197. Kephallonia». Excavation and single counterfeit Venetian soldini: «262. Clarentza». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #270–#287

742  See Appendix II.9.A.12, p. 1425. 743  Cox, Caparelli, esp. p. 11ff. See also the corresponding hoard and my comments: «167. Kaparelli». Cox’ views were apparently endorsed by Hadziotis, The Achaian Coinage of Jean de Gravina (unavailable to me). 744  The attributes ‘resistant’ and ‘soapy’ cannot be verified from the plates; the metrological observations are unreliable given the small selection of coins. 745  See Appendix II.9.A.11, pp. 1418–1422. 746  Both of these authors’ attributions are tentatively repeated in Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 370–371. 747  See above, Appendix II.4.D.4, p. 1317.

1324

appendix ii

According to documents of 1338–1339 soldini were counterfeited in Dalmatia,748 and again in 1364 during the Cretan revolt.749 While Cox’ conclusions regarding soldino issues struck in the Peloponnese can be rejected outright on numismatic and historical grounds, Lambros may well have found the evidence for local counterfeiting activities rather than outright imitations – as he has it – at the Clarentza mint. Lambros’ descriptions, in terms of style (“très-commun et presque barbare”) and the lack of the usual rev. mint marks in front of the lion, are certainly compelling. As I indicated here above, there are a number of sub-standard (hence counterfeit) soldini in the name of Doge Celsi in the Museo Correr, which were perhaps initially from the Lambros collection (#271–#279). This is as far as we can presently go in verifying Lambros’ theory. Looking at the specimens in question, we must note the slightly smaller and squatter figure of the doge and some inconsistencies in the lettering. The remainder of the possible counterfeit soldini in the Venice collection750 are late (after 1400) and not particularly plentiful (#280–#285). Otherwise, counterfeit soldini are not very often encountered at all:751 I have handled countless soldini, also in contexts in which one would certainly expect to find counterfeits (for instance «238. Athenian Agora»), but have myself identified only one (from «262. Clarentza»752). Other writers have seen counterfeit soldini in the two hoards listed above. 4.E.4

Hungarian Denars Hoards containing Hungarian denars: «174. Ancient Elis», «175. Pyrgos 1967», «185. Kalapodi», «197. Kephallonia». Excavation and single Hungarian denars: «239. Athens». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #288–#290

Hungarian denars of the standing St. Ladislas / coat of arms type of King Louis I of Anjou (1342–82) have the same metrological properties as Venetian

748  Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia, 1, pp. 160–161. 749  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 9, n. 30; Stahl, Zecca, p. 241, n. 73. 750  Castellani, Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini, pp. 257–258. 751  The assessment of Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, p. 327, n. 52, that the soldino was “… much counterfeited (…), as grossi had been”, is not accurate. Incidentally, grosso counterfeits are very rare indeed in Greece: Appendix II.4.B, p. 1299. 752  See also Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 251, n. 60, pl. 29.35.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: TORNESELLI

1325

soldini.753 The two coinages circulated together in Greece, although the denars were evidently targeted for culling and are concentrated at their probable point of entry in the west, around the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth. The main circulation period of Hungarian denars is the 1380s. «197. Kephallonia», deposited perhaps around 1410, might suggest that the elimination of these denars was the most rigorous in territories of the principality of Achaïa, and less so on the islands. 4.E.5

Lesbian Soldini Hoards containing Lesbian soldini: «175. Pyrgos 1967». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #291

The western Peloponnesian hoard «175. Pyrgos 1967» included a single Lesbian coin of the kneeling ruler / Agnus Dei type.754 Some scholars prefer to give this coin a Byzantine-style denomination (half basilikon/keration) in the belief that Lesbos and its ruler Francesco I Gattilusio, were orientated towards Constantinople. To my mind the obv. type and our particular find context would nevertheless suggest more strongly that it was conceived as a soldino.755 This is corroborated by the presence of the same issue in «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987», again beside larger quantities of Venetian soldini (the single specimen is reproduced as #291) 4.F Torneselli756 The tornesello was introduced in 1353 at the same time as the second of the soldino types,757 evidently part of the same policy.758 In combination, these coinages substantially reduced the value – in real terms – of payments 753  Their system of classification is provided by Pohl, Münzzeichen. A re-dating of some of the issues was underaken by Tóth, “Der ‘Sarachenen Denar’”. A discussion of Hungarian denars in Greece has already been given in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 256–257. 754  For a presentation of the specimen see Tzamalis, “Gattilusii”. 755  The matter is fully discussed, with the pertinent bibliography, in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 257. 756  The Venetian tornesello has already formed the subject of an authoritative monograph (Stahl, Tornesello), to which I owe much of this discussion. The metallurgy of the tornesello was dealt with separately in Stahl et al, “The analysis of a hoard of Venetian torneselli”. 757  Appendix II.4.E, p. 1317. 758  Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 7–10.

1326

appendix ii

undertaken by the republic. Unlike the soldino, the tornesello was specifically destined for the colonial empire,759 and its inception seems to be directly related to the end of tournois minting within Achaïa.760 The tornesello was a coin with an official weight of ca. 0.75g (though usually minted much lighter761), and a fineness of usually somewhat more than 10% silver.762 It was therefore sub-standard both with regard to its direct predecessor, the tournois, and the soldino, to which it stood at an official rate. This explains some of the hoarding patterns, described below. Although torneselli were evidently minted rapidly and in good quantities from the outset, hoards763 and the specific deployment of mint masters764 suggest very strongly that the height of its production was during the last two decades of the fourteenth, and the first decade of the fifteenth century. Judging by the hoards, the annual production rates were already reduced during the dogeship of Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423), and torneselli of his successor Francesco Foscari (1423–1457) were minted in trifling numbers.765 The level of available documentation – numismatic or otherwise – does not entirely allow one to describe or interpret the demise of the tornesello. This is unfortunate since this was such a fundamental development in the story of the monetisation of Greece.766 It is possible that the suppression of a designated mint master for torneselli already during the time of Mocenigo (1416),767 and the great hostility which this denomination was facing in the new Albanian colonies,768 marked turning points. Stahl implies that tornesello production might have been curtailed in this period because Greece was still saturated by the issues of Antonio Venier, and because Venice turned its attention to its mainland Italian possessions.769 It has also been calculated that in this period the intrinsic and market values of torneselli began to converge and that torneselli therefore became too costly for Venice to produce.770 In this, the tornesello fell foul of the model developed by Sargent and Velde on the viability of 759  See Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 18–19 on the official distribution of this coinage. 760  Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 175, n. 35; Appendix II.9.A.12, p. 1425. 761  Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 31–40. 762  Stahl et al, “The analysis of a hoard of Venetian torneselli”. 763  Stahl, “Venetian coinage: variations in production”, esp. p. 474. 764  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 11. 765  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 46. 766  On this subject matter, see Chapter 2, pp. 181–184. Compare also the Preface, p. xx. 767  Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia, 1, p. 245; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 11. 768  Chapter 3, p. 394. 769  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 70. 770  Sargent and Velde, Small change, pp. 176–177.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: TORNESELLI

1327

small change,771 and would have become a victim of the later medieval silver crisis which affected the smaller denominations in particular. Officially, the tornesello was minted with a view to being valued at a quarter of a soldino within both the Greek and Venetian (one tornesello = three piccoli) systems of account,772 that is to say 288 torneselli to the ducat.773 The tornesello was mostly accounted in soldi. As we have seen, the soldo-ducat rates were unstable from the mid-fourteenth century onwards due to the debasements affecting the soldino during types 2ff.774 The rapid increase in the number of soldi required to make up a ducat, from the 1380s onwards, would seem to indicate that these soldi were in fact constituted mostly or exclusively by torneselli. The soldo-ducat rates shot up from 80:1 to almost 200:1, that is to say between 320 and 800 torneselli were required for each ducat. Since the standard of the tornesello remained relatively stable throughout its period of production, we must assume that these high figures in the fifteenth century were due to a combination of market conditions and government policy. Additionally, the appearance of counterfeit torneselli775 would have left its mark: in 1435 the Venetian Senate observed that false tornesi from Attica and Boiotia affected the rates of the ducat at Negroponte.776 With respect to the spread of torneselli beyond the Venetian colonial world, Badoer’s account book of the 1430s is potentially an important source: if the ‘tornexi’ that are mentioned there777 were to be Venetian rather than Byzantine, as seems likely regarding the chronology of the latter which has been revised in this book,778 this would provide further proof of the continued circulation of the first generation of torneselli which dates 1353–1416/1423, and of its spread to Constantinople itself. 4.F.1

Distribution of Venetian Torneselli Hoards containing Venetian torneselli: «164. Kiras Vrisi», «165. Agrinio 1967», «171. Thespies», «172. Soudeli», «174. Ancient Elis», «177. Unknown Provenance», «178. Athenian Agora 1936» (?), «179. Velimachio», «180. Mystras», «181. Thebes 1995», «182. Troizina», «183. Butrint», «184. Eretria

771  See Chapter 1, p. 65. 772  On the systems of account, see Appendix III. 773  Compare the figures given for the soldino: Appendix II.4.E, p. 1318. 774  See the graph presented in Stahl, Tornesello, p. 63, based on the documents of pp. 87–90. 775  On these counterfeits see below, Appendix II.4.F.2, pp. 1331–1332. 776  Thiriet, Régestes, 3, p. 47, no. 2392. Compare also Appendix III, p. 1552. 777  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 221. 778  Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1270.

1328

appendix ii

1962B», «186. Epiros», «187. Thebes 1973», «188. Gastouni 1961», «189. Unknown Provenance», «191. Ritzanoi», «192. Corinth BnF», «193. Naxos 2005», «194. Sparta 1926A & B», «195. Zakynthos 1978», «196. Delphi 1894B», «197. Kephallonia», «198. Delphi 1894A», «199. Sterea Ellada», «200. Gortyna», «201. Vasilitsi 2000», «202. Unknown Provenance», «203. Greenall», «204. Leukada 1933», «205. ANS 1983», «206. Arta 1985B», «207. ANS 1982», «208. Morea 1849», «211. Chalkida», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing Venetian torneselli: «214. Athenian Agora», «215. Athens», «216. Clarentza», «219. Naxos 1978». Excavation and single Venetian torneselli: «223. Acrocorinth», «224. Agios Nikolaos», «231. Andros», «234. Argos», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «246. Athens», «247. Athens», «255. Bozika», «261. Chloumoutsi», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «272. Corinth», «273. Corinth», «277. Corinth», «279. Corinth», «280. Daphniotissa», «281. Delos», «284. Delphi», «286. Drovolos», «290. Eutresis», «291. Gastouni»(?), «296. Isthmia», «298. Kallipolis», «302. Karthaia», «303. Karystos», «304. Kato Vasiliki», «305. Kenchreai», «308. Kleitoria», «310. Krestena», «312. Lamia», «313. Lepreo/ Strovitzi», «314. Ligourio», «315. Livadeia», «316. Mashkieza», «317. Mazi/ Skillountia», «320. Methoni», «322. Naxos», «323. Naxos», «324. Naxos», «326. Naxos», «327. Naxos», «329. Naxos», «332. Naxos», «333. Naxos», «334. Nemea», «339. Orchomenos», «340. Panakto», «341. Pantanassa», «343. Patra», «351. Sparta», «352. Sparta», «354. Thebes», «356. Thebes», «366. Thebes», «368. Thebes», «378. Tigani», «381. Τrikala», «385. Zaraka». Hoards in the Near East containing Venetian torneselli: «470. Tel Akko». Excavation and single Venetian torneselli from the Near East: «482. Paphos». Excavation and single Venetian torneselli from the Balkans: «499. Agathopolis», «515. Olynthos», «521. Rentina», «526. Thasos». Later stratigraphical fills containing Venetian torneselli: Appendix  I.14, nos 7, 12, 15, 28. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #292–#302 The tornesello is present in Greece in nearly 40 hoards and as countless stray finds. «165. Agrinio 1967» is an exceptionally early hoard, containing just a

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: TORNESELLI

1329

single specimen of Andrea Dandolo (minted 1353–1354). The next hoards, from Boiotia and the Peloponnese («171», «172», «174»), already date to around the 1370s. We can probably attribute this lapse of time to the reluctance on the part of the hoarders to include such issues.779 Hoards of the period between the 1350s and 1370s usually contain a combination of tournois and/or soldini. There follow ten hoards which close in the issues of Doge Antonio Venier (1382– 1400). These hoards, from the area between Epiros, the Peloponnese, and the eastern Mainland, are usually dominated by torneselli, with the exception of «184. Eretria 1962B» with more soldini than torneselli. The tornesello hoards of the following period – that ending in issues of Doge Michele Steno (1400– 1413) – present a much more mixed picture. At «193. Naxos 2005» there is one tournois amid five torneselli; «194. Sparta 1926A & B» is a Byzantine tornese hoard containing a small number of Venetian torneselli; and the following hoards contain substantial numbers of soldini and tournois beside the torneselli, which is all the more surprising since the latter had not been in production for more than half a century: «192. Corinth BnF»; «196. Delphi 1894B»; «197. Kephallonia»; «198. Delphi 1894A». The concentration of these hoards, with the exception of «197», around the eastern part of the Gulf of Corinth is worthy of note.780 The last phase of tornesello hoarding in medieval Greece closes in the issues of Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) («204»–«208»). The obvious problem with these hoards is the fact that his successors, as has been noted, barely produced any torneselli at all. However, the issues of Mocenigo in these four hoards are less mature than in the later «211. Chalkida». This suggests that these hoards may all have been concealed even before the end of his dogeship (1423). «211. Chalkida» demonstrates how few the subsequent issues reaching Greece were (Mocenigo: 282; Foscari: 3; Moro: 17), and how older torneselli still constituted the majority coinage in Greece in the second half of the fifteenth century, as is implied in the soldo-ducat exchange rates which have been discussed. «212. Corinth 10 November 1936» is the first hoard to contain the second generation of torneselli.781 The uncertain fifteenth century situation is particularly important also for the stray finds. Torneselli can help us in defining the lifespan of sites of later medieval Greece in the interesting transitional period from Latin/Byzantine to Turkish rule, though negative evidence is not altogether reliable: we know from the evidence of pottery that the Athenian Agora («238» and «239»),782 779  On the occasional refusal to accept this coinage, see Stahl, Tornesello, p. 9. 780  See Baker, “Corinthe”. 781  Papadopoli Aldobrandini, Monete di Venezia, 2, p. 69. 782  Frantz, “Middle Byzantine pottery in Athens”; Frantz, “Turkish pottery from the Agora”.

1330

appendix ii

Chloumoutzi castle («261»),783 and to a lesser extent Clarentza («262»),784 continued well into the fifteenth century, though the torneselli do not obviously back this up. The torneselli found at Corinth («263»ff), and at nearby Isthmia («296») and Kenchreai («305»), suggest that developments were healthy at least until the point at which tornesello production was heavily reduced in the later 1410s or early 1420s, and the same can be said even for the akropolis and Artemis Orthia sanctuary of Sparta («351» and «352»).785 Only when comparing the overall quantities of torneselli and earlier tournois can we ascertain that, in relative terms, these two towns were in decline when compared to the situation more than a century previously. There is another grouping of sites which have an arrested development within their tornesello loss rates, suggesting decadence at various stages already in the fourteenth century: amongst such sites are Arta («237»), Argos («234» and «236»), and Zaraka («385»). Most interestingly, all significant Boiotian find complexes belong to this category, Eutresis («290»), Panakto («340»), and Thebes («354» and «356»). Of the areas considered in this book, torneselli are almost completely absent from Thessaly (the exception being the single coin found at «381. Τrikala»). They also spread to more northerly regions, outside of the primary area of analysis, much more rarely than the previous deniers tournois: finds are recorded merely from the coastal Macedonian and Thracian sites of «515. Olynthos», «521. Rentina», «526. Thasos», «499. Agathopolis» (on the Black Sea), as well as from Lesbos.786 Other tornesello finds outside of Greece are limited to a single specimen from Cyprus and a small hoard from Israel («470» and «482»). This is testimony, more than anything else, to the decreasing level of direct contact between Greece and the Levant in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.787 The coast of Albania and Crete were areas of primary tornesello usage, though for both, presumably for entirely modern reasons, very few data are available.788 783  Skartsis, Chlemoutsi. 784  See the pottery presented in Clarence. 785  Although the pottery from the sites, according to current knowledge, goes up to about the turn of the fifteenth century, the most recent pottery grouping being presented in Armstrong, “Sparta”. 786  See Williams, “Mytilene”, p. 112, which I missed in the compilation of Appendix I. 787  This material and its implications are discussed in Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”. 788  Within our area of analysis it should be noted that stray torneselli, which would undoubtedly have been found at Butrint («257» and «258»), have not yet been made known. Further to the north, no later medieval coins from Durazzo have been published. With regard to Crete, only one hoard (Armenoi Apokoronou: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 81) and one find complex («475. Irakleion») are known to me. For the historical data regarding torneselli in Durazzo, and in Albania more generally, see Schmitt, Albanien, p. 334.

COINAGES: VENETIAN AND RELATED: TORNESELLI

4.F.2

1331

Counterfeit Venetian Torneselli Hoards containing counterfeit Venetian torneselli: «174. Ancient Elis», «195. Zakynthos 1978», «197. Kephallonia», «201. Vasilitsi 2000», «202. Unknown Provenance», «205. ANS 1983», «207. ANS 1982», «211. Chalkida», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing counterfeit Venetian torneselli: «216. Clarentza». Excavation and single counterfeit Venetian torneselli: «238. Athenian Agora» (?), «239. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «268. Corinth», «351. Sparta», «352. Sparta», «385. Zaraka». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #303–#347

Counterfeits of the Venetian tornesello are known from a number of contexts. They are a consistent feature – with high percentages of the total number of torneselli – at well-studied hoards and sites from a number of areas (the illustrated specimens #303–#347 have been sourced from sites and hoards in Elis, and the excavations at Ancient Corinth and the North Slope at Athens, and even Sparta). The obvious suspicion is that counterfeit torneselli were even more common than the above list would suggest.789 Tornesello hoards can often consist of worn or corroded coins, more so than for other denominations. This, and the fact that genuine torneselli themselves were rapidly produced with very simple designs, can make it difficult to pick out the counterfeits.790 The only factor which might have kept tornesello counterfeiting at bay was the continued fashion, probably all the way into the fifteenth century, for counterfeit tournois. On the other hand there is some evidence that precisely those areas in which tournois counterfeiting was rife – the western Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland – were also hotbeds for tornesello counterfeiting. At the Athenian North Slope, for instance, apparently late and crude tournois and tornesello counterfeits of similar style have been observed (compare for instance #329–#338 and #875–#892). In fact, when the Republic of Venice became concerned with counterfeits emanating from the respective territories controlled by the Navarrese Company, and later Carlo I Tocco, they might have had both types in mind.791 It has already been noted that in the

789  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 69, plays down the importance of counterfeit torneselli on the basis of «211. Chalkida», but some of the excavations I cite have yielded much higher percentages. 790  On the technical criteria for identifying counterfeits, see also Stahl, Tornesello, p. 15. 791  See Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1487–1488.

1332

appendix ii

fifteenth century counterfeit tournois or torneselli from the Mainland affected the ducat of account of Negroponte.792 In terms of recognising counterfeit torneselli, as we can glean from some of our illustrated specimens, especially those in the Papadopoli collection or hoard «174. Ancient Elis» (#303–#320 and #342ff), it is often necessary to spot certain incongruencies in the legends which distinguish the coins from the official issues of the Venice mint. In many other cases, the imitative nature of a particular specimen is immediately clear to the eye (see for instance #324–#339). 5

Western European Pennies

The simple silver penny was the main denomination of the medieval west, and the basis for countless accounting systems (almost always handled in units of twelve and 240, that is to say shillings and pounds). Some western penny issues found a place within the monetary systems of Greece in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade:793 English sterlings,794 French tournois,795 and to a much more limited degree Venetian piccoli.796 Once these two or three penny types had established themselves, they received favourable treatment, and they were intentionally brought to Greece. Latin contacts with the Aegean region from the eleventh and twelfth century, and direct Latin control from the early thirteenth, supplied our area with a number of additional penny issues. These are most frequently of French or Italian origin, with only two specimens from other parts of the Latin west known to me from the numismatic record: a Spanish and a Hungarian penny (see below). A number of pennies in evidence in Greece are of lower intrinsic value than the sterling or tournois pennies, and unlike these they were never integrated into the main Greek monetary systems, which is underlined by the fact that they never constitute the majority coinage in a given hoard, and are mostly found as strays. This material – similarly to the miscellaneous eastern coins discussed under the next heading797 – therefore makes only a negligible contribution to medieval Greek monetisation. Nevertheless, such coins retained their monetary properties, as can be seen from the fact that 792  Appendix II.4.F, p. 1327. 793  Or conceivably, in some cases and areas, even a little earlier. 794  Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 795  Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293. 796  Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. 797  Appendix II.6, pp. 1343–1353.

COINAGES: WESTERN PENNIES

1333

they sometimes appear in much later hoards. It is also possible that they were, relatively speaking, more important during the early period of Latin rule, although our evidence to that effect is not particularly abundant. Because their import into Greece was less systematic than in the case of the majority coinages, these minor penny coinages can provide very truthful markers for the relations between their indigenous places of circulation with precise points in Latin Greece.798 Imported coins divide therefore into two broad categories, those that constitute the staple of the Greek monetary system, and others which are more directly linked to the persons who carried them. Only a very select number of issues fitted the first coinages and there are other high-quality, inter-regional, western penny coinages which were entirely absent from Greece: the French royal penny of the Paris standard (‘denier parisis’799), a coinage of higher intrinsic value than the tournois, and of great presence in northern areas of France,800 is a prime example. Another interesting case is that of the highquality pennies of Friesach (Friesacher Pfennige), minted by the Archbishops of Salzburg and many other issuers, which were prominent in southern Germany, the Alpine region, the Adriatic, the northern Balkans and the Black Sea.801 Within the category of the lesser penny coinages, those of Germany and the Low Countries are also entirely lacking from our Greek finds record.802 Given the involvement of Germans, Flemings and northern Frenchmen in the crusading movement,803 the Fourth Crusade itself and the subsequent history of Romania/Greece,804 this is all the more disappointing and shows the limitations of the model of coin imports which I have proposed. We have to assume that the find record as it presently exists, with its preponderance of French and Italian pennies of certain types, is merely the tip of the iceberg, representative of many other penny types imported into Greece which have so far failed to make a showing. There is in fact some indirect evidence for the circulation of German coins in the thirteenth century Aegean: particular iconographical features of coins of the Empire at Thessalonike and subsequent Palaiologan 798  The evidence is used in such a way for instance in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”. Compare also the geographical discussion in Chapter 3, pp. 201–211. 799  Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, pp. 82–83 (Philip II) and 95 (Louis IX). 800  Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, nos 164ff and 191. 801  See Travaini, “Quarta crociata”, p. 529, with the pertinent bibliography. Consider also the Friesach pennies at Trebizond: Morrisson and Ganchou, “Lingots de Thessalonique”. 802  On German coins, see also Stahl, “Circulation of European Coinage”, p. 96. 803  See «461. ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard» for a typical crusader hoard. 804  See for instance the two Flemish coins of (Emperor) Henry of Flanders (1206–1216) excavated in Tbilisi: Strässle, “Beitrag der sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Numismatik”, p. 129, n. 153.

1334

appendix ii

issues, especially the winged emperor, but also the particular design of castles, would indicate the presence of certain German issues.805 Simple western pennies are more plentiful in Greece and surroundings in the eleventh and twelfth than in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. At least two main reasons may be identified for this: there was much more diversity in western European coinage and high-value pan-European pennies such as the sterling were less developed; and the entire Aegean area and adjoining territories were still Byzantine and all western coins were by definition alien.806 Metcalf has assembled and worked on such coin finds for many decades.807 He identified specific coins which were used for the journey east;808 and he classified most of the hoards of such issues as ‘traveller’s hoards’, containing “a sum of money withdrawn from the currency of a particular locality, supplemented perhaps by coinage obtained at places on the line of the journey by the sale of goods or by exchange, and concealed for the night or in an emergency and never recovered”.809 Scenarios similar to the one described may well have applied to some of the hoards listed in Appendix I,810 but are implausible and reductionistic in others: for instance, «462. Lindos 1902», «464. Samos 1932», and «468. Izmir 1968», and also the hoard from Ainos which is not contained in Appendix I,811 require more leeway for the explanation of their formation processes and, ultimately, for their dates of concealment. This has some important implications for the usage of these issues in these localities. Particularly the latter three hoards seem to suggest that also minor western pennies were used along the western coast of Asia Minor in the thirteenth century.812 805  The thesis of Bertelè, Imperatore alato, which postulates German influences on Byzantine coinage of the thirteenth century, is reiterated in Touratsoglou, “Τα νομισματικά πράγματα στη Μακεδονία”, p. 271, though viewed sceptically elsewhere (Morrisson, “L’empereur ailé”; Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 479). Kontogiannis, in a recent study (“Translatio imaginis”), brought together the various iconographical devices and made a renewed case for such cross-Balkan influences: these suggest certain coin circulation patterns which the numismatic record – particularly sketchy especially in Macedonia – has yet to discern. 806  See also Chapter 1, esp. pp. 18–20. 807  See Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 4–11, which lists also the relevant coin hoards systematically. 808  Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence, and Antioch”. See also Stahl, “Circulation of European Coinage”, p. 86; Matzke, “Denar von Lucca” and Matzke, “Die sieben Kreuzfahrermünzen”. The evidence is summarised in Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 12–21. 809  Quoted from Metcalf, “Money of a medieval French traveller”, p. 145: See also Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 98–101. 810  For instance «461. ‘Barbarossa’ Hoard». 811  Baker, “Ainos”. 812  Baker, “Dodecanese”, pp. 354–356. See also the comments in Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”, p. 356.

COINAGES: WESTERN PENNIES

1335

For Greece there is no such clear-cut information. From the entire area only three ‘traveller’s hoards’ have been recorded, all found at Corinth (Corinth 1905,813 Corinth 1907,814 Corinth 1971815). These coins were probably concealed in the twelfth century, much less likely in the thirteenth.816 This uncertainty in the dating of the assemblages is due on the one hand to the uncertain dating of the production of the coins of Valence (see below) – none of the very plentiful coins of Lucca found in Greece being of thirteenth century date817 – and the possibility that these were in fact not straight-forward ‘traveller’s hoards’, but assemblages taken also here out of local Corinthian circulation some time after the arrival of the coins in Greece. That such hoards are confined to Corinth is probably due to a combination of factors, the importance of the town in the twelfth century with regard to communications – much more so than for instance Athens (see below) –, combined with the amount of archaeological investigation undertaken there since 1896. Much as the pennies of Valence, other minor penny issues found as strays remain difficult to date. This is a major hindrance to the proper appreciation of the position of such coins in Greece, in terms of chronology (twelfth or thirteenth century?) and function (entirely alien, or performing a monetary function?). 5.A France818 Hoards containing French pennies: «70. Corinth 8 May 1934», «81. Troizina 1899», «114. Unknown Provenance before 1946». 813  Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, p. 12; Metcalf, “Coins of Lucca, Valence, and Antioch”, p. 468 and pl. 17.19–20 and 18.21–22; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 10. 814  Edwards, Coins 1896–1929, p. 12; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 99 and 358, pl. 6; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 5–6. 815  Dengate, “Corinth”, pp. 178–188; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 10. 816  See, for the latter possibility, Stahl, “Circulation of European Coinage”, p. 356, n. 3. 817  And therefore not discussed in the further course of this Appendix. See, on the typology and the eastern Mediterranean coin finds: Matzke, “Denar von Lucca”. The most recent typology for the Lucca penny is contained in Bellesia, Lucca. In addition to the Corinth 1905 and 1971 hoards, Lucca pennies are recorded in Appendix I at the following locations: «238. Athenian Agora»; «265. Corinth»; «266. Corinth»; «468. Izmir 1968». The only other twelfth-century Italian pennies in evidence in Greece are from Verona: see «264. Corinth» and two finds from the Corinth Excavations in 1926 and 1936 not listed in Appendix I. On this important northern Italian coinage of the central middle ages, see MEC 12, pp. 73–77 and 653–658. 818  Stahl, “Circulation of European Coinage”, pp. 93–96, analyses the particular French dimension of the western coinages carried eastwards in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

1336

appendix ii

Excavation and single French pennies: «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «351. Sparta» Later stratigraphical fills containing French pennies: Appendix I.13, no. 41. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #348–#359 French feudal pennies have been found at four Greek excavation sites, Argos («236»), Athens («238»), Corinth («265», «266», «268»),819 and Sparta («351»), and in three hoards of the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. The French feudal coins found in Greece can be divided into four groupings. First, there are those specimens which belong to the main coinages carried eastwards during the first century of the crusading movement.820 These are, like the hoards discussed in my introduction to the penny coinages here above, confined to the town of Corinth and include the issues of Valence («265», «266»: see #351 and #352), Melgueil and Maguelone («265»: #357), Poitou («266»: #348 and #349), Le Puy («266»: #355), to which can be added that from Anjou («266»: #353), and eleventh century coins of Normandy («267») and of Lyons, the latter excavated in 1929 and not listed in Appendix I but illustrated as #350. These coins would all appear to be dated earlier than 1200 and would have reached Corinth before the Fourth Crusade, even if they might still have been used and lost in the course of the thirteenth century. Second, there is a grouping of coins dating to the late twelfth or first half of the thirteenth century, which certainly came to Greece during the Fourth Crusade or immediately thereafter: this includes the Burgundian coin at «236. Argos» (#354), two pieces from the Limousin («81. Troizina 1899»: Turenne; «266. Corinth»: Limoges, #359), and two further coins from the area of westcentral France just to the north thereof («268. Corinth»: Déols; «351. Sparta»: Château-Meillant: #358). A third grouping sits between the first two, even though conceptually it is a case apart: coins of Champagne, so-called provisini, are found exclusively at Corinth, hoarded and as strays («70», «265», «266»: #359). According to the datings clarified most recently by Travaini and Bompaire, though confirming to a large extent those established already by numismatists of the nineteenth century, these pieces are mostly or exclusively of twelfth-century date. This repeats precisely the chronological pattern established for the Regno of Sicily,821 leading to the obvious conclusion that the Champagnois pieces of 819  See also the commentary for «264», where an issue of Châteaudun is mentioned. 820  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 17–21. 821  M  EC, pp. 405–6 and 470; Travaini, “Provisini di Champagne”.

COINAGES: WESTERN PENNIES

1337

Greece were enjoying a secondary circulation following their expulsion from southern Italy. This would have occurred during the reign of Frederick II, more precisely from the 1220s, the period when the first south Italian pennies were imported into Greece (see the next discussion). This transfer from one territory to other might have taken place over a more prolonged period during the thirteenth century than suggested by Travaini, in line again with the pennies of the Regno which continued to arrive in Greece until the 1270s/1280s: an act of the Angevin period still reveals sums in provisini being converted into the common tournois coinage, at 1.37 to 1.822 It is unlikely, at this particular date, that these were Roman senatorial issues, which were found in very small quantities in the Regno only later.823 The fourth and final grouping of imported French pennies includes a penny of Châteaudun, in the central region of France, dated to the period 1233–1253, found at Corinth;824 the later thirteenth-century issue of Brittany originally reported for «238. Athenian Agora»; and the Burgundian coins of one early fourteenth century hoard, «114. Unknown Provenance before 1946». The particular personal, dynastic or political reasons which might have brought the latter coins to Greece are explored in the relevant discussion in Appendix I. 5.B

Kingdom of Sicily (Naples)825 Hoards containing pennies of the Kingdom of Sicily (Naples): «174. Ancient Elis», «211. Chalkida», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing pennies of the Kingdom of Sicily (Naples): «216. Clarentza». Excavation and single pennies of the Kingdom of Sicily (Naples): «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «351. Sparta», «354. Thebes». Later stratigraphical fills containing pennies of the Kingdom of Sicily (Naples): Appendix I.13, no. 54. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #360–#363

822  Registri, 2, pp. 209–210, no. 809 (14 Aug. 1269). 823  M  EC, p. 424. 824  On this coin (Corinth Excavations 29–2090), see «264» and Appendix II.3, p. 1283, n. 512; on the type see Duplessy, Monnaies françaises féodales, pp. 121–122. 825  The standard treatment of the pennies of Hohenstaufen and early Angevin times is Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”. This information is repeated in MEC, which also covers subsequent penny issues of the Regno.

1338

appendix ii

For earlier times, a generation of copper issues of the Normans has also been documented at the Athenian Agora («238») and Corinth («265»). This is broadly analogous, in terms of metal and denomination, chronology, and mechanism of distribution, to some of the eastern coinages discussed in Appendix II.6.826 A number of successive issues of Hohenstaufen and Angevin Sicily (Naples) dating to the post-1200 period covered in this book are present in Greece.827 These western-style penny issues are very heavily concentrated in the Hohenstaufen period, for Kings Frederick II (1197–1250), Conrad I (1250– 1254), and Manfred (1258–1264) («211», «216», «263», «266», «267», «351»: #360 and #361). Pennies of the first Angevin king, Charles I (1266–1285), are also quite common («266», «268», «354»: #362), but those of his son and grandson, Charles II and Robert, are totally lacking from our record. The absence of pennies produced during this long period (1285–1343) is striking. «174. Ancient Elis» contained a single specimen of Queen Joanna (1343–1381) (#363), «211. Chalkida» one of King Ladislaus (1386–1414). Finally, two Sicilian coins of Alfonso the Magnanimous derive from a later fifteenth-century context («212»). The chronology of the described distribution of southern Italian issues might come as a surprise, given that Italian, and especially Angevin, interests in southern Greece increased in the second half of the thirteenth century and beyond, including the reigns of Charles II and Robert. These are, nevertheless, developments for which at least two very plausible explanations can be given. First, pennies were quite consistently emitted by the mints of the two parts of the Regno (mostly Messina and Brindisi, occasionally Palermo and Manfredonia), throughout the Hohenstaufen and early Angevin periods. Messina was lost to the Angevins in 1282 as a result of the Sicilian Vespers, but even the mint of Brindisi was closed in roughly this period.828 While pennies were subsequently minted at Naples under Charles II and Robert of Anjou,829 it is very likely that their production levels were much smaller than those of the pennies of the thirteenth century, and perhaps even than those of 826  Pp. 1343–1344. 827  See Baker, “Apulia”, p. 234, n. 99, for a previous list of finds. See further Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 219; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 274; Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 258, n. 112. For a broader chronological and geographical overview, including the Norman period and the Levant: Metcalf, “Monete del Regno di Sicilia”. 828  The closure of the Brindisi mint is usually considered to have occurred in the late 1270s, though I have suggested 1282 (Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 222), and an even later date is possible. 829  M  EC, pp. 220–221 and 225.

COINAGES: WESTERN PENNIES

1339

Joanna and subsequent rulers of the second half of the fourteenth century.830 Second, the period which saw this lull in the penny production in the Regno was also that during which the Greek mints, and especially Clarentza, emitted large quantities of deniers tournois.831 In fact, since ultimate control of these tournois rested with the same Neapolitan authorities, and because the Greek tournois also had a very prominent Italian circulation,832 it is possible that production levels of the respective penny coinages of the Regno and Achaïa were reciprocal.833 Whether or not this was the case, the period from the 1280s to the 1330s/1340s was at any rate the most difficult for any coinage to break into southern Greece and establish itself precisely because of the preponderance of the local tournois coinage. Thereafter, with the overall demise of the quality of the Greek circulating stock, also humble coinages, such as the pennies of Joanna and Ladislaus, but even the much earlier import of Conrad I, hoarded in «211. Chalkida», once again managed to leave marks on the archaeological record. The mint distribution of the penny issues found in Greece, an important aspect of Travaini’s study, is of some interest. The specimen of Frederick at «263» can be attributed to Brindisi because of its presence in the ‘Marks’ hoard.834 The coin of the same ruler found at «351» is the earliest penny of the Regno in Greece (1225), and has been attributed to Messina on the basis of one Sicilian find.835 The type of Conrad I at «211. Chalkida» is confidently attributed to Messina because of its presence also in the ‘Cambridge’ hoard,836 while that from a Clarentzan grave («216») is definitely from the mainland.837 Also the two pennies of Manfred found at Corinth («266» and «268») divide between the Messina and Brindisi mints.838 This pattern is broken under Charles I, with 830  Even if the coin of Charles III (1382–1386) in the ‘Marks’ hoard is an intruder, it is still striking how many of the coins in this hoard date to the early and middle years of the thirteenth century: Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, pp. 93–97. Consider also the stray data gathered for Brindisi, Capaccio Vecchia, Crotone, Otranto, Paestum (MEC, pp. 424, 425, 429), or for the Molise region (Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, esp. pp. 271 and 290), where there are again near or total gaps of penny losses during the reigns of Charles II and Robert. 831  Appendix II.9.A, pp. 1395–1426. 832  Chapter 2, pp. 99–100. 833  Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 428; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 223. 834  Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, p. 94. 835  Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, p. 114. 836  Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, p. 98. 837  Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, p. 120. 838  Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, pp. 122–123.

1340

appendix ii

merely one out of five coins being from the island mint.839 It would appear that the Greek evidence, at least until the 1260s, is remarkably un-biased towards Puglia and in fact evenly comprises penny issues which are representative for the Regno as a whole. Italian tournois, all of which were emitted within the Regno, are discussed at another point in the appendix.840 5.C Ancona Hoards containing pennies of Ancona: «174. Ancient Elis», «211. Chalkida», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Excavation and single pennies of Ancona: «229. Amphissa», «238. Athenian Agora», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #364–#368 The pennies from northern and central Italy have been divided into two separate discussions, one confined to the issues of Ancona, and one for all the other issues (see below). The most immediate observation regarding this material – which stands in contrast to the southern Italian pennies which are dealt with in the previous heading – is its late dating. After the twelfth-century pennies of Lucca and Verona,841 with the exception of some rare Venetian quartaroli842 there are probably no northern and central Italian pennies in evidence in Greece at all for the thirteenth century, and all the relevant finds date to the fourteenth century or later. With eleven specimens, the Anconite penny coinage is a fairly significant feature in medieval Greece, as it is throughout the Adriatic area.843 None of the earliest pieces described by Metcalf, which are confined to the varieties listed in CNI XIII, pp. 2–3, have to date been found in Greece.844 The specimen from «174. Ancient Elis», which is stylistically close to the latter chronological end of 839  Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, p. 129. 840  Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1481. 841  See the introduction to this Appendix II.5, p. 1335. 842  Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. 843  C NI XIII, p. 1ff, remains the standard reference for this series and its many varieties. A detailed consideration of the typology is contained in Metcalf, “Denari Primitivi”, though the hoard utilised in that study appears to be early. On the Anconite penny coinage, especially with regard to its chronology and circulation, see Saccocci, “Circolazione monetale nel medioevo marchigiano”, and Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, pp. 272, 273, 280, 290. 844  Day, “Ancona”.

COINAGES: WESTERN PENNIES

1341

the specimens described by Metcalf (his lettering C), but which has the prominent dot on the reverse between DE and aNCONa still lacking from Metcalf’s hoard (CNI XIII, p. 3, no. 14), is dated to the fourteenth century (#364).845 The coin contained in «211. Chalkida»846 belongs to the next generation of Anconite pennies which retains the same obv. and rev. design but displays a more overtly gothic form of lettering and additional marks in the legend (CNI XIII, pp. 9–10). These issues would appear to date to the later part of the same century. All other Anconite coins found in Greece are penny-multiplies (quattrini) belonging to the fifteenth-century variety with the central a in the obv. (CNI XIII, pp. 32–35). The two single coins from Corinth have exactly the same obv. and rev. combination («266» and «267»: #365 and #366), as does one of the specimens from «238. Athenian Agora» (#367), which might give us an idea of a rather limited movement. The other coin from the Athens excavation displays rather elaborate patterns of small dots in the obv. legend, not catered for in the typology given in CNI (#368). The coins from Amphissa and the later Corinthian hoard («238» and «212») are to be assigned to this issue in more general terms for lack of any precise information. Returning to the question of chronology, the absence in the Greek finds of Anconite pennies from the late twelfth and thirteenth century is particularly disappointing in view of the very healthy presence of early coins of Ancona in the Regno, and the chronological distribution of southern Italian pennies in Greece (see above).847 Clearly, historical reasons need to be found for the particular chronologies of the Anconite coins found in Greece. 5.D

Northern and Central Italy Hoards containing pennies of northern and central Italy: «168. Elis 1964», «174. Ancient Elis», «211. Chalkida». Excavation and single pennies of northern and central Italy: «238. Athenian Agora», «268. Corinth», «351. Sparta». Later stratigraphical fills containing pennies of northern and central Italy: Appendix I.13, no. 46. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #369–#372

845  As I suggest in Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 283, where this coin is also illustrated on pl. 30, no. 67. 846  Described and illustrated in Stahl, Tornesello, p. 78 and pl. 3, no. 33. 847  See pp. 1337–1340 above.

1342

appendix ii

A small and eclectic group of coins is to be described under this heading. The first obvious point of interest is the absence in Greece, in the wake of the twelfth-century pieces from Verona and the rare Venetian penny multiples described above, of any coins of mainland Veneto, of Lombardy, Piedmonte and Liguria, large and important areas with multifarious relations with Greece.848 Particularly noteworthy amongst these omissions are Genoese pennies,849 which are prominent in the Regno in the same early period which witnessed also the appearance of the first Anconite pennies (see above).850 The coin from Macerata, dating to the fourteenth century, at «174. Ancient Elis»851 shares the same properties and circulation pattern as the contemporary Anconite coins (#370). Four Tuscan coins (Pisa at «174»: #371,852 Arezzo at «268», Florence at «238» and «351»: #369), and one from Bologna at «211. Chalkida»,853 provide the most coherent grouping amongst the Greek finds in terms of chronology and area of origin. The other two pieces of central and northern Italy are contained in «168. Elis 1964»: with the exception of the Aquileian coin, for which we know the name of the patriarch-issuer, we lack any further indications regarding issuer, denomination and, in the case of the Roman senatorial coin,854 dating. Because the Tuscan/Emilian, Adriatic and Roman element is so strong also in southern Italian finds during the fourteenth century and later,855 we can once more assume a secondary Greek circulation of this material. This form of transmission is confirmed by later copper coins856 and by the prominence of tournois from Campobasso.857 5.E Iberia Hoards containing pennies of Iberia: «211. Chalkida». The only penny of the Iberian peninsula known from Greece is an issue of King James II of Aragon and Valencia (1291–1327). The coin in question, Cayon and Castan, Monedas españolas, no. 1747, belongs to this king’s second type at 848  On these coinages in general, see now the comprehensive MEC 12. 849  Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”, pp. 319–320. 850  M  EC, pp. 151 and 424; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 271, n. 27. A Genoese penny is contained in «464. Samos 1932» (Duplessy and Metcalf, “Trésor de Samos”, p. 195). 851  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 283. 852  On the denomination and dating, see Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 284. 853  Described and illustrated in Stahl, Tornesello, p. 78 and pl. 3, no. 34. 854  Which may well be a provisino: Appendix II.5.B, p. 1336. 855  M  EC, pp. 415, 428, 430; Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 271ff. 856  Appendix II.12, pp. 1508–1509. 857  Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1481.

COINAGES: EASTERN COINS

1343

the Barcelona mint, that is to say they date late within the indicated period.858 James was King of Sicily while heir to the Aragonese throne (from 1285) and the penny is no doubt testimony to the political and personal links between Catalonia, Sicily and Catalan Athens.859 5.F Hungary860 Excavation and single pennies of Hungary: «268. Corinth». The single Hungarian penny found in Greece is in fact a rather curious phenomenon.861 This is a copper piece which is much broader and baser than the usual Hungarian pennies of the mid-thirteenth century.862 For this reason, and because of the Byzantine-style iconography combined with Arabic legends, it has been considered a numismatic curiosity of the twelfth century.863 Numerous finds have, however, identified this as a large and muchused coinage, which is confirmed not least by the present Greek find. The reign of Bela IV (1235–1270) provides a more convincing context for the production of this issue. His marriage with a daughter of Theodore I Laskaris of Nicaea, and the Mongol invasions, lent Hungary a renewed importance in Balkan history in the mid-thirteenth century. 6

Miscellaneous Eastern Coins

6.A

Crusader States in Palestine and Cyprus Hoards containing crusader coins: «192. Corinth BnF», «211. Chalkida». Excavation and single crusader coins: «262. Clarentza», «268. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #372–#374

858  M  EC 6, pp. 129–130 and pl. 6, nos 122–123. 859  The Euboian findspot of «211» underlines this further. These political and numismatic links are further explored in the context of the pierreale coinage: Appendix II.11.E, pp. 1507–1508. 860  Hungarian denars of the standard of the Venetian soldino are discussed together with the latter in Appendix II.4.E.4, pp. 1324–1325. 861  Described and illustrated in Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, p. 186 and pl. 53, no. 80. 862  See Huszár, Ungarn, pp. 62–68, for the reigns of Bela IV and Stephen V. 863  Probszt, Österreichische Münz- und Geldgeschichte, p. 337.

1344

appendix ii

The crusader states of the Levant, like the Regno in southern Italy,864 underwent a transition from a Byzantine and Arab-style copper and gold coinage to a western-style billon and silver coinage.865 For the period pre-dating the chronological confines of this book, copper folles866 as well as pennies867 of the crusader states have been found in Greece. These are testimony to eastwest communications in the twelfth century, with Corinth (to a lesser degree Athens) and the Albanian seaboard, important transportation foci. Of course, some of the coinages in question, especially pennies, might have been lost at Corinth in the thirteenth century (see for example #372). Finds of crusader coins in Greece during the medieval period proper are comparatively less plentiful, and entirely confined to Cypriot issues, with one exception: a twelth-century coin of Jerusalem found in a fourteenth-century context at «192. Corinth BnF». The same hoard has also produced three Cypriot coins of the turn of the fourteenth century, the implications of which I have explored in the relevant publication (#373).868 The second significant grouping of two Cypriot coins was excavated at Clarentza («262»: #374), while single pieces of very different datings derive from Corinth («268») and «211. Chalkida». Amongst this rather eclectic material no consistent pattern of importation emerges.869 The only finds for which one may offer an obvious historical context are the crusader coins at «192. Corinth BnF», connected to the presence of the Knights of St. John, who ruled the eastern Peloponnese in the period 1397–1404. 6.B Armenia Excavation and single Armenian tanks: «238. Athenian Agora», «266. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #375–#376 864  Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1337–1340. 865  The coinages of the crusader states are treated most comprehensively in Metcalf, Ashmolean. 866  Folles of Antioch (Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 22–30) and Edessa (Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 31–39.) have been found at Corinth and Athens («238», «265», «266», «267»: see, for a previous treatment of these Greek finds: Metcalf, “Coins of the Latin princes of Antioch”). An Antiochene copper was originally reported for «352. Sparta». Consider also the find from Durazzo: Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation”, p. 146, n. 7. 867  Penny issues of the county of Tripoli (Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 156–168) are noted for «238» and «266» (#372). A further specimen, or perhaps an Antiochene issue (Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 117ff), has been found at «316. Mashkieza». 868  Baker, “Corinthe”. 869  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 258.

COINAGES: EASTERN COINS

1345

Athens and Corinth have produced one copper tank each of Hetoum I (1226–1271), king of Cilician Armenia. These coins repeat the main obv. iconographical device of the enthroned king which features also on the main silver coinage of the kingdom in the thirteenth century (the tram), and derives from western imperial prototypes.870 They were on all accounts produced at a mint adjacent to the royal palace at the inland capital of Sis, and would have entered wider Mediterranean circulation through the coastal town of Ayas (Laiazzo).871 A secondary outlet of Armenian coins in this period was evidently the Black Sea,872 aided no doubt by the Mongol presence in eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus, the Black Sea and the northern Balkans.873 The Italian peninsula has yielded the same number of Cilician Armenian coins as Greece, from the same period,874 with the difference that the coin found in Lombardy is of silver. This incoherent picture, in terms of findspots and denominations, has prompted Arslan to give a rather negative assessment of this material as accurate historical markers. I would argue nevertheless that, combined with the Armenian coins found elsewhere – including Greece –, and the other diverse coinages described in this Appendix II.6 and the previous Appendix II.5, there is some logic to this archaeological record: Armenian coin production, especially in copper, was at its height in the thirteenth century,875 as was arguably the western trading presence in Cilicia,876 before pressures from the Mamluk sultanate came to bear on the kingdom. Also humble copper coins can be testimony to inter-regional relations, and the respective finds from Lombardy and Calabria might represent the final stages of the spread of Armenian coins in a westerly direction from mid-century, either via the Black Sea and the Balkans, or the Mediterranean and the southern extremities of the Greek and Italian peninsulas.

870  Rapti, “Image et monnaie dans le royaume arménien de Cilicie”, p. 44. 871  Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia; Stahl, “Coinage of Cilician Armenia”. 872  Arslan, “Monete armene in Italia”, p. 82; Strässle, “Beitrag der sowjetischen und postsowjetischen Numismatik”, p. 128. 873  A point made in Balard, “Marchés et circulation monétaire”, p. 257. It should be noted in this respect that an Armenian coin has been excavated at Ainos in Thrace: Baker, “Ainos”. 874  Arslan, “Monete armene in Italia”: one coin is also of Hetoum I and was found in the province of Como; the other is of Hetoum II (1289–1306), from the province of Crotone. 875  Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia, p. 113. 876  Bedoukian, Coinage of Cilician Armenia, pp. 25–42; Otten, “Echanges commerciaux”; Jacoby, “The economy of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia”. While volume of trade is of course difficult or even impossible to assess, the overall impression is that it would have been at its height in the latter course of the thirteenth century and perhaps for a decade or two into the fourteenth.

1346 6.C

appendix ii

Golden Horde Excavation and single pul/ follaro of the Golden Horde: «262. Clarentza». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #377

A single coin of the Mongol khanate/Golden Horde has been found in Greece, more precisely a thirteenth-century Crimean copper pul/follaro from the 2003 Eastern Gate Dump at «262. Clarentza».877 Such coins are usually confined to the northern and western Black Sea area. 6.D Rhodes Hoards containing pennies of Rhodes: «174. Ancient Elis», «197. Kephallonia», «211. Chalkida». Excavation and single pennies of Rhodes: «238. Athenian Agora», «378. Tigani». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #378–#381 The three important eastern Aegean islands of Rhodes, Chios, Lesbos (see the following two discussions), and related areas, emitted large coinage issues in the later medieval period. Only a small number of these, in rather reduced quantities, are evident at all in Greece. We have seen an earlier thirteenthcentury Rhodian coin of Leo Gabalas at Athens (#55).878 Controversy continues as to the Rhodian identity, or not, of a whole series of copper coins first attributed to the island by Schlumberger.879 It is now clear that the issues can be variously attributed to Rhodes and the adjacent mainland in the thirteenth century, or to Latin, Byzantine or Bulgarian authorities in the northern Aegean and southern Balkans in later times.880 The relevance of this debate to us is not 877  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 258 and 274. 878  Appendix II.1.A.2, pp. 1205–1206. 879  The opposing positions have been expressed most recently by Kasdagli (“Rhodian Copper Issues”) and Oberländer-Târnoveanu at the Το νόμισμα στα νησιά του Αιγαίου conference (Mytilini, 2006), although the latter’s contribution to the corresponding volume (Athens, 2010) was subsequently withdrawn. The author used instead the relevant lemma in the Guida per la storia delle zecche italiane to give a full account of his interpretations: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Rodi/Rodos”. 880  One such issue has recently been attributed to the mid-fourteenth-century Byzantine splinter polity on the island of Thasos, or its immediate hinterland: Baker, “Coin circulation in fourteenth-century Thrace and Constantinople”.

COINAGES: EASTERN COINS

1347

immediately apparent since none of these issues have been found in Greece. Nevertheless, the wide circulation of these issues across the northern and eastern Aegean and the western Black Sea over a significant period is, whatever their place of production, in itself a noteworthy observation. Instead, Greece has yielded finds of pennies minted at Rhodes by the Order of St. John.881 The specimens in question, found in a number of southern Greek areas, are of the anonymous types bearing either the châtel (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. X.2 and 13, pl. XII.1–5: #379), or the Genoese gate (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. X.3: #378).882 With the exception of the later châtel-type coin found at «378. Tigani», the Rhodian coins are on the whole to be considered ‘early’, which means approximately datable to the middle of the fourteenth century. I have brought this proliferation of Rhodian coins in connection with the presence of individual knights in Achaïa in the period 1376–1381, when the principality was conferred on the Hospitallers by Queen Joanna. Perhaps by the same measure – although this might be stretching the evidence of a single coin – the later issue could be related to the second spell of the Knights in the eastern and southeastern Peloponnese (1397–1404), which has already been evoked in the context of Cypriot coins in Greece.883 It is noteworthy, finally, that all other denominations issued by the Knights, especially the large silver issues of the gigliato type (#380), evidently did not have a Greek circulation.884 6.E Chios Excavation and single coins of Chios: «239. Athens», «242. Athens», «360. Thebes». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #381–#385

881   The coinage of the Knights of St. John at Rhodes is covered in Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 222–268; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 295–305; Kasdagli, Clerkenwell, and individual studies by the same author. I have referred to these issues in the context of the Byzantine tornese denomination: see Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1271, and further Appendix II.9.N, pp. 1490–1491. 882  See Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 258–259, for a previous exposition of the data, their dating and interpretation. 883  Appendix II.6.A, p. 1344. 884  Appendix II.11, pp. 1494–1506.

1348

appendix ii

In medieval times, Chios possessed one of the biggest mints of the entire Aegean and the adjoining areas,885 and might have surpassed that of Constantinople in terms of output during the stavraton period after ca. 1372.886 Historically and numismatically, the so-called Genoese presence on the island887 can be divided into two: the rule of the Zaccaria family (1304– 1329),888 and the rule the Company of the Maona, whose members all adopted the same surname (Giustiniano: 1346–1566).889 Both of these minting periods display impressive arrays of types and denominations in a variety of metals. During the latter part of the rule of the Zaccaria, arguably the main denomination was the billon denier tournois which was modelled on the Greek prototype and circulated freely beside the latter also in our area of investigation. This issue is presented in this appendix in the context of the Greek tournois issues (#746–#750).890 Before this coinage, the grosso/basilikon and its fractions was more prolific (#381–#383). During the time of the Giustinani, the coinage shifted to a strong silver and gold base, with prolific gigliati (#384) and ducats issued in the name of Genoa, in the name of deceased or current rulers of the Ligurian city (kings or podestà), or simply in direct imitation of the Venetian prototypes. These coinages are referred to in the appropriate discussions,891 though none of them are present in Greece. This leaves us with just five Chiot coins. For the early period there is one certain and one ambiguous half grosso or half basilikon/keration892 of Martin and Benedict II Zaccaria as servants of the emperor (1314–1319/1324) excavated in

885  For complete treatments of the medieval Chiot mint, see the nineteenth-century works by Promis, La zecca di Scio; Lambros, “Monnaies inédites de Chio”; Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 408–431. See further Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, pp. 171– 240; Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 289–293. Individual studies are cited here below. Consider also the fact that a lot of the Chiot output was eventually in gold: Appendix II.4.D, p. 1306. 886  Compare Appendix II.1.F, p. 1277. 887  For clarifications in this respect, see also Baker, “Chio”. 888  For coins specifically of this period: Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, published in English as Mazarakis, “Some thoughts on the Chios Mint”; Valakou, “Coins of the Zaccaria family (1304–1329)”. 889  For coins specifically of this period: Mazarakis, “Chio”; Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου. 890  Appendix II.9.I, pp. 1464–1466. 891  Appendix II.4.D, p. 1306; Appendix II.11, p. 1496. 892  The choice between the grosso and basilikon system depends on whether one believes that these issues were intended to function within a western-style or Byzantine monetary system. In the latter case, at twelve basilika to the hypepryron, a half basilikon piece would be the equivalent of a keration of account: compare also the Chiot system of account discussed in Appendix III.5, pp. 1568–1570.

COINAGES: EASTERN COINS

1349

Athens (the Roman Agora, «242»,893 and the North Slope, «239», respectively: compare also #382–#383). Over a long period the Giustiniani emitted a coinage bearing the basic obv. and rev. typologies of the Tours pennies (cross patty and châtel). Qualitatively, these are not to be considered on a par with the tournois coinage of Greece of the later thirteenth and early fourteenth century, to which the Zaccaria had contributed with an issue. Instead, they belong to the small and coppery penny-style coinages emitted in numerous Aegean localities in the later middle ages.894 Thanks largely to the work of Mazarakis, the epigraphical variations and the resulting chronological ordering are now sufficiently well understood in their broad outlines. The two specimens from «360. Thebes» read CIVITAS SIY on the rev., although the obverses cannot be reconstructed and could have been either of the two possibilities given in Mazarakis, “Chio”, pp. 892–893. Therefore the datings of these coins has to be kept rather broad, at 1346–1428. The coin from «239. Athens» (rev. ChII: #385) is again not entirely readable and dates, according the Mazarakis’ scheme, either post-1428 or post-1458. The Attic and Boiotian findspots for these Chiot coins should not remain unnoticed. 6.F Lesbos895 Excavation and single coins of Lesbos: «239. Athens». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #386–#387 Much as Rhodes and Chios, Lesbos and related territories (Ainos and Thasos) are responsible for what may be termed a tornese-style currency in later medieval times (#387).896 Typologically, such coins of the Gattilusio rulers are closer to the neighbouring Byzantine tradition.897 They are prolific in the northeastern Aegean, including the island of «526. Thasos», but are absent

893  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, pp. 464 and 473, no. 266. 894  Appendix II.9.N, pp. 1490–1491. 895  The coinage of Genoese Lesbos is treated in: Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 432–444; Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, pp. 243–276; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 293–295; Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio. 896  See the general discussion of the later tornesi coinages in Appendix II.9.N, pp. 1490–1491. 897  Especially in the usage of the ‘briquet’, on which see also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 479.

1350

appendix ii

from Greece.898 The same is true for some of the other denominations from the island, especially gold ducats899 and silver gigliati.900 Only two smaller silver issues of Lesbos have been recorded in the territories covered in this book, a soldino from Elis which is discussed in the context of the Venetian soldino coinage (compare #291);901 and a coin found at «239. Athens». The latter is an anonymous aspron which is related, in terms its iconography (‘briquet’ and lamb of God combination) and supposed denomination (the aspron), to the signed issues of Jacopo Gattilusio (1403–1428):902 see #386 for a better preserved specimen, now at Venice. 6.G

Islamic States Hoards containing Islamic coins: «209. Larisa ca. 2001B». Excavation and single Islamic coins: «239. Athens». «325. Naxos». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #388

Different generations of Islamic coins came to Greece during the Byzantine and medieval periods,903 and three distinctive groupings will be dealt with here. The first pre-dates the chronological limits of this book, but is of interest in creating a wider framework. The second grouping is represented by merely one relevant coin, and the last, Ottoman, phase has made a very elusive impact on medieval Greece. Copper coins from Seljuq Syria, minted at the turn of the twelfth century, have been found at Corinth («265», «266», «268») – including a hoard of 65 of these from the ‘Theater’ in 1928 – and at nearby Lechaion.904 It has been 898  Finds of the coins in question in Thrace have recently been treated in Baker, “Ainos” and Baker, “Edirne”. See also the discussion in Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1272. 899  Appendix II.4.D, p. 1306, n. 618. 900  Appendix II.11, p. 1496. 901  Appendix II.4.E.5, p. 1325. 902  See further Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1275–1277, for a discussion of the aspron coinages. 903  A very detailed assessment of Islamic coin finds in Greece before the Ottoman period is given by Miles, “Circulation of Islamic coinage”, which remains remarkably complete considering that it was published in 1965. The single most important contribution since is the small booklet by Psarras, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα. Some of the material considered here is also discussed by Papadopoulou, “Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο”. 904  Miles, “Circulation of Islamic coinage”, pp. 488–490; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 99–100; Psarras, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα, p. 27; Metcalf, “Monetary history of Antioch”, pp. 293–296; Papadopoulou, “Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο”, pp. 176–178. On the hoard, see in the latest instance Zervos, “Corinth 1928”.

COINAGES: EASTERN COINS

1351

proved by Schulze that some of the sub-Byzantine follis types which are usually attributed to Trebizond under the Gabrades (ca. 1080–ca. 1200)905 were also Syrian from the same period.906 The Greek (Corinth, Athens) and Albanian findspots listed by Schulze, and others,907 – which mirror the distribution of Antiochene coppers and pennies of the crusader period908 –, and the Syrian overstrikes,909 unline this re-attribution. Papadopoulou links the movements of all these coins to the operations of western merchants. Coins of the Seljuqs of Rum travelled into the Aegean area in the thirteenth century:910 one such specimen, of Kay Khusraw I, has been found in the territories covered by this book («325. Naxos»). A second coin from the same Konya mint, of the former’s son-in-law Kay Qubādh I (1219–1237), was found at Chania in Crete.911 A similar piece was bought in Athens in the 1960s and could also have been of Greek provenance.912 Seljuq coins are also reported for Samos.913 This completes the early thirteenth century triangle between Asia Minor, Crete, and the Cyclades described with reference to other coinages on another occasion.914 Miles believes that two further Islamic coins from Corinth might be attributed to Syria/Egypt in the thirteenth century.915 Only two finds of Ottoman silver coins are from the period and territory covered in this book: there is a quite exceptional early fifteenth-century specimen of Mehmet I of the Edirne mint from «238. Athenian Agora»; and a specimen from a Balkan mint dating perhaps to the very last year under analysis here (1430), from «209. Larisa ca. 2001B». In over one hundred years of excavation at Ancient Corinth, merely two mid-century Ottoman coins have been found (two of Mehmet II, 1451–1481).916 There is also a single coin of the same sultan which Lagos and Karyanos presented from the castle of Mouchli in Arkadia

905  D  OC IV, pp. 427–434. 906  Schulze, “Anonymous copper coin re-attributed from Trebizond to Syria”. 907  See also Papadopoulou, “Tétartèra d’imitation”, p. 146, n. 7, and Zervos, “Rare and unpublished late Byzantine coppers”. Another specimen from Akronauplia was presented by Mina Galani-Krikou at the Argos conference on money in the Peloponnese: Galani-Krikou, “Ακροναυπλία”. Compare «321». 908  See Appendix II.6.A, p. 1344. 909  To which can be added one found in Corinth: Zervos, “Late Byzantine Copper”. 910  On the relevant issues, see Broome, Coinage of the Seljuqs. 911  Miles, “Circulation of Islamic coinage”, p. 491; Psarras, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα, p. 27. 912  Psarras, Σελτζουκικά νομίσματα, pp. 28–29. 913  Evgenidou, “Νομίσματα από την Σάμο”, p. 130. 914  Baker, “Cicladi medievali”. 915  Miles, “Circulation of Islamic coinage”, p. 490. 916  Williams and Zervos, “Corinth 1988”, p. 48. I thank Orestes Zervos for this information.

1352

appendix ii

at the Argos conference on Peloponnesian money.917 Usually, Ottoman coins enter the excavation record for the main southern Greek sites only at the turn of the sixteenth century.918 It is likely, though barely substantiated by many hard data, that in parts of Epiros and Thessaly Ottoman coins were available in this period in higher numbers than the archaeological record suggests. The Ottoman silver coin (akče) is referred to in the Greek-language sources as the aspron, as is the Byzantine one-eighth stavraton.919 It is possible that some of the citations I give in the appropriate discussions cover also the eventuality of Ottoman coins. The question of Ottoman coins in medieval Macedonia and Thrace, and in Constantinople itself, is more complex still. Explicit references to Turkish aspra in Constantinople are contained in the account book of Badoer, though often in relation to his ventures in Bursa and Edirne.920 Because these two Ottoman and Byzantine denominations were adjusted to one another, one may rightly expect to find them used and hoarded together. As is noted in the appropriate discussion, Byzantine silver coins of the stavraton period have been found exclusively in Macedonia and Thrace, not in the more southerly areas of Greece, and the total number of available hoards is not particularly large. Among the latter, Turkish akčes were rarely present, although one wonders whether these were in some cases extracted from the assemblages before dissemination on the antiquities market, the source of most late Byzantine hoards. In the same measure, it is doubtful whether any pure and early Ottoman akče hoards which may have been found in the Macedonian and Thracian territories of the Hellenic Republic (or even in Epiros or Thessaly), as they were certifiably found on the other side of the Rhodope mountains on modern Bulgarian soil, would have been detected by the authorities as readily as ancient or Byzantine coin hoards, and subsequently sent to the national collection in Athens: the NM holds only one fifteenth-century hoard of Ottoman coins, from Polygyros (Chalkidike) 1932, dating ca. 1430.921 A relatively early testimony comes from the «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987» hoard, which shows that even at this date (1379), and within the imperial capital itself, about 10% of all aspra were Ottoman (see #388 for a specimen from this hoard). By the time of the hoard from Çorlu in eastern Thrace,922 concealed very probably in 1443/1444, this had 917  Lagos and Karyanos, “Μουχλί”. Information on this site reached me too late to be included in Appendix I. 918  See for instance Miles, The Islamic Coins, p. 22ff. 919  Appendix II.1.F, p. 1521; Appendix III.1, pp. 1276–1277. 920  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 228. 921  M  odern Coin Hoards, p. 45, no. 1. 922  D  OC IV, p. 19. See also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 483.

COINAGES: BILLON TRACHEA OF MANFRED

1353

risen to 50%. These two figures can give us some impression of the gradual increase in the presence of Ottoman silver coins from the 1360s to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, without obviously allowing one to take into account any ulterior chronological and geographical variations. Greece, which was anyhow deprived of late Byzantine silver, would have participated in this trend in a much-reduced and secondary fashion. 7

Billon Trachea of Manfred of Hohenstaufen Hoards containing billon trachea of Manfred of Hohenstaufen: «109. Eleusina 1862», «111. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B»(?). Excavation and single billon trachea of Manfred of Hohenstaufen: «237. Arta», «253. Ballsh», «299. Kaninë». Excavation and single billon trachea of Manfred of Hohenstaufen from the Balkans: «514. Ohrid», «523. Shkodër».923 Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #389

Manfred of Hohenstaufen, son of Frederick II and king of Sicily, minted coins of the following description: obv. eagle, legend M0YNFRIDVS R SICILIE / rev. cross patty and stars, legend ET DOMINVS ROM0NIE.924 This issue bears two titles, that of king of Sicily which Manfred assumed upon his coronation in August 1258, and that of ‘lord of Romania’. Manfred would have styled himself in this way following the conquests along the Epirote and Illyrian coastland, and in the Ionian Islands, which had begun as early as 1257, and following his subsequent marriage to Helen of Epiros, daughter of Michael II, in June 1259 (although the terms of this union, including the dowry, had already been worked out some time previously). Manfred held trans-Adriatic possessions until his death in 1266.925

923  I have become aware of another specimen from the excavations by the late Sara Santoro in Durazzo, although I have been unable to find any reference to this coin anywhere in print. 924  See principally De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades, pp. 167–168; Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 384–385; Valentini, “Manfredi”. Other relevant items are cited here below. 925  On the historical context and Manfred’s eastern policies, see Merendino, “Manfredi fra Epiro e Nicea”; Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East”; Irmscher, “Orientpolitik König Manfreds”.

1354

appendix ii

In order to define further this enigmatic coinage we have at our disposal a much more extensive record of finds than two or three decades ago. To appreciate the physical properties of these coins it would naturally have been desirable to handle and illustrate some of these, which in the end proved to be largely impossible.926 My observations are based therefore on my own autopsy of merely one specimen, that in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge,927 as well as six coins which are illustrated and described in more or less good detail.928 The metal from which these coins were made has been variously described by other authors as copper (Arta, Shkodër, Paris, London) or black billon (Cambridge, Munich). The known weights for the pieces from Shkodër, Kaninë, Cambridge, Munich, Zurich, and London range from ca. 1.04 to 2.2g. Interestingly, it has been mentioned twice that these coins were cup-shaped (‘leggermente concavo’,929 ‘σκυφωτό’930). This is borne out by the Cambridge piece, and by the Munich, Zurich, and London specimens as far as one can ascertain from the photographs. The shapes of the flans are uneven but seem to adhere to a more or less uniform pattern: the obv. featuring the eagle is more vertically elongated, with large unstamped areas either at the top or bottom, whereas the rev. flan is more horizontally elongated. Because of their uneven shapes, flan diameters range from ca. 20 to 25mm. Leaving aside the inadequately illustrated pieces, the Cambridge, Shkodër, Munich, Zurich, and London coins are stylistically close, though minted from different obv. and rev. dies.

926  Attempts to access the various specimens at Ioannina or Arta, Tirana, Paris, have so far not been successful. 927  See Metcalf, SE Europe, plate 4, no. 18; MEC, p. 191 (= Cambridge specimen: #389). I have also briefly seen the coin from «514 Ohrid» at Skopje. 928  Komata, Kanines, plate Q.4 («299») (= Kaninë specimen); Valentini, “Manfredi”, p. 63 («523») (= Shkodër specimen). The coin, which was formerly in the Borrell and Rollin collections, and then passed into the BnF, has been twice described and illustrated (albeit in line drawings): De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades, pl. XVIII.4 and Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.25 (= Paris specimen). One coin went to auction in Germany (= Munich specimen): Numismatik Lanz München. Münzen vor dem Türkensturm, auction 152, 1 July 2011, lot 162. The same coin was auctioned again as Numismatik Lanz München, auction 161, 7 December 2015, lot 598; and again Numismatik Lanz München, auction 163, 7 December 2015, lot 674. Another coin was auctioned at Numismatica Ars Classica, auction 90, 14 May 2016, lot 22 (= Zurich specimen); yet another specimen appeared in the same year: Spink, auction 16005, 27 June 2016, lot 1970 (= London specimen). I have additionally seen such a coin in a private collection in London, which supports all the arguments put forward here. 929  Valentini, “Manfredi”, p. 64. 930   Galani-Krikou, “Συμβολή”, p. 131.

COINAGES: BILLON TRACHEA OF MANFRED

1355

It is unlikely that this coinage would have been produced solely for the sake of disseminating propaganda. The cited writers on this subject emphasise the rather pragmatic aspect of Manfred’s trans-Adriatic activities, which lacked clear strategy and ideology and were largely aimed at seeking justice for his sister Constance from Theodore II Laskaris. Valentini is surely right in viewing the term ‘Romania’ in Manfred’s title as a shorthand for the various towns and lands over which Manfred was lord (‘dominus’ or ‘kyrios’) following the two waves of conquests in 1257 and 1258 and his marriage,931 and not at all an expression of any possible claims by Manfred on larger tracts of Byzantine and formerly Byzantine lands, let alone an imperial Byzantine title. Manfred was, after all, in alliance with Michael II and kept good relations also with the Latin Emperor Baldwin II. We must assume, a priori, that Manfred’s coinage would have been intended as a viable and usable coinage, and one that could function within pre-existing monetary conditions. The number of finds which are now available would also suggest this. The one obvious problem of interpretation for this coinage is its western style, in terms of typology and epigraphy, which is in many respects close to that of Manfred’s pennies from the Messina, Brindisi, and Manfredonia mints.932 In view of its metrological and physical characteristics which have been described, it is highly unlikely that this coinage was a penny coinage, but we cannot avoid the obvious parallels with the Byzantine-style billon trachy. As well as being similar in metal, weight, and shape, this coinage dominated the area: Manfred’s father-in-law, Michael II, had minted this denomination at Arta,933 and there was a steady stream of Thessalonican issues which came to Epiros during the first half of the thirteenth century, and until the 1260s.934 In my discussions of these coinages, I highlight their military context, and this is perhaps the most important inspiration also for the Manfredian issue. Within the likely period of issue, August 1258 / June 1259 to 1266, the military campaign that culminated in the battle of Pelagonia was the most important. This battle, which saw Manfred and his father-in-law, in alliance with William II of Villehardouin of Achaïa, pitched against the imperial Byzantine forces, took place in July 1259 in the plain of Pelagonia, the area between Bitola and Prilep in Macedonia.935 In preparation for this confrontation, Manfred had sent contingents of German mercenary forces directly from the Regno 931  Valentini, “Manfredi”, p. 65. See also Nicol, Epiros I, pp. 166–167. On Romania, see also the Preface, p. xiii. 932  M  EC, pl. 32. 933  Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243. 934  Appendix II.1.B.6 and 8, pp. 1236–1240 and 1243–1245. 935  For the latest opinion on the date and location see Mihajlovski, “Pelagonia”.

1356

appendix ii

into the southern Balkans.936 It has been variously suggested that these landed at Arta, or more likely at Valona, before marching to the site of the battle by way of Kastoria, which, in the second of these cases, they may have reached via Berat.937 Manfred’s rule in Romania outlasted the crushing defeat of July 1259, especially in the coastal strip from Corfu northwards.938 This area has yielded finds of Manfred’s trachea («253», «299», and further north, «523»). However, the more southerly and easterly finds («237» and «514»), combined with the relative importance of Manfred’s earliest campaign, make it most likely that the billon trachea in the name of Manfred had already been minted between August 1258 / June 1259 and July 1259. The two stray finds from «299. Kaninë» and «253. Ballsh» may have been lost by Manfred’s army en route to Pelagonia. Even if Manfred’s German mercenaries never set foot in Arta, it should be noted that the town fell to the victorious imperial troops as a direct consequence of the battle of Pelagonia,939 and that the single coin known from that town might have found its way there in this context. The one or two hoarded coins from eastern Mainland Greece («109» and «111») are chronologically meaningless, and were presumably included in the respective assemblages because of the superficial similarities between the Manfredian coins and large-module western silver coinages together with which they were concealed. This scenario can also go some way in allowing us to hypothesise on the possible place of minting of this issue. These coins have traditionally been attributed, often rather implicitly, to a Corfu mint,940 although Schlumberger also proposed Durazzo as an alternative. Valentini is the only writer on the subject to have conceded that the coins may well have been minted in Italy.941 The proposed chronology of the coins, and their circulation, seem to rule out Durazzo. Corfu is in itself a problematic, but not impossible, place of minting since the island was conquered and directly ruled by admiral Chinardo from 1258, a state-of-affairs which was formalised for a short while after the death of Manfred.942 It appears to me that Valona would be just as valid a suggestion as Corfu, especially since this was the most likely location in which Manfred’s troops first reached the Balkans. These considerations also heighten, however, the attraction of Valentini’s proposal and the possibility that the coins were 936  Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East”, p. 277, n. 67. 937  Mihajlovski, “Pelagonia”, p. 280. 938  Nicol, Epiros I, p. 193. 939  T IB 3, s.v. Arta. 940  More explicitly, however, Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 202, n. 4. 941  Valentini, “Manfredi”, p. 66. 942  Nicol, Epiros I, p. 193; Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, pp. 61–64.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES

1357

minted at Brindisi, the only Adriatic mint in operation at the time: Manfred apparently minted two particular penny issues there in the early period of his reign which mirror the eagle and the cross on the Romaniot coinage.943 To conclude, according to the current state of knowledge, the coins minted by Manfred as ‘lord of Romania’ were most likely conceived as billon trachea, for use within a warfaring context in Epiros and Macedonia, and most probably the battle of Pelagonia. For this reason they were most probably minted in the first half of 1259 either in Brindisi or in Corfu/Valona, and mostly disseminated by Manfred’s troops and their imperial Byzantine foes in the immediate context of this battle. 8

Petty Denomination Issues of Athens and Achaïa

The present coins were the first western-style issues to be minted in Greece. The approximately contemporary coins of Manfred of Hohenstaufen, which may or may not have been produced in our area, were identified as billon trachea despite their Latin epigraphy and iconography.944 The coins under discussion here were emitted by the lordship (later duchy) of Athens and the principality of Achaïa, largely in the middle years of the thirteenth century, and then more sporadically on different occasions until the first decade of the fourteenth. These are to be known henceforth collectively as ‘petty denomination issues’, for reasons explained below. Petty denomination issues have the physical aspects of western pennies, not substantially different for instance from the pennies of the Regno of Sicily in Hohenstaufen and Angevin times:945 thin and small flans, obv. and rev. legends in the exergue and types in the field. The petty denomination issues produced in this style in the course of about half a century, and by the two political entities, show some obvious metrological variations, but the lack of relevant hoards and our reliance on single or even excavation pieces makes it difficult to draw any conclusive pictures. Overall, the issues of Athens and Achaïa seem to fall into two modules or weight standards exemplified by the fact that on two occasions the same Achaïan types were produced in different sizes/weights. Writers who have chosen to call the heavy issues ‘pennies’ have

943   Travaini, “Hohenstaufen and Angevin Denari”, pp. 108–109, 122, nos 65 and 68. Manfredonia, the king’s main Apulian mint, was only opened in 1263. 944  Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. 945  Appendix II.5.B, pp. 1337–1340.

1358

appendix ii

therefore been obliged to seek terms for the perceived lesser issues (‘obols’).946 The matter is complicated further because Athens and Achaïa would in due course mint superior pennies of the Tours type (deniers tournois).947 In the apparent belief – which is never explicitly stated, let alone explained – that one was dealing with an integrated monetary system comprising multiple coinages, which might have included also earlier imported English and French pennies,948 other writers have avoided the term ‘penny’ for the series in favour of lesser terms.949 This has obvious repercussions for the lightest of these coins.950 To my mind, there is no obvious way out of this impasse regarding nomenclature and denomination. There is also no particular merit for numismatists in assigning names, all of which, and others, may well have been used by the issuers and users of these coins, in the absence of conclusive evidence. It is in fact unlikely that these coins stood in any official relation to other circulating coinages: a strict divisionary relationship of different coinages was alien to thirteenth-century Europe, where even coinages emitted by the same authorities would often be allowed to float,951 and hoards «51. Athens 1963B» and «55. Athens 1963A» underline very graphically the separation of the contemporary coinages which they contain. Further, we do not even know the internal relations of the various Athenian and Achaïan issues to one another. Even though there are possibly two modules or weight standards, the matter is complicated by an apparently fraudulent attempt to pass some of these coins off as something better than what they were, a process which is in itself not fully understood but which may have involved some surface silvering (see below). For these reasons it will suffice to apply a single generic term to all of these, in the knowledge that ulterior clarifications will perhaps be possible in the future. The latest and most comprehensive survey of the coinages in question uses ‘petty coinage’,952 a term which aptly describes their nature as standing apart 946  Schlumberger, Numismatique, e.g. p. 312 ‘deniers de billon’, and p. 337 ‘obole?’. See also Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 356–357, 363, 384–385, 387–390: ‘Æ deniers’ and ‘Æ oboles’. 947  Appendix II.9.A and B, pp. 1376–1439. 948  Appendix II.2 and 3, pp. 1277–1293. 949  Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, pp. 79, 96–97, 99, uses the term ‘οβολός’, with or without question mark. See also Zervos, “Obols of Philip of Savoy”, although in his Corinth Excavation reports the same author uses the term ‘Æ unit’ in addition to that of ‘obol’. 950  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 248: “If the larger coin is correctly described as an obole, perhaps we should think of the smaller coin as a quarter-denier, or pougeoise”. 951  Saccocci, “Quartarolo”, p. 151. 952  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 240–251. See the author’s earlier “Areopagus” and SE Europe, pp. 243–247. Within his discussion Metcalf continues to use other terms: Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 244 (‘Athenian oboles’).

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ATHENS

1359

from, and in fact below the usual coinages of the time.953 In order to underline the separation not merely in value and quality, but in denominational terms, I have opted for ‘petty denomination issues’.954 In all further discussions, and in my catalogue, I refer to petty denomination issues of Athens and Achaïa according to Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 240–251, types 1–13, a useful system which is a modification of the first such numbering in the same author’s “Areopagus”, p. 206. 8.A

Athens Hoards containing petty denomination issues of Athens: «55. Athens 1963A», «79. Athens 1982», «109. Eleusina 1862», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing petty denomination issues of Athens: «214. Athenian Agora». Excavation and single petty denomination issues of Athens: «230. Andros»(?), «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «240. Athens», «251. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «290. Eutresis», «311. Lakonia», «340. Panakto», «354. Thebes», «357. Thebes», «367. Thebes», «369. Thebes»(?), «370. Thebes»(?), «372. Thebes»(?), «378. Tigani»(?). Excavation and single pennies petty denomination issues of Athens from Italy: «443. Roca Vecchia». Later stratigraphical fills containing petty denomination issues of Athens: Appendix I.13, nos 27, 36, 44, 55; Appendix I.14 nos 8, 17, 19, 28. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #390–#435

The chronological watershed for the petty denomination issues of the Athenian state is 1280, when its Burgundian de la Roche rulers were given the title of duke by their Angevin overlords.955 Metcalf distinguishes eight issues of Athens (types 1–7 and 7a). Two of these refer to the rulers of Athens under the previous title of lord; three issues date to the immediate post-1280 period since they share many features with the contemporary deniers tournois; and

953  On the concept of petty coinage, see the discussion in Chapter 2, esp. pp. 135–136. 954  Baker, “Argos”, p. 229. 955  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 251.

1360

appendix ii

three further issues are datable to an early fourteenth-century context. All eight issues bear a Theban mint indication on the rev., and there is no reason to believe that they were minted anywhere else but there.956 There are a number of attributes which distinguish the Athenian from the Achaïan issues: they span more than half a century and even the most recent ones were issued in good quantities. One gets the impression that a conscious effort was made to include petty denomination issues on each of the occasions on which Athenian minting received a new impetus, a ‘renovatio monetae’. It is possible that they were all minted according to a single metrological standard: a good weight profile is available only for type 1 (see below), though good specimens known for subsequent types seem to confirm the standard. The Athenian issues were lighter and might have been baser than their Achaïan equivalents, or might have seemed to be baser to the users (see also the reflections above on the coins’ appearances), and were presumably for this reason less inclined to circulate further afield: only a few specimens were found outside of the territories controlled by the Athenian rulers.957 Lastly, it seems that most of the Athenian issues were minted concurrently to deniers tournois from the same Theban mint, although it is still doubtful that they stood in a fractional relationship to one another. 8.A.1 Issues of the Athenian Lordship (Metcalf Types 1 and 2) Metcalf’s types 1 and 2 refer to the ruler of Athens as lord (‘dominus’: DNS) These types are also known as Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.31 and 30. Type 1 is anonymous (#390–#393), type 2 features a large G in the obv. field (#394–#401). The only ruler before 1280 whose name begins with this letter is Guy de la Roche (1225–1263), who was succeeded by his son John.958 «55. Athens 1963A» contains 200 specimens of type 1 and none of type 2. The hoard’s terminus post quem, established on the basis of the Negropontine issue (see the discussion below959), is 1255. On the evidence of this hoard and its obv. legend, type 2 dates between 1255 and 1263, that is to say a maximum of eight 956  See Appendix II.9.A.2 and B, pp. 1389 and 1429, where I dismiss attempts to establish more than one mint each within the Achaïan and Athenian territories to produce deniers tournois. 957  See the finds from Corinth («212», «267»–«270»), Argos («236»), Clarentza («262») Lakonia («311»), Puglia («443»), with possibly one or two more from other locations. 958  Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, pp. 119–120, states that William de la Roche (1280–1287) was responsible for the striking of types 1 and 2. William held the title of lord for a short time before being created duke, though such an attribution cannot be squared at all with the archaeological evidence, and with hoard «55. Athens 1963A» in particular. 959  Appendix II.8.B.1, pp. 1366–1367.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ATHENS

1361

years, and more probably a much shorter timespan within that period, because of the following two considerations: hoard «55» might have been concealed a few years later than 1255,960 and the end of Athenian minting might well have occurred in 1259, after the defeat of Guy by William II of Villehardouin,961 and Guy’s departure for France in order to be judged by Louis IX.962 The closure of the Theban mint after type 2 was so absolute – lasting at least 20 years until its re-opening with type 3 – that it would be reasonable to seek a rather significant political event. According to the individual finds from Athens («238» and «239»), types 1 and 2 were emitted in approximately equal quantities. Assuming similar yearly production figures, we can project the beginnings of type 1 back into the later 1240s at the very earliest, or much more likely a point in the earlier or middle part of the 1250s. It has been argued963 that type 1, with its Genoese gate on the obv., was related to concessions made by Guy de la Roche to the Genoese in 1240.964 Such an early dating for the beginnings of the petty denomination coinage at the Thebes mint is to my mind impossible. It is evident that, in conceiving their first coinages, both Athens and Achaïa sought bold images of defensive structures to symbolise the respective places of minting, Thebes and Corinth. The choice of the Genoese gate for types 1 and 10 may well have been informed by the particular prominence of Genoese merchants in Romania in the middle years of the century, yet it is doubtful that the 1240 events can be directly invoked. I have argued elsewhere that «55. Athens 1963A» is not chronologically significant as far as the Achaïan series is concerned, since the main Athenian and Achaïan issues were minted at different metrological standards.965 In other words, types 9 and 10 can be contemporary to or pre-date the hoard without necessarily being included in it, as is in fact likely according to other numismatic data (see below). It is even probable that the chronologies of types 1 and 10 overlapped entirely or for some time, certainly in the earlier years of the 1250s, and that the Genoese gates were adopted in tandem by both political authorities. Perhaps Athens abandoned this type in favour of type 2 after 1256, as a result of the war of Negroponte, into which Athens and Genoa were dragged on opposing sides (see below)? «55. Athens 1963A» is fundamental for the study of the petty denomination issues for two additional reasons: quantification and metrology. Metcalf 960  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 251. 961  On whose issues see the discussion of the Achaïan issues below. 962  Longnon, L’empire, p. 222; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 241. 963  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 217; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 246, n. 9; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 244. 964  See, on the 1240 treaty, Jacoby, “Génois dans le duché d’Athènes”, esp. pp. 269–270, and, for a general framework, Balard, “Génois en Romanie”. 965  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 252; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229.

1362

appendix ii

performed a die study on the type 1 specimens of this hoard, which results in estimates for production figures in the millions.966 The 200 coins produce a frequency table with a rather broad base but neat modal and average weights of 0.46g and 0.48g respectively.967 This frequency table is testimony to a degree of weight control which is usually reserved for issues with a minimum silver content. It is likely that Athens ceased minting in 1258 or 1259 as Guy de la Roche was defeated by William II of Villehardouin and was sent to Louis IX for arbitration (see above). Neither the prince of Achaïa nor the king of France had any constitutional rights in the Athenian lordship. It would nevertheless appear that these events, re-inforced perhaps by the presence in Athens of Guy’s overlord Emperor Baldwin II upon his loss of Constantinople in 1261,968 reined in Guy and his direct successors and that minting within the lordship ceased until the creation of new constitutional conditions. 8.A.2

Early Ducal Issues of William (1280–1287) and / or Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308) (Metcalf Types 3, 4, 5)969 These new constitutional conditions required for minting to re-commence in Athens was the creation of the duchy under the new Angevin overlords. This development led, most importantly, to the production of large quantities of deniers tournois at the Theban mint, and is therefore considered in greater detail in the relevant discussion.970 Athenian petty denomination types 3ff mirror, in many respects, developments in the tournois series, but none are contained in any significant hoards or other archaeological contexts. Our interpretation of the series, especially with regard to its dating, relies therefore heavily on what has been achieved for the tournois series. The Theban mint was evidently not re-opened in 1280, upon the creation of the duchy, but in about 1285, or indeed as late as 1287. In fact it is not entirely certain whether William de la Roche minted coins at all, or whether the petty denomination and tournois series began with type 5 (#415–#417) and GR104 in 1287 and the beginnings of the minority rule of Guy II. My catalogue listings give types 3 (#402–#407) and 4 (#408–#410) as possible issues of either William or Guy II, as they do for the denier tournois issues GR101–103 to which they are strictly linked through the small trefoils and the style of lettering. 966  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, pp. 215–216; re-calculated in Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 246, n. 10; summary in Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 244. 967  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 244. 968  Longnon, L’empire, p. 228. 969  These types are also known as Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.32, XIII1 and 8. 970  Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1427–1439. See also Baker, “Tebe”.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ATHENS

1363

Type 5 shares the style and the GVIOT.DVX legend with tournois issue GR104. There are presently no archaeological, numismatic, or even typological ways of establishing a relative chronology for these respective tournois and petty denomination types: with regard to the latter criterion, types 3–5 show an impressive iconographical range which places great emphasis on the de la Roche family. Types 3–5 were found in good quantities especially in Athens («238» and «239»), and are generally more plentiful than the previous and subsequent groupings of Athenian petty denomination coins. Types 3–5 are also the Athenian issues found most readily outside the confines of the Athenian state (e.g. «262», «267», «268»), or in later contexts (see the hoards «79» and «212»). Metcalf had one specimen of type 3 analysed, establishing a fineness of 2%.971 According to his interpretation, this low figure is testimony not so much to a desire on the part of the issuers to produce a billon coinage, but rather to its direct continuity from the billon trachy coinage in use in the area,972 in terms of the bullion used. This eventuality is certainly supported by the archaeological record discussed elsewhere.973 Late Ducal Issues (Metcalf Types 6, 7, 7a) 8.A.3 All three later types read TeBAR cIVIS on the rev. Types 6 and 7 have DVX ACTñnAR obv. legends (= Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl.XIII.6 and 12) (see also #419–#423 and #424–#432). Type 7a (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.11) has provided scholars with more difficulties: the SY ACTñNAR reconstruction, which goes back to Schlumberger and Lenormant (see «109. Eleusina 1862») on the basis of a single coin, makes use of the large S in the field, followed by Y ACTñNAR. On the basis of two additional single specimens available to Artemis and me, this interpretation was first challenged by Artemis, but confirmed by me (in my case the coin derived from «262. Clarentza»: #435).974 More recently, a well-readable coin of type 7a has come to light in the Corinth area (#433) which quite obviously features the DVX ACTñNAR legend that had first been postulated by Artemis for type 7a. A coin at Paris is also similar (#434), and Mazarakis has commented on another specimen of type 7a which has come to the fore recently (see n. 976 below). According to our current, rather unsatisfactory, state of knowledge type 7a might therefore have to be further subdivided into two obv. variations, both bearing a large S in the field, 971  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 246, n. 12; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 245. 972  Appendix II.1.B.3, p. 1230. 973  See Chapter 2, pp. 117 and 121, and also below, p. 1372, in the present discussion. 974  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 273 (in response to Artemis, “Τα νομίσματα του Δουκάτου των Αθηνών”).

1364

appendix ii

but one reading in the exergue Y ACTñNAR, the other DVX ACTñNAR. In the second of these cases, the central S is rendered meaningless, although its presence can be explained in the light of this evolution. Types 6–7a are largely congruent with the tournois issue Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 (DVX ACTñNAR). The large G in the rev. field of type 7 harmonises additionally with the even rarer tournois issue reading G.DVX ACTñNAR (Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274), known from «94. Naupaktos 1977». While it is evident that the anonymous petty denomination and tournois issues are to be attributed to the interregnum period between October 1308 and April 1309,975 the respective tournois and petty denomination issues bearing the G are not, strictly speaking, anonymous, although they are closely linked to the other issues. For this reason they might be attributed to the early part of Walter of Brienne’s reign upon his arrival in Athens just after April 1309. Whereas we know that Walter quickly abandoned these unusual tournois issues in order to continue minting in the style of Guy II de la Roche with groups GR20Z and GR20E, the rather plentiful petty denomination issues might well have been minted until Walter’s death in March 1311. We might propose that type 7a avoiding the ducal title in favour of a more generic (S)Y ACTñNAR was the first of the anonymous issues, and begun around October 1308, followed by type 7a with DVX ACTñNAR. Logically, one would expect type 7 to have been minted next, around April 1309 as proposed above, but it is also possible that type 6, which combined different features of the other types, broke into the sequence of type 7a and 7 at that point. The precise order remains elusive. A recent attempt to transpose all or some of these three to four late ducal types to the period after 1311, made on the occasion of the appearance of another DVX ACTñNAR specimen of type 7a in an Italian auction, fails to take into account all the arguments that have previously been put forward regarding Theban minting during the period 1308–1311, ignores vital hoard evidence (esp. «94» and «109»), overstates the supposed Italian provenance of the specimen and the unfounded opinion of the auctioneer, and is also historically quite implausible.976

975  See Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1438–1439, for the consideration of the political events and their numismatic repercussions. See also Baker, “Tebe”. 976  Mazarakis, “Coins of the de Brienne and Enghien”.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ACHAÏA

1365

8.B Achaïa Hoards containing petty denomination issues of Achaïa: «55. Athens 1963A», «56. Corinth 16 April 1929», «57. Corinth 1938», «59. Argos 1988», «197. Kephallonia», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing petty denomination issues of Achaïa: «214. Athenian Agora», «218. Corinth». Excavation and single petty denomination issues of Achaïa: «223. Acrocorinth», «224. Agios Nikolaos»(?), «230. Andros» (?), «233. Argos», «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «242. Athens», «251. Athens», «252. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «272. Corinth», «273. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «278. Corinth», «289. Euboia», «290. Eutresis», «306. Kiato», «321. Nauplio», «334. Nemea», «351. Sparta», «352. Sparta», «354. Thebes», «357. Thebes», «366. Thebes», «369. Thebes»(?), «370. Thebes»(?), «372. Thebes»(?), «378. Tigani»(?), «382. Troizina»(?), «385. Zaraka». Hoards in the Balkans containing petty denomination issues of Achaïa: «489. Dolna Kabda 1961»(?). Excavation and single petty denomination issues of Achaïa from the Near East: «471. Acre», «472. Antioch», «473. Caesarea Maritima», «476. Jaffa», «480. Nabi Samwil». Later stratigraphical fills containing petty denomination issues of Achaïa: Appendix I.13, nos 1, 24, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 43, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61, 62, 69, 77; Appendix I.14, nos 4, 17, 19, 29. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #436–#481 While the issues of the rulers of Athens were limited to the Theban mint, the princes of Achaïa minted petty denomination issues at two or three different mints. Achaïa also emitted coinages of two different modules/weight standards, and can be said to have engaged in a fraudulent attempt to pass some of these issues off for something rather finer than the mere base copper issues that they were. Achaïan petty denomination issues also display a curious interregional, and even international, presence. All these factors widen the range of possible interpretations.

1366

appendix ii

8.B.1

Negropontine Issue of William II of Villehardouin (Metcalf Type 11) Since the completion of Appendix I a most remarkable hoard (Chalkida 2011) has come to my attention: 37 specimens of Metcalf type 11, far more than had hitherto been recorded worldwide, together with four small module Latin imitative trachea, were enclosed in a dump containing large amounts of pottery in Mitropoleos Street, Chalkida. This hoard had arguably originally been deposited elsewhere in the town, and may well have been considerably larger than the extant coins would suggest. It was presumably inadvertently transferred to the dump in the early fourteenth century and then excavated in 2011.977 A relatively rare issue was emitted with the following legends: obv. øGøPü0c / rev. +øNeøGRIøPø (see #466–#474). In combination with the rev. type – a ligated Roman three – we can be sure that this issue relates to Negroponte (Euboia), which was politically divided into three parts. The first involvement of a prince of Achaïa, referred to in the obv. legend, in the affairs of the island occurred in 1240–1248, when Emperor Baldwin II ceded its suzerainty to William II of Villehardouin.978 This act provides the terminus post quem for the coin in question. A much more obvious date of issue is however after 1255, when William’s authority was directly challenged, initially by two of the terzieri following the uncertain succession in the northern third, and then by extension by Venice and the lord of Athens. In fact, the conflict was only finally resolved in 1262, although the most heated military operations took place in the years 1256–1258, when Achaïan troops took parts of the island on three separate occasions, each time passing through Athenian territories and defeating Guy de la Roche at Karydi near Megara in 1258.979 Type 11 has an obvious propagandistic function within this conflict.980 Among all the petty denomination issues of Athens and Achaïa, it is certainly the most securely dated and provides in some respects a chronological fixpoint for the other issues. The inclusion of a type 11 coin in «55. Athens 1963A», which dates the hoard to after 1255, is particularly important (see also the discussion above on the Athenian issues). Finds are otherwise from Corinth («266», «268»), Athens («238», «239»), Euboia («289»), Nauplio («321»), and now Chalkida. Metcalf has already noted that, in relative terms, this issue is slightly more plentiful at Athens than it is at Corinth, when 977  The archaeological contexts and materials were discussed by S. Skartsis, I. Vaxevanis, and me, at the 12th International congress on medieval and modern period Mediterranean ce­ ramics, Athens, October 2018. 978  Appendix II.9.H, p. 1463. 979  Longnon, L’empire, p. 220ff; Loenertz, “Seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont”, nos 41–66a. 980  The long croix ancrée on the obv. relates to the Villehardouin family: Tzamalis, “Philip of Savoy”, pp. 95–96.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ACHAÏA

1367

compared with types 9 and 10, which are issues of the Corinth mint. This pattern is now enforced by the new Euboian finds. This would indicated that type 11 was either minted in the Euboian territories of Villehardouin, or destined specifically for the area of the eastern Mainland and Euboia.981 There is also a metrological element to this argument: six well-preserved specimens from the Athens and Corinth excavations (Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 223, no. 201) have weights between 0.41 and 0.51g, which are fully in line with the weight profile of Athenian type 1, and presumably all other Athenian petty denomination types. Because the Achaïan type 11 stands aside from the overall stylistical developments within the products of the Corinth mint, and is probably contemporary to Corinthian type 8 (see the next discussion), it is more likely that it was indeed minted in Euboia. This is again underlined by the recent Chalkida 2011 hoard. 8.B.2

Corinthian Issues of William II of Villehardouin (Metcalf Types 8, 9, 10) Two issues bear references to the Achaïan prince (obv.) and to the Corinth mint (rev.): GøPøACCAIñ / øCORIHTVä (type 9: #444–#454) and GøPøACCAIñ(E)ø / CORIHTI (type 10: #455–#465). A third issue (type 8: #436–#443) lacks a mint reference and stretches the indication of ruler and title over the two sides of the coin: øGøPRINCEPSø / øAChAIEø (type 8). In the course of Achaïan coin production we can witness the transfer from the Corinth mint in the eastern Peloponnese to one at Clarentza in the west, types 12 and 13 being certified issues of the latter mint (see below). The complete absence of type 8 at the Clarentza excavations («262»),982 in addition to its impressive spread into Attica which will be analysed,983 attribute also this issue to the Corinth mint. The weights available for types 8–10 would suggest that they were produced on the same standard of about one gramme,984 that is to say they were quite possibly twice as heavy as the Athenian issues or Achaïan type 11. There are some rare small module versions of types 9 (#451–#454) and 10 (#464–#465),985 981  In Baker, “Negroponte”, I had considered «321. Nauplio» (see also Papadakis, “Σπάνιον νόμισμα κοπής Γουλιέλμου”) as proof of a Peloponnesian mintage, but we should bear in mind that this town was within the territories under the control of the de la Roche. 982  A point already made in: Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 243–244; Baker, “Chiarenza”; Baker, “Corinto”. 983  See below on the proposal, which must in fact be rejected, that these were issues of the territories in the Argolis controlled by the lords of Athens. 984  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 247–248, and nos 870–884, to which I have added some weights of good-quality specimens held by the Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels: type 8: 1.013g; 0.836g; 0.967g; 0.979g. Type 9: 0.679g; 1.065g; 1.082g. Type 10: 0.910g; 0.827g; 0.607g; 0.556g. 985  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.8 and 9.

1368

appendix ii

which have been found mostly at the Corinth excavations («265», «266», «268»). The weights of the better preserved specimens make it likely that these small coins were issued at half the weight of their large module equivalents, that is to say the same weight standard as the Athenian issues and Achaïan type 11. According to data developed by Orestes Zervos,986 which remain unpublished, types 9 and 10 were pure copper coins whose surfaces had been silvered, much as many of the counterfeit deniers tournois which were excavated at Corinth.987 Both are fraudulent attempts to deceive their recipients about the coins’ qualities. Metcalf suggests that type 8 might have been a billon coin,988 though at one analysed specimen this impression will surely need to be subject to verification, and we cannot presently exclude that this type was silvered in a similar fashion to the other two types. Since types 8–10 were issued at Corinth, the coins excavated in this town provide the most obvious indication of the relative proportions in which these coins were produced. Amongst the excavation segments with large quantities of the coins in question («263»–«268»), type 9 is consistently represented at 62–63% of the three types. Type 8, on the other hand, is negligible. It is very likely that these types were issued in the chronological sequence 9-10-8:989 stylistically and epigraphically, there are developments from larger to rather smaller flans, long to short central crosses, and rounded to square letters. The obv. legend of type 8 is also identical to those of the first Achaïan deniers tournois.990 Two hoard-like assemblages from Corinth («56» and «57»), and two notable closed deposits from the same town (Appendix I.13, nos 31 and 87), also demonstrate that CORIHTVä (type 9) was the first of the types. Achaïan petty denomination issues have been found in other Peloponnesian and Mainland Greek contexts, and further afield. The fact that these issues travelled, and certainly more easily than their Athenian counterparts, should per se not surprise us: after all, these are heavier, larger and (superficially) finer coins.991 What we must look out for are therefore distribution patterns which deviate from the Corinthian prototype and which call for particular historical interpretations: at «351. Sparta» we have significantly more type 9 (89%) than

986  I thank him for sharing this information with me. 987  Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490. 988  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 246, n. 12; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 248. 989  Baker, “Argos”, pp. 229–230. 990  Appendix II.9.A.2, pp. 1385–1391. 991  Metcalf by contrast, in “Areopagus”, p. 213 and SE Europe, p. 245, puts the Athenian and Achaïan issues on the same footing and seeks extraordinary explanations for the movements of all types 8–10.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ACHAÏA

1369

type 10 coins.992 At «59. Argos», «223. Acrocorinth», «334. Nemea», there are more type 10 than type 9 coins. Athens is the only place to have produced significant quantities of type 8 specimens («238» and «239»). Athens, like Sparta, also has a rather high percentage of type 9 specimens as compared to type 10. The most noteworthy finds of Achaïan types 9 and 10 derive from the Levant («471», «472», «473», «476», «480»), with a total of six specimens found. The latter are certainly the most obvious of the finds to provide us with a historical context. They are plentiful, more so than for instance Achaïan deniers tournois in the same region, an altogether larger, longer lived and better coinage (see the four specimens from «471», «473», «481»). We must seek an extraordinary movement from one territory to the other in order to account for this pattern. In the spring of 1249, William II of Villehardouin joined Hugh IV of Burgundy on the crusade of King Louis IX of France.993 William contributed a great number of men and ships. The armies gathered in Cyprus, and after the initial advance into Egypt during 1249–1250, the expedition passed into Palestine, from where William returned to Greece in May 1250. Louis was to remain for another four years (to April 1254), during which time relations with Achaïa were maintained and the seaboard was heavily fortified.994 The relevant finds of petty denomination types 9 and 10, ranging from Jaffa in the south to Antioch in the north, were presumably lost there during this precise period.995 According to this scenario, both issues had been initiated by 1254, and we may perhaps surmise that at least the first of these (type 9), if not both, was already in production by the time William embarked on this venture in early 1249. There is perhaps a corroborative piece of evidence for this in the history of Sanudo: a passage usually cited in the context of Achaïan tournois coinage996 reveals that Louis granted William the right to mint upon their encounter in Cyprus. While much of this is historically untenable, perhaps the account preserves the memory of the usage of William’s issues during Louis’ crusade? The belief that at least type 9 was already in production by 1249 is confirmed by the Spartan picture: William and his army spent the winter of 1248/1249 precisely 992  This pattern seems to be repeated in the grave coin finds which were presented at the 2011 Argos conference by Ch. Stavrakos and A. Bakourou: see the Preface, p. xxiv. 993  Longnon, L’empire, pp. 218–219. 994  Strayer, “Crusades of Louix IX”, pp. 504–508. 995  The material is gathered in Baker, “Tel ‘Akko”, and commented on in Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 177, but I have changed my mind on their chronological implications since these studies were published: see also Baker, “Money and currency in medieval Greece”, p. 233. 996  Appendix II.9.A, p. 1381. See also the discussion of the feudal tournois of Louis’ brothers: Appendix II.3.C–D, pp. 1289–1293.

1370

appendix ii

in the town.997 Sparta itself also lacks a phase of developments, approximately between the 1250s to 1290s.998 This can account for the dearth of the later type 10. The Chronicle of Morea and Sanudo do not report any event in the peninsula in the early 1250s, upon Prince William’s return from Palestine. The cited finds from the Corinthia and the Argolis, which are skewered towards the later type 10, defy therefore easy explanations. Bellinger is quite right in stating that concise activities in precise moments in time, such as building work, might well influence the distribution pattern of a particular type,999 although it must be conceded that in one way or another none of the evidence provided by «59», «223», nor «334» is particularly strong: the specimens contained in the hoard from Argos are worn and broken; the excavation campaign on Acrocorinth was brief and sparsely documented; and the Nemean finds are few. Nevertheless, the site does lack an important mid-century phase,1000 which may account, in a reverse of the situation that has just been cited for Sparta, for the dearth of earlier type 9. If types 9 and 10 date to the later 1240s and early 1250s, then one would expect type 8 to be set in at the middle of the decade. Since type 8 has been overwhelmingly found in Attica, Metcalf speculates whether this coinage, issued in the name of Prince William, had been minted in the Peloponnesian territories which Guy de la Roche supposedly held from Villehardouin.1001 In the light of Kiesewetter’s research, according to which the de la Roches were not accountable to Achaïa for their holdings in the Argolis,1002 this is not a solution. Type 8 is a more confident and overtly propagandistic issue than its predecessors, shunning details such as mint location in favour of a full title and issuing authority, with an exceptional obv. portrait of William himself. This consideration, in addition to the proposed dating and the Athenian finds, sets the beginnings of type 8 in the context of the Negropontine episode which is cited above in the discussion of type 11.1003 Achaïan troops not merely swept through Attica three times on their way to Euboia, but actually entered the town of Athens following the battle of Karydi in the spring of 1258, and perhaps 997  Longnon, L’empire, p. 218. 998  See Chapter 4, p. 440. 999  Bellinger, “The coins”, pp. 66–67; Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 208; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 245, although Bellinger’s chronological conclusions cannot be endorsed. 1000  Chapter 4, pp. 442–443. 1001  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 208; SE Europe, p. 245; Ashmolean, p. 247. 1002  Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”. 1003  Metcalf (e.g. “Areopagus”, p. 209ff) puts the movement of Achaïan issues from the Corinth mint to Athens in the same context, although he does not place any particular emphasis on type 8.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ACHAÏA

1371

on another occasion a year earlier.1004 There can be no doubt that the large number of finds of type 8 specimens in the Athenian Agora is the result of these events. Walker1005 proposed another explanation for the large presence of type 8 at Athens some time ago, although his arguments have gone unnoticed in more recent literature: the fact that these coins showed little wear was taken as a sign that they were at one point demonetised and therefore particularly prone to loss. I can confirm that some of these specimens are indeed in rather good condition and probably had a limited circulation, with some obvious implications (see below), although an official demonetisation by the Athenian authorities is difficult to imagine. I would argue that, unlike type 8, Achaïan types 9 and 10 travelled from Corinth into Athenian territory steadily and unrelated to the events after 1255. I have already stated here above and elsewhere that «55. Athens 1963A» has no bearing on the arrival of types 9 and 10 in the town,1006 which would have occurred in the later 1240s and earlier 1250s. One particular piece of evidence regarding type 10 supports this view: the four sub-groups established by Zervos1007 are represented in identical proportions at Corinth and Athens, with a consistent rate of 85–86% for group 4. What are we to make of the fact that relatively more type 9 than type 10 coins were found at Athens than they were at Corinth? Metcalf raises, but then dismisses again, the scenario that Achaïa started minting earlier than Athens and that Achaïan issues therefore had an early window of opportunity to arrive in Athens before the indigenous series was launched.1008 In fact there is every possibility that this is a partial explanation. Type 9 was in all likelihood the earliest petty denomination issue of Greece and we can assume that it reached the Athenian territories more or less immediately. If Achaïan type 10 and Athenian type 1 are approximately contemporary, then less Achaïan coinage might have been imported into the lordship, and whatever fresh coinage reached it in the shape of type 10 might have been converted into type 1 issues at the Theban mint. Likewise, in the town of Corinth itself, at least some old type 9 specimens in circulation might have been converted into type 10 issues, shifting the balance towards the latter. This leaves us with one final conundrum: Metcalf notes curious distribution patterns for types 8–10 within the area of the Athenian Agora,1009 more precisely a supposed concentration of the three types in sections AA and BB 1004  Longnon, L’empire, p. 221. 1005  Walker, “Worn and Corroded Coins: Their Importance for the Archaeologist”. 1006  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 252; Baker, “Argos”, p. 229. 1007  Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, p. 190, no. 47; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 249. 1008  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 210. 1009  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 211.

1372

appendix ii

of the excavations, an upper area along the Panathenaic Way just outside the medieval walls. I went through a number of medieval coinage groups for the various excavation sections and can partially confirm Metcalf’s observations: between 6 and 11% of all Frankish deniers tournois, Venetian torneselli, and Athenian petty denomination types 1, 3, 5 found in the Athenian Agora emanated from this precise area. Corinthian types 9 and 10, with 17 and 13% respectively, were concentrated there in higher numbers. Metcalf went as far as to propose a Corinthian quarter in this area of Athens.1010 However, Corinthian type 8, which, given its chronology and its pronounced movement from Corinth to Athens, should have been central to any such line of argumentation, is represented in sections AA and BB at a very ordinary 9%. This, to my mind, eliminates the necessity for any extraordinary historical explanations for the distributions of Corinthian petty denomination coins in the Athenian Agora, and I would suggest that the slight concentrations of types 9 and 10 in one area of the site are most likely down to certain technical, macro-numismatic or siterelated conditions, most likely the dispersal of assemblages. Types 9 and 10, perhaps even 8, were possibly fraudulently conceived. They had very distinct bursts of circulation at different times, into parts of the Peloponnese and the Mainland, and even the Levant. They were, at the same time, treated less than respectfully, shunned as objects of thesaurisation, languishing at certain excavated sites, and seldom deemed worthy of counterfeiting (see below). All these attributes lend these types a particular interpretation as a throw-away coinage, which the fisc did not imagine to see returned. It is unavoidable that, as for other copper or base billon coinages of the first half of the thirteenth century,1011 a military dimension should propose itself. The connections between the petty denomination issues and the billon trachea, suggested by Metcalf (see above), might therefore have been direct, with respect to bullion, and also conceptual. Perhaps the authorities saw the potential in wringing out the last bit of usage from this stock of available bullion by turning it into new issues? All the interpretations of the Achaïan petty denomination coinage, and of type 8 in particular, seem to converge in an end to the minting activity at Corinth in the period of the battle of Karydi in the spring of 1258, or at the very latest William’s involvement in the battle of Pelagonia and his capture by the imperial authorities a year later.1012 A renewed issue by the same prince had to await his release and his subsequent foundation of the town of Clarentza. 1010  Metcalf, “Areopagus”, p. 213; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 245. 1011  See the billon trachy coinages (Appendix II.1.B and II.7), pp. 1207–1246 and 1353–1357. 1012  Discussed in the context of the issue of Manfred of Hohenstaufen, Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357.

COINAGES: PETTY DENOMINATION ISSUES: ACHAÏA

1373

8.B.3 Clarentzan Issues (Metcalf Types 12 and 13) Achaïa minted two additional petty denomination types. Both spell out the names of issuers and mint quite clearly, William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) (#475–#479) and Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) (#480–#481), and Clarentza.1013 Both feature the croix ancrée of the Villehardouin family very prominently, the latter apparently in combination with a slash known from the heraldry of the Savoy family.1014 The town and mint of Clarentza are on all accounts foundations of the 1260s. Tournois were first issued there in the latter part of that decade, around 1267, but not necessarily connected to the treaties of Viterbo of that year. It is impossible to ascertain whether or not type 12 preceded or was minted concurrently to the first tournois issues, with which it shares the style of lettering and parts of the legends. The latter is in fact not altogether clear: the specimen engraved by Schlumberger and re-produced by Metcalf reads øGøPRINCñPSø / øCLARñNCIø, whereas two specimens from the Corinth excavations (#476 and #477) read øGøPRINCñSø on the obv. and probably øCLARñNCIñø on the rev. Type 12 is very rare indeed, with finds limited to Clarentza («262») and Corinth («263», «267», «268»). Available weights would indicate that type 12 was issued at half the standard of Achaïan types 8–10. Type 13 was produced in about the same order of magnitude and has been found at the same sites («262», «263», «268», «272»). For this reason I have also rejected the previous attribution of this type to the Corinth mint.1015 The metal in which these coins were minted remains unclear, perhaps they were silver washed,1016 or perhaps they were of somewhat better quality. On the rev. the type features a Tours-style castle, which might indicate that, as the only petty denomination issue, it was after all have been conceived as a fraction – a half to be more precise – of the tournois coinage. The propagandistic aspect of this coinage is exemplified by the joint heraldry of the Villehardouin and Savoy families, and further underlined by its large-scale cancellation at Corinth through cutting,1017 much in the fashion of counterfeit tournois.1018 No doubt this occurred as Philip of Savoy’s rule was declared illegal and the princeship was conferred on Philip of Taranto after 1304/6.

1013  On these princes and their mint of Clarentza in the western Peloponnese see Appendix II.9.A, pp. 1385–1391 and 1404–1407. 1014  Tzamalis, “Philip of Savoy”, pp. 95–96. 1015  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 243–244. The mint attribution is contained in Tzamalis, “Philip of Savoy”. 1016  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 250. 1017  Zervos, “Obols of Philip of Savoy”. 1018  Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1485–1487.

1374

appendix ii

8.C Counterfeits Excavation and single counterfeit petty denomination issues of Achaïa: «238. Athenian Agora», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #482–#484 The only petty denomination issues to be counterfeited are Achaïan types 9 and 10, a reflection perhaps of the higher weights or the greater prominence of these types. A total of three known specimens, from Athens and Corinth, is disappointingly low and testimony to the lack of esteem which this coinage enjoyed. The two pieces from the Corinth excavations have been cancelled through obliteration (#482 and #483). 9

Deniers Tournois of Greece and Related Issues

The small billon penny of the Tours type (denier tournois) was the main denomination emitted in medieval Greece.1019 The choice of type was inspired by the French abbatial, royal and feudal issues which had first appeared in the area at the turn of the thirteenth century, and which became very prominent throughout the first and second third of the same century.1020 About ten official mints/issuing authorities within the primary area, and the related Chios mint, will be discussed here (this Appendix II.9.A–J), and additionally some ulterior phenomena: diffusion of minting, especially in southern Italy; counterfeiting and imitation (Appendix II.9.K–N). More than 90% of all the official tournois in Greek hoards, sites, collections and auctions, are nevertheless confined to three mints, Clarentza, Thebes, and Naupaktos. Whereas Clarentza emitted tournois for a period that might have ranged from the 1260s to the 1340s/50s, all other mints were operational for much more confined periods. For most of these years, Clarentza struck tournois in very large quantities indeed which, to judge from modern survival rates, can be compared with the products of some 1019  This coinage has been the subject of a number of monographic treatments, to cite but De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades, pp. 141–172; Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 285ff; Metcalf, Coinage in the Balkans, pp. 234–237; Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 247–263; Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, pp. 51–130; Metcalf, Ashmolean 1st edition, pp. 70–78; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 345–411; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 252–291. Additionally, a single early article on the tournois coinage, which was particularly ground-breaking in its usage of the hoard evidence, should be mentioned: Metcalf, “Deniers tournois”. 1020  Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS

1375

of the larger European mints. The silver required for this process would have originated in incoming western European silver coins.1021 Because of its prominence and local manufacture, the tournois coinage provides the main focus of the numismatic and historical discussions in this book. This coinage has received a fair amount of typological investigations in the last forty years,1022 and I have myself tried to clarify a number of typologies in preparation for this book. The implications can be far reaching, with regard to absolute and relative chronologies of the issues, their production rates, mint attributions, amid other considerations. At the heart of these typologies lie the obv. and rev. legends, more precisely the fashion in which the individual letters are constructed, that is to say the shapes of the individual punches which were applied to the dies, and the way in which they are put together. Additionally, socalled secret symbols or marks1023 (which are ‘secret’ not in the sense that they cannot be detected, since they are quite obviously visible, but in the meaning which they might have borne), and abbreviation and contraction marks, are placed in different positions within the legends. In order to demonstrate the differences between the issues and their internal developments I have drawn up tables assembling these legends for the individual discussions which follow. My main focus has been the major issues which I have encountered in hoards, rather than seeking out rare and exceptional, perhaps temporary or transitional types, and mules. The tables of legends can also be used for identification purposes, especially for coins which are less than perfectly preserved. In most cases I have been able to follow the classification systems already set out by Tzamalis and Metcalf, which have the advantage over the old plates of Schlumberger in providing a more detailed break-down for each of the issuers. It can be hoped that the tight typology which has now been established will also one day facilitate scholars in breaking into this large and diverse series on the level of coin dies. For the present work, die studies have rarely been drawn on. 1021  See the discussions of these silver coinages in this Appendix II and the treatment in Chapter 1, pp. 57–65, and further the comments in Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 472. 1022  Metcalf has attempted to break down the larger groups according to typological criteria ever since the publication of “Pylia” in the 1970s. His two Ashmolean catalogues in the 1980s and 90s are the culmination of this approach. Tzamalis’ typological investigations are contained mostly in “Η πρώτη Aʹ” and “Elis”, yet there are preparations for this work in his earlier Φραγκοκρατίας. 1023  See notably Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, p. 112, ‘μυστικά σύμβολα’ and Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 260: ‘secret marks’. These are also discussed in Chapter 2, p. 168, in the context of the control exerted on the monetary stock.

1376

appendix ii

The tournois coinage is also present in numerous hoards and excavations. In preparation for this book, I have targeted these intentionally and the catalogues contained in Appendix I feature many newly-classified assemblages. The series has been subjected to a limited number of archaeometrical analyses.1024 The early destructive analyses of Chrestomanos1025 were followed by those of Tzamalis,1026 and by the analyses undertaken in Professor Gordus’ ‘Neutron Howitzer’.1027 The latter get us closer to the original silver content of the coins since the readings are mathematically corrected. In order to investigate particularly the early period of tournois minting, Ponting and I prepared a range of SEM-EDS (energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy) and ICP-AES (inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy) analyses.1028 For the period after 1289 my colleagues and I in Glasgow, at Demokritos in Athens, and in Heraklion and Austria, tested the usefulness of XRF (x-ray fluorescence), supported by LIBS (laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy), as applied to a large number of specimens derived from the same source, in describing the metallurgical developments within a series.1029 The tournois coinage is often cited in the sources. It is a system of account in its own right in multiple contexts.1030 More overt mentions of the coins of this name in some of the prominent sources (Pegolotti, Sanudo, Chronicle of Morea) invariably concern Clarentza1031 and Achaïan production. For this reason I have assembled all my discussions in this respect under the next Achaïan heading. 9.A Achaïa Hoards containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «71. Chasani ca. 1860»(?), «72. Bular»(?), «73. Mesopotam»(?), «76. Corinth 20–21 August 1928», «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «84. Agrinio 1973», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», «86. Birmingham», «87. Vourvoura»(?), «88. Delphi 1933», «89. Epidauros 1904», «90. Limnes 2006», «91. Thebes 1987» «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «93. Apollonia», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «96. Kapandriti 1978», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens 1024  See the overview in Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 211–212; Baker and Calabria, p. 283, n. 101. 1025  Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων”. 1026  Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Bʹ”, pp. 62–62; Tzamalis, “Elis”. 1027  Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 176; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 262, n. 9. 1028  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 210–218. 1029  Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”. 1030  Compare Appendix III. 1031  And summarized as such recently in a monograph dedicated to this town: Tzavara, Clarentza, pp. 132–137.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA

1377

ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «101. Megara»(?), «102. Naupaktos 1970», «103. Spata», «104. Tatoï 1860», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «109. Eleusina 1862», «114. Unknown Provenance before 1946», «115. Shën Dimitri», «116. Amphissa ca. 1977», «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972», «118. Akarnania ca. 1960», «119. Ioannina 1986», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975», «124. Attica 1950», «125. Eleusina 1894», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966», «133. Birmingham», «134. ANS 1952», «135. Orio 1959», «136. Lord Grantley Hoard A», «138. Tritaia 1933», «139. Atalandi 1940», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «141. Brussels without inventory», «142. Patra 1955A», «146. Mesochori», «147. Nivicë», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «151. Brussels 1904», «152. Unknown Provenance ca. 1964», «153. Larisa 1955», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «155. Lepenou 1981», «156. Shën Jan», «158. Petsouri 1997», «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «163. ANS 1986», «165. Agrinio 1967», «167. Kaparelli», «168. Elis 1964», «170. Eleusina 1952», «171. Thespies» (?), «174. Ancient Elis», «192. Corinth BnF», «196. Delphi 1894B», «198. Delphi 1894A», «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B» (?), «211. Chalkida». Graves containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «213. Aliartos», «214. Athenian Agora», «215. Athens», «216. Clarentza», «218. Corinth», «222. Thira 1999»(?). Excavation and single deniers tournois of Achaïa: «224. Agios Nikolaos»(?), «225. Agios Stephanos», «226. Agrapidochori», «230. Andros», «231. Andros», «232. Apollonia»(?), «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «254. Berat», «255. Bozika», «257. Butrint», «261. Chloumoutsi», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «272. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «283. Delphi»(?), «284. Delphi», «290. Eutresis», «296. Isthmia», «299. Kaninë», «305. Kenchreai», «307. Kladeos», «310. Krestena», «313. Lepreo/ Strovitzi», «314. Ligourio», «316. Mashkieza», «317. Mazi/Skillountia», «328. Naxos»(?), «334. Nemea», «335. Nikopolis», «337. Olympia», «339. Orchomenos», «340. Panakto», «349. Pylos in Elis», «351. Sparta», «354. Thebes», «355. Thebes», «361. Thebes», «368. Thebes»(?), «379. Tinos», «385. Zaraka». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «386. Castelforte»(?), «387. Vibo Valentia», «388. Filignano», «389. Roca Vecchia», «390. Martano», «391. Gallipoli», «392. Puglia», «393. Bitonto», «395. Paracopio di Bova» «396. S. Vito Dei Normanni», «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886», «400. Sicily», «401. Santa Croce Di Magliano», «403. Muro Leccese».

1378

appendix ii

Graves in Italy containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «406. Policoro». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Achaïa from Italy: «407. Alezio»(?), «408. Alezio»(?), «409. Apigliano». «410. Bagnoli Del Trigno», «411. Barletta», «412. Bitonto»(?), «414. Brindisi», «415. Campobasso», «416. Capaccio Vecchia», «422. Cosenza»(?), «423. Crotone»(?), «424. Crotone», «425. Gerace», «426. Gravina», «427. Guardiano», «428. Ischia», «433. Ordona», «435. Otranto», «436. Paestum», «437. Paestum»(?), «438. Paestum», «439. Piedimonte Matese», «440. Quattro Macine», «443. Roca Vecchia», «444. Rome», «445. Salerno», «446. Salerno», «447. Santa Severina», «448. Santa Severina»(?), «449. Satriano», «450. Scolacium»(?), «451. Scribla»(?), «453. Squillace», «455. Taranto»(?), «456. Tropea», «459. Venice»(?) Hoards in the eastern Aegean containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «469. Rhodes ca. 1927». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Achaïa from Asia Minor and the Near East: «471. Acre», «473. Caesarea Maritima», «479. Kyzikos», «481. Nahariyya», «483. Pergamon», «487. Sardis», «488. Troy». Hoards in the Balkans containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «490. Kărdžali», «491. Istanbul 1871», «493. Prilep», «496. Balkan 1987», «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987», «498. Silistra 1932». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Achaïa from the Balkans: «501. Ainos»(?), «506. Edirne»(?), «507. Istanbul», «509. Jantra», «510. Kasrici»(?), «512. Ljutica»(?), «518. Perperikon»(?), «521. Rentina», «525. Tărnovo», «526. Thasos», «527. Thessalonike». Hoards in western and northern Europe containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: «528. Skrivergade», «529. Dieuze», «530. Aurimont», «531. Saint-Marcel-De-Felines», «532. Puylaurens», «533. Saint-Maixent», «535. Manderen», «536. Riec-Sur-Belon», «537. Mairé», «539. Weissenthurm», «540. Limerle» Later stratigraphical fills containing deniers tournois of Achaïa: Appendix I.14, nos 16, 19, 27. 9.A.1 Sources Many diverse sources refer to the tournois coinage. Often it is impossible to distinguish between coinage and system of accounting. It is nevertheless true that in my region and for a certain period – at least until the mid- to late fourteenth century – the two were intricately linked. Further comments on the role of the tournois in Greek accounting are made in Appendix III. Some pieces of documentary information are also cited at the appropriate place in my discussions of the output of the individual issuers.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA

1379

One passage in Pegolotti’s handbook refers directly to the minting process, and is perhaps the most interesting single piece of information illuminating the coinage in question.1032 The tournois of Clarentza are of the alloy of 2½ ounces of fine silver per pound.1033 A ratio of twelve ounces to the pound, which was rigorously adhered to in Byzantium1034 (the alternative 16:1, which became progressively used in the Latin west,1035 produces a figure which is too low) gives a fineness of 20.83%: this compares well to what is otherwise known for the issues relating to the period in which Pegolotti gathered his information, of Mahaut of Hainaut, John of Gravina, yet not of the later Robert of Taranto, whose coins were of lesser quality.1036 33 soldi and four denari of the said coins (400 tournois) fit into this pound. The pound in question would appear to be that of Clarentza, the subject of Pegolotti’s attention at a number of points in his manual.1037 This pound weighs in the region of 348g, which puts the denier tournois at ca. 0.87g. These are rare and invaluable pieces of information, even if they relate to only one moment in time. There are a number of further matters relating to the minting process which are conveyed in this passage:1038 three sterlings per pound of alloy are payable for the losses during foundry, that is to say the casting of the refined bullion into ingots. 2½ sterlings 1032  Pegolotti, p. 118. The passage is reproduced in Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 311–12, without further commentary. See also Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 218–219:   “La moneta picciola di Chiarenza si è di lega d’once 2 ½ d’ariento fine per libbra, e vannone in una libbra soldi 33, denari 4 a conto, e chiamasi tornesella picciola, e ànno di spesa a lavorargli nella zecca come dirà qui appresso:   Primieramente per once 2½ d’argento fine, piperi …   Per mancamento a fondere, da starlini 3 per libbra.   Per uvraggio agli uvrieri che’l lavorano, da sterlini 2½ per libbra.   Per affinatura, istarlini ½ par libbra.   Per salaro dell ‘ntagliatore de’ ferri da coniare la detta moneta, soldi 150 di viniziani grossi l’anno.   E per salaro del fabbro che fa i detti ferri, e a conciare gli altri stovigli della zecca, piperi 100 l’anno.   E per salaro di colui che sta alla bilancia, pipperi 100 l’anno.   E per salaro de’ maestri della zecca, piperi 300 l’anno.   E per monetaggio a’ monetieri che coniano, sterlini 1½ per libbra”. 1033  The same fineness is given in another passage: Pegolotti, p. 116: “torneselli piccioli … sono di lega once 2½ d’argento fine per libbra”. Compare Appendix III.3, pp. 1532–1536. 1034  Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 281. 1035  Lane and Mueller, Money and Banking, p. 526. 1036  See Appendix II.9.A.10–12, pp. 1416–1426. 1037  The evidence is best summarised in Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 218–219. 1038  On the organisation of medieval mints and its staff, and the different tasks performed there, see the papers contained in Spufford and Mayhew, Later medieval mints, and especially Travaini, “Mint organisation in Italy”. Some relevant information is also contained in Monti, “La zecca di Napoli sotto Giovanna Ia d’Angiò”.

1380

appendix ii

per pound are rendered for the salaries of the (manual) workers, half a sterling per pound for the refinement. 1½ sterlings are finally paid to the moneyers for the mintage. At four tournois to the sterling,1039 these four figures amount to 7.5% of the total metal of the right alloy. This information is interspersed with some absolute figures for salaries. The implication seems to be that those seeking to have coins minted would be required to meet a fraction of these salaries: there is otherwise no plausible explanation why Pegolotti would have included such precisions in his text. Salaries are probably given in absolute terms because the fraction payable by the individual who seeks the coining would be relative to the total amount of metal coined in a given period. Annual salaries are paid to the following: the engraver of the dies; the blacksmith who creates these dies and other objects needed in the mint; and the weigher. The identity of the latter is ambiguous, referring as it might to the weighing of the initial bullion, the cast ingots, or the flans. The mint masters, the only position described here in the plural, are allotted a yearly salary of 300 hyperpyra. The distinction between mint masters and moneyers (see above) is quite clear from other contexts, the latter being a position which is directly linked to the technicalities of the striking process.1040 We know from the Angevin sources1041 that Clarentza had two mint masters, and we also know that in Venice each mint master earned half the rate of the engraver.1042 The reason for the high salary of the engraver must be sought not merely in the skill with which he ensured the aesthetic and visual aspect of the coinage, but the trust which was placed in him to render the latter inalienable.1043 The fact that the salary for the engraver of the Clarentza mint is quoted in the Venetian system of account shows perhaps that he was alien to the set-up of the mint, recruited perhaps internationally. The engraver earned 1,800 grossi per annum or, at a rate of perhaps seven grossi to the hyperpyron,1044 less than 300 hyperpyra. It is therefore likely that the 300 hyperpyra given to the mint masters covered the salaries of both of these. Overall, the number of described positions is relatively small, but the figures given for some of the salaries are perfectly in line with what is known 1039  See Appendix III.3, pp. 1532–1536. 1040  See for instance Stahl, Zecca, s.v. mint master (‘massarius’) and moneyer (‘monetarius’). Numismatists dealing with other areas of medieval Europe, for instance England, may refer to mint masters as moneyers. 1041  Appendix II.9.A.3, p. 1393. 1042  Stahl, “Mint of Venice”, p. 103. 1043  The search for skillful and trustworthy engravers was a recurrent theme in Italian monetary history: Travaini, “Mint organisation in Italy”, p. 49ff. 1044  Pegolotti, p. 117.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA

1381

from other European mints in this period. With all dues allocated for specific pieces of expenditure, one has to seek the outright profit to the state from the minting process, the seigniorage,1045 in the incomplete line towards the beginning of the passage, “primieramente per once 2½ d’argento fine, piperi …”. The sense of this seems to be the following: a certain sum is paid, in hyperpyra of Clarentza per weight (pound) of alloy to be minted, once the metal is refined to the required 2½ ounces per pound.1046 There are some general references to the profit to the state from the minting process in Latin Greece (see below). A precise figure for the seigniorage at Clarentza would have been useful, but we may already conclude that the price for having bullion coined at the Clarentza mint was not insubstantial. Usefully, according to the information provided also by Pegolotti, high-quality metals entered and left Clarentza free of charge: “d’oro né d’ariento non si paga diritto nullo né all’entrare né all’uscire”.1047 The transfer of bullion to Clarentza from Puglia and Tuscany is stated explicitly.1048 We find at the same locality silver from Venice1049 and Ancona.1050 Marino Sanudo relates that Prince William II of Villehardouin addressed King Louis IX in 1249:1051 “Signor Sir tu sei maggior signor di me e puoi condur gente, dove vuoi e quanta vuoi senza denari, io non posso far così”. Thereupon “il re li fece gratia che’l potesse battere torneselli della lega del re, mettendo in una libra tre onze e mezza d’argento”. I have already referred to this passage in the context of the French feudal1052 and Achaïan petty denomination1053 issues. Both of these coinages might have had, in one way or another, a bearing on Sanudo’s account. There was in fact no constitutional link between the two protagonists of this passage, and the minting of Achaïan tournois commenced much later than 1249, which puts in doubt the entire episode in the narrated form. However, the proposed fineness of these issues (ca. 28%), and their military inspiration, are worth retaining for other discussions.

1045  Chapter 1, pp. 68–69. 1046  Pegolotti’s handbook (p. 155) seems to mention seigniorage only on one other occasion, regarding Aquileia: “Per l’utole che ne vuole il signore, cioè lo patriarca, soldi 12 bagattini per libbra”. 1047  Pegolotti, p. 117. See Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 247–248. Compare also Chapter 3, p. 317. 1048  Pegolotti, pp. 170 and 198. 1049  Pegolotti, p. 149. 1050  Pegolotti, p. 159. 1051  Sanudo, p. 107. See also Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 237. 1052  Appendix II.3.C, p. 1290. 1053  Appendix II.8.B.2, pp. 1367–1372.

1382

appendix ii

The constitutional conditions regulating the minting of tournois are perhaps more accurately represented in the Chronicle of Morea. Accordingly, Emperor Robert of Courtenay (1221–1228) allowed Prince Geoffrey I (1209/1210–1229) to mint “monoye de petits tornoys”.1054 While it is indeed possible that sometime before 1267 Prince William II received the right to mint from Emperor Baldwin II, the particular scenario as narrated in the chronicle is chronologically impossible. Venetian sources illuminate the particular status of the tournois as a coinage used in international trade as well as in local administration. In 1305 the republic contemplated the striking of tournois in her Peloponnesian possessions (never to be realised): “Cum per principem Achaiae et alios de Romania fiat talis moneta propter quam redditus nostri Cumunis Coroni et Moroni sunt valde deteriorati, et etiam mercatores inde recipiunt magnum praeiuditium et sinistrum; capta fuit pars quod per nostrum Comune debeant cudi in Corono et Modono illae monetae quae videbuntur Domino Duci (…) esse meliores pro nostris negociis de inde”.1055 According to these considerations, Venetian merchants faced difficulties and disadvantages (“magnum praeiuditium et sinistrum”) because of the reduced quality of the available tournois.1056 Might it be the case additionally that the expenses they faced in receiving new tournois from the Clarentza mint and elsewhere were rather too large (see above)? Venetian affairs (“nostris negociis”1057) would be much improved by the creation of local Venetian issues. Perhaps Venice realised that such a project was unsustainable, since Gresham’s Law would anyhow have favoured the lowervalue Achaïan and Athenian issues.1058 Such considerations no longer applied when Venice launched the tornesello, which was lower in value than the local issues and was first minted when the latter had already been discontinued.1059 Stahl presents some evidence that illicitly counterfeited tournois might have been emitted by the Venice mint in 1322, although the impact of these on the Greek monetary situation – if there was any at all – remains impossible 1054   Chronicle of Morea (G), line 2608; Chronicle of Morea (F),  §185; Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 308; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 240. 1055  Lazari, Monete dei possedimenti veneziani pp. 98–100. See: Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 476–477; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 262; Stahl, Tornesello, p. 4, n. 13; Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”, p. 358; Stahl, Zecca, p. 62, n. 117. Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 220. 1056  See specifically the lower quality of the coins of Naupaktos which were being minted in these years: Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453. 1057  See Boerio, Dizionario del dialetto veneziano, s.v. negòzio. 1058  Chapter 1, p. 72. 1059  Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA

1383

to measure.1060 There are a small number of pieces of Venetian legislation which illuminate the usage of tournois in Greece. In 1282 the Grand Council singled out this denomination, beside grossi, as the main coinage to be used by Venetian merchants in the region.1061 Some single mentions of tournois by the Venetian authorities before the tornesello are also noteworthy: in 1342, three tournois are the import tax per modius of wheat in Coron-Modon;1062 in 1343 or 1344 in the same locality one tournois is the penalty for rolling a barrel to the seashore. Alternatively, the culprit can choose to stand in chains for one hour.1063 In 1348 a new tax of one tournois is to be paid per mitro of imported wine.1064 Documentation pertaining to the Angevin chancery in Naples contributes a number of very important details on the tournois coinage of Greece. The operation of the mint of Clarentza during different princeships, especially those of William II of Villehardouin and Charles I of Anjou, will be discussed under the appropriate headings below. More indirectly, the tendering of the minting operation in Naples itself in the course of the fourteenth century, especially to Florentine banking interests from the later 1310s onwards, might also have a bearing on Greek minting.1065 The importance of the tournois is evident in a number of acts. It is possible that one of these makes reference to the profit achieved through the minting process, the seigniorage which might have been referred to by Pegolotti (see above).1066 In a similar vein, the generated profit from the Clarentza mint is used towards the pay of mercenaries in a now lost act of 1280–1281. In 1273 troops are seen to be paid specifically in tournois of Clarentza (accounted in ounces), and in 1284 the same are again used for mercenaries. The Angevin acts also document continuously, in the same period and for very similar purposes, the distribution throughout Sicily and South Italy of the so-called new denari of the Messina and Brindisi mints, a coinage of much lesser intrinsic value than tournois. On the other hand, like the Venetian legislation, some of the Angevin acts also indicate the obligation of 1060  See the precise passages cited above. See further the discussion on tournois counterfeits in Appendix II.9.M, pp. 1484–1490. 1061  Cessi, Deliberazione del Maggior Consiglio, 2, p. 135: “… tem quod illi Veneti, qui de Corona et Clarencia voluerint venire in Apuliam cum turonensibus et alio in cambio, et de Apulea voluerint reddire Clarenciam et Coronam cum denariis grossis et alio in cambio possint ire et reddire, quando voluerint, in dictas contractas”. See Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 41, no. LV. See also Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 220. 1062  Lombardo, Deliberazioni del Consiglio, 1, no. 134. 1063  Hodgetts, Coron and Modon, p. 384. 1064  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 63, no. 209. 1065  See Chapter 1, p. 69; Baker, “Casálbore”, esp. pp. 182–183. 1066  On what follows, see Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 219.

1384

appendix ii

the state to provide its merchants with good and sufficient monetary specie: in February 1272 Charles I of Anjou demands that the same denari be assembled in Brindisi from all parts of South Italy “pro negotio Achaye”, and again later on in the same year. The circulation of tournois in Italy is regulated by Angevin legislation of the 1280s and 1290s,1067 which can also be used to calculate the different rates of exchange of these tournois to one another, or through the South Italian system of accounting.1068 We find tournois beside other monetary specie confiscated from the procurator of two canons of Corinth and Athens by the authorities in Otranto in 1292.1069 In the same year, plans were made to issue tournois at Naples.1070 In later times, the decrease in the value of the Greek tournois is also demonstrated in Angevin sources.1071 Ragusan sources underline the importance of tournois in communications across the Ionian and Adriatic seas. In 1284, the value of goods taken from a ship en route between Valona and Brindisi are measured, amongst other values, in tournois.1072 An Irish Franciscan traveller used tournois in Durazzo in 1323.1073 As mentioned in the relevant discussion of Byzantine tornese,1074 the tournois denomination is occasionally mentioned in Byzantine, and specifically Constantinopolitan, contexts of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.1075 It would be wise not to be too confident regarding the precise identity of the issues that are being referred to.

1067  Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 426. 1068  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238. See also Appendix III.3, pp. 1527–1530. 1069  R  egistri, 38, p. 35, no. 131 (= Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 40). 1070  M  EC, p. 221. Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 223. 1071  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. 2 (1337), p. 53, lines 6–10; and doc. 3 (1338), pp. 57–58, lines 26–31: 42 tournois to the tarì. In ca. 1280, 1 grain had been equal to the tournois, hence 20 tournois were the equivalent of 1 tarì (Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238). These sources are dealt with extensively in Appendix III.3, p. 1540ff. 1072  Krekić, Dubrovnik, no. 37. 1073  Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 202; Elsie, “Two Irish Travellers”. On this person, see also the Preface, p. xvii. 1074  Appendix II.1.E, pp. 1268–1277. 1075  Schreiner, Texte, pp. 466–9, app. VIII, text b (northern Sporades); pp. 263–5, text 55; Hunger and Vogel, Rechenbuch, nos 36; 52; 55; 69; Pegolotti, p. 40; Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 174.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: WILLIAM

1385

9.A.2 William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) Excavation and single deniers tournois of William II of Villehardouin (Achaïa): «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «307. Kladeos», «334. Nemea», «354. Thebes», «361. Thebes». Excavation and single deniers tournois of William II of Villehardouin (Achaïa) from Italy: «409. Apigliano», «415. Campobasso», «425. Gerace», «435. Otranto», «443. Roca Vecchia», «453. Squillace». Excavation and single deniers tournois of William II of Villehardouin (Achaïa) from Asia Minor: «479. Kyzikos», «483. Pergamon». Excavation and single deniers tournois of William II of Villehardouin (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «526. Thasos». Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Achaïan se­ ries of William II of Villehardouin: «76. Corinth 20–21 August 1928», «77. Corinth 1992», «387. Vibo Valentia».1076 Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #485–#500 William II of Villehardouin was the first prince of Achaïa to mint deniers tournois. Tzamalis has been instrumental in providing a typology for the tournois issues of William and his direct successors, Charles I and II of Anjou (see below), and the following table is built around his system of classification:

1076  The Argos 2005b hoard, which is not listed in Appendix I, cut through the early issues of Villehardouin in a very interesting fashion, though this is not picked up by its editor, and the accompanying illustrations cannot remedy this shortcoming: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”.

1386

appendix ii Types for William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278)

Type*

Legend

Comment

GV101 GV101 var

GV102 GV103 GV111

/ /

GV111 var GV112 GV113 GV121–123 GV121–123var GV131 GV132

/

GV133 GV134

GV134 var

GV141

/

The E on the obv. differs from all other issues of William, as well as from the E on the rev. of this coin. Not seen by author. Not seen by author. The dots in the legends are regularly omitted. This variety is distinguished by the elongated composite S. The dots in the legends are regularly omitted. The dots in the legends are regularly omitted. The dots in the obv. legend are regularly omitted. This variety is distinguished by the dots surrounding the rev. cross. The dots in the obv. legend are regularly omitted. Not seen by author. The dots in the obv. legend between the G and the P are regularly omitted. The dot in the rev. legend between the G and the P is regularly omitted. This variety is distinguished by the missing dot at the end of the obv. legend. Not seen by author.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: WILLIAM

Type*

Types for William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) (cont.)

Legend

Comment

GV142

/

In addition to the dots around the rev. cross, this type is distinguished by the dot at the centre of the N. Varieties are known without the distinctive N and with two dots above rather than below the rev. cross. GV123 displays rows of three dots on the rev., although in this particular case the middle dot is smaller and there are no dots around the rev. cross. The rev. castle is surrounded by two dots. The rev. As are variously barred and un-barred. Not seen by author. The obv. dots, especially between the G and the P and at the end of the legend, are regularly omitted. The S at the end of the obv. can also be upright. The rev. As are variously barred and un-barred. The S at the end of the obv. can also be upright. The rev. As are variously barred and un-barred. This and the following type belong unmistakably to Tzamalis’ second group, though the combinations and obv. and rev. dots/marks are as yet unrecorded.

/

Not seen by author.

GV1add

GV201

GV202 GV211

GV212

GV21 add1

GV21 add2 GV221

1387

1388

Type* GV222

GV223

GV224

appendix ii Types for William II of Villehardouin (1246–1278) (cont.)

Legend

Comment The obv. and rev. dots are regularly omitted. The As are variously barred and un-barred. Double instead of single dots are occasionally found at the beginning of the obv. and the end of the rev. legend. Dots are also regularly omitted. The As are variously barred and un-barred. The double dots on the obv. can also be substituted for single or no dots. The As are variously barred and un-barred. One variety has particularly prominent Vs and Ds, which have been created from proper punches, at the beginning and end of the rev. legend.

* According to the typology in Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ” and Tzamalis, “Addition” (the latter regarding GV141 and GV142), reproduced in Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 256: GV1 represents the first group with the closed gable in the rev. castle, GV2 the second with the open gable. Types which are contained in Tzamalis’ listing but are left here blank have not been seen by me. Tzamalis also adds a number of additional typological details to these groupings, from the way in which the dots are assembled within the rev. castle to the means by which the designs are centred on the dies.

Tzamalis observed a very clear bi-partite division in the issues of William (GV1 and GV2). The transition from one obv. legend to the next (corresponding to Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XII.12 and 13) occurred within the second group (GV21 and GV22). The letters R and A, together with the rev. castle, are characteristic of these groups. The varieties are mostly distinguished by the symbols at the beginning and end of the legend, and surrounding the small cross patty. Tzamalis’ detailed observations were enthusiastically greeted by Metcalf,1077 who also endorsed some of Tzamalis’ ulterior conclusions, regard1077  Metcalf, “Circulation of tornesia”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 255–259; Metcalf, “Three Hoards”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: WILLIAM

1389

ing chronology and metrology, the existence of more than one mint within the principality of Achaïa, amongst other matters. For his typological research, Tzamalis relied on the evidence of the early hoard «83. Xirochori 1957». More recently, I responded with my own conclusions on the early history of tournois minting at Clarentza, which were partially based on new metallurgical analyses by Ponting, and on my classification of another early hoard, «81. Troizina 1899».1078 There is rather limited archaeological information which relates directly to the parameters of minting of the issues of William II of Villehardouin. Four hoards, listed here above, were concealed during their production period itself («75», «76», «77», «387»). The new hoard from Argos is perhaps the most relevant piece of evidence for these issues. The Italian hoard («387») is rendered of limited usefulness by its rather vague dating and the fact that it is confined to one Achaïan specimen. The negative evidence of «75» and «77» is of some usefulness for the dating of the series, and «76. Corinth 20–21 August 1928» for the progression of the types. In many respects, the two cited if slightly later hoards («81» and «83») are more useful in defining the series in the name of William. Coins of William are, in relative terms, more generously represented at sites than in hoards. Regarding the beginning of the minting operation at Clarentza, in the said study,1079 I rejected Tzamalis’ method of calculating backwards in time from the Sicilian Vespers of Easter 1282. Instead, I gathered the identifiable reasons for issuing coins, and related these to the particular scenario following William II of Villehardouin’s release from Byzantine captivity and the foundation of the town of Clarentza itself, which both occurred in the early 1260s. A particular Angevin involvement in the early minting activity at Clarentza was not necessary, but possible. Provisionally, I dated the first minting of tournois at Clarentza to the second half of the 1260s, or to ca. 1267 (the year of the two treaties of Viterbo), although a leeway of at least five years on either side of this date must still be conceded. Charles of Anjou’s interest in the administration of Achaïa was particularly intense in 1269/1270,1080 and «75» and «77» support a rather late dating of the first tournois during William’s princeship (1246–1278).

1078  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”. 1079  On what follows, see Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 253. Consider also Metcalf, SE Europe Greek edition, p. XXXIII and my comments in Chapter 1, p. 78. 1080  Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée”, pp. 144–145.

1390

appendix ii

In the same article,1081 based on archaeometric and documentary evidence, I was able to relate chronologically GV2 and KA1 of Charles I of Anjou (see below). A clear sequence of GV1, GV21, GV22 suggested itself in this way. «76. Corinth 20–21 August 1928» was concealed late during the princeship of William and confirms this chronological progression, as do «81. Troizina 1899» and «83. Xirochori 1957». The fineness of issue, at least for the central types GV2 and KA1 in this sequence, was established at 26% silver.1082 The same evidence, combined this time with the weights of the coins contained in hoards «81» and «83», have also allowed me to postulate tentatively1083 that there might have been a difference in the overall minting standards of GV1 and GV2. It is possible, though not proven, as other scholars have suggested in the past, that there was a shift from something akin to the French royal standard to a lower standard, closer to that applied by Charles of Anjou in Provence, perhaps in line with a change in the imports of foreign coins into Greece.1084 The evidence of some of the hoards and stray finds also showed that there was no geographical bias in the distributions of William’s and Charles’ two groupings (GV1 and KA1; GV2 and KA2).1085 For all the cited reasons there is no reason to believe, as postulated by Tzamalis and endorsed by Metcalf, that more than one Peloponnesian mint produced deniers tournois.1086 The increasing usage of ‘mint of Clarentza’ or ‘mint of Corinth’ to designate groups 1 and 2 which one finds in some recent numismatic literature,1087 or in auction catalogues,1088 should be abandoned before more confusion is caused. The existence of only one mint and the sequence of groups and types suggest a rather linear progression for the tournois coinage of William. An early and square hybrid French/Greek issue (TVRONVS CIVI / D CLARENTIA),1089 1081  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 227. 1082  See, in this regard, also Appendix II.3.D, p. 1292. 1083  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 228ff. 1084  See Appendix II.3.D, pp. 1292–1293. 1085  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 241–242. 1086   Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 245. Consequently, the formula (DE) CLARENT(C)IA, which is already present on some of the early experimental issues of William, is clearly an indication of origin: Grierson, “Signification de De Clarentia”; Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 249. 1087  E.g. Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States. 1088  See, to give just one example, Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, 137, March 2008, lot 3966: “Denier, Korinth”. 1089  See Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 253, referring to Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 314. De Saulcy, Numismatique des croisades, pl. 14.6 and 7, had been the first writer to draw particular attention to this issue.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: CHARLES

1391

though presumably a counterfeit,1090 is still a valuable piece of information regarding the tournois coinage in Greece during the earliest indigenous phase, when presumably French coins were still in circulation and the first Clarentzan issues were experimental in style.1091 The rev. of this counterfeit confirms that varieties GV101–103 were indeed early and experimental. Thereafter, as has been said, followed sequentially GV1, GV21, GV22 during the main period of William’s tournois minting, which would have lasted from 1267± five years to his death in 1278. The transitions from one style of lettering to the next (GV1 to GV21), and from one obv. legend to the next (GV21 to GV22), are impossible to date. Perhaps the said hoard from Argos will be able to shed light on this. To judge by the proportions contained in some hoards («81», «83», «84», «92», «95», «397», «398») and sites («238», «263», «266», «267», «268»), GV1 was the largest of the three groupings, followed by GV22, between which the much smaller GV21 is squeezed. Within GV1 there was a rapid sequence of types marked by different symbols, principally at the beginnings and ends of the legends. It is also possible that the regular inclusion/omission of single stops within the legend performed similar control functions. The second group is inaugurated by the simple and perhaps experimental GV201/GV202, the first of which is not rare. In most assemblages, apart from «83. Xirochori 1957», GV211 is much more plentiful than GV212, so much so that one may suspect an editorial error during the publication of that particular hoard. «81» and «83» also clearly suggest a sequence of GV222, GV223, GV224, within William’s last grouping. 9.A.3 Charles I and II of Anjou (1278–1289) Excavation and single deniers tournois of Charles I and/or II of Anjou (Achaïa): «225. Agios Stephanos», «226. Agrapidochori», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «255. Bozika», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «272. Corinth», «310. Krestena», «334. Nemea», «349. Pylos in Elis». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Charles I and/or II of Anjou (Achaïa) from Italy: «411. Barletta», «414. Brindisi», «416. Capaccio Vecchia», «433. Ordona», «438. Paestum», «439. Piedimonte Matese», «443. Roca Vecchia», «447. Santa Severina», «449. Satriano».

1090  Appendix II.3.E, p. 1293. 1091  Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, p. 351 erroneously state that such an issue was contained in «83. Xirochori 1957».

1392

appendix ii

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Charles I and/or II of Anjou (Achaïa) from Asia Minor: «483. Pergamon». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Charles I and/or II of Anjou (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «526. Thasos». Denier tournois hoards and graves concealed during the production of the Achaïan series of Charles I and/or II of Anjou: «81. Troizina 1899», «213. Aliartos», «388. Filignano», «528. Skrivergade». Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with Charles I and/or II of Anjou: «83. Xirochori 1957», «529. Dieuze», «530. Aurimont». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #501–#509 William II of Villehardouin died on 1 May 1278 and King Charles I of Anjou assumed the title of prince of Achaïa. Henceforth, though probably after a certain delay, the Clarentza mint emitted tournois in his name, a process which can be traced in an exceptional series of documents from the Angevin chancery (see below). The issues of Charles I, and perhaps of his son Charles II, were also contained in the seminal «83. Xirochori 1957». As such, they were discussed in some detail in Tzamalis’ publication, which is the basis of the following typology:

Types for Charles I and/or II of Anjou (1278–1289)

Type*

Legend

KA101

KA101 var KA201 KA202

Comment The dots in the obv. legend are regularly omitted. The mark between PRINC and AC is on one occasion inverted, with the thinner end pointing to the right. The obv. K is constructed in the same fashion as the H. The crosses in the rev. legend are omitted. The double pellets at the end of the obv. legend can be omitted. The dots in the obv. and rev. legends are regularly omitted.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: CHARLES

Types for Charles I and/or II of Anjou (1278–1289) (cont.)

Type*

Legend

KA202 var1 KA202 var2

KA203

1393

Comment This variety distinguishes itself from the main group through the mark between PRINC and ACh. The obv. of this variety combines the lettering of KA201 with the marks of KA202. The foot of the first R is badly constructed.

* According to the typology in Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, reproduced in Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 258: KA1 represents the first group with the closed gable in the rev. castle, KA2 the second with the open gable.

Tzamalis divided the issues in the name of Charles into two distinct groupings, based on the letter R and the shape of the rev. castle, as he did for the tournois minted in William’s name. This formed part of his identification of two mints within Achaïan territory, to which I responded in the cited article.1092 Having linked GV2 and KA1 (see also above), I established that the issues in the name of Charles were sequential rather than parallel, and would all have been produced at Clarentza. Between these two issues, the minting standard of 26% silver was maintained. Charles’ administration applied itself to the workings of this mint within a year of Charles I’s assumption of the princeship, sending bullion and specialist staff, and leaving a whole range of relevant documents.1093 Very important aspects of the Clarentza mint are revealed here, which can be compared to the cited passage in Pegolotti’s handbook.1094 The mint is located within Clarentza, and is administered by the bailo and vicar general of the principality, in conjunction with the castellan of the town. There are two mint masters, though the two groups KA1 and KA2 should not be regarded as contemporaneous issues of each of these. It would in fact seem that KA1, with the new legend, was the reformed coinage of 1279, to be replaced in 1092  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”. 1093  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 223–225. 1094  Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1379–1381.

1394

appendix ii

1281 with the more traditional KA2 issue, which the documents might allude to. Minting took place until 1284, perhaps a bit later, which raises the doubt whether any of the KA2 issues belong to Charles II, who became prince upon the death of his father in January 1285. A small number of hoards was concealed during these two princeships, or cut through the KA series in other ways. KA issues were also found at sites. Some of this evidence is contradictory. The large southern Greek sites suggest that KA1 and KA2 were minted in roughly equal proportions (see e.g. «238», «239», «267», «268», though not «266»). The hoards, on the other hand, invariably contain more KA1 than KA2 issues. The discrepancies in the percentages of the KA2 issues in the two large and early hoards («81» and «83»), at 41% to 26% of the coins in the name of Charles, could superficially suggest that KA2 was the earlier of the issues. However, within KA2 «81. Troizina 1899» is seriously underdeveloped, with KA202 dominating in a way that it does nowhere else. This fact suggests the opposite chronological arrangement of the two groups and supports the typological and metrological data discussed above. The early hoards «213» and «388»1095 support this, whereas a Danish hoard («528») again gives primacy to KA2. In all of this, the archaeometric and documentary sources are more powerful than the archaeological evidence. The hoards are also inadequate in providing a chronological sequence for KA201–203. The two early hoards manage to show, at least, that KA202 was not the latest of the varieties. Judging by the typologies, the first variety of KA2 was probably KA203, followed by KA202, with which it shares the construction method of the K, R, P. One variation of the latter (KA202var2) provides a link with KA201, the last of the three varieties. Judging by some of the later hoards («99», «149», «160», amongst others), KA2 fell out of circulation more rapidly than KA1. Perhaps it was of lesser quality and therefore avoided? Might this inferiority and the probable temporary closure of the Clarentza mint be linked? In summary, the mint of Clarentza minted KA1 (#501–#504) in the period between 1279 and 1281, whereupon KA203 (#508 and #509), KA202 (#507), KA201 (#505 and #506) were produced in the years between 1281 and 1284, and perhaps a bit later. It is as yet uncertain whether any of these issues cover the princeship of Charles II.

1095  See also the comments in Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, pp. 266–267, on the subject of the sequence of KA1 and KA2.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: FLORENT

9.A.4

1395

Florent of Hainaut (12891096–12971097)

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Florent of Hainaut (Achaïa): «231. Andros», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «313. Lepreo/Strovitzi», «334. Nemea». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Florent of Hainaut from Italy: «411. Barletta», «433. Ordona». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Florent of Hainaut (Achaïa) from Asia Minor: «488. Troy». Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with Florent of Hainaut: «531. Saint-Marcel-De-Felines». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #510–#528 The denier tournois issues bearing the name of Florent of Hainaut – to judge by the hoards and particularly by the evidence from the large southern Greek excavations (e.g. «238. Athenian Agora», «239», «266», «267», «268») – were produced in relatively fewer quantities than those of his predecessors and successors. For this reason, it has been proposed that these issues have to be distributed over only a part of the period of Florent’s princeship (1289/90– 1297), or indeed that some of the plentiful issues of his wife Isabelle were minted already during Florent’s lifetime. These possibilities will be considered below and in the next discussion.1098 The typologies of the coins, rather than the sparse archaeological record, provide the best lead into these questions:1099

1096  In September 1289, on the occasion of his marriage to Isabelle of Villehardouin, Florent received the title of prince of Achaïa: Longnon, L’empire, p. 263. However, Charles II ceased to issue documents under the same title only in 1290: Bon, Morée franque, p. 165; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Πρώτα χρόνια του Καρόλου Β΄”, p. 48. 1097  Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 150, n. 22: 23 January 1297 is the date of Florent’s death. 1098  Appendix II.9.A.5, pp. 1399–1403. 1099  The typology and chronology of Florent’s issues are extensively treated in Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”, and the present treatment repeats the main points developed there.

1396

Type* FHA1 FHA2 FHB1

FHB1 var

FHB2

FHB2 var1 FHB2 var2 FHB2 var3 FHΓ

appendix ii Types for Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297)

Legend

Comment The dots in the obv. and rev. legends are regularly omitted.

I have divided Tzamalis’ FHB (Metcalf’s F3) into two larger groupings, FHB1 and FHB2, with variations. On the present FHB1 the dots in the obv. and rev. legends are regularly omitted. This variety is characterised by the construction of the obv. S, probably from a single central punch and engraved extremities. The dots in the legends are regularly omitted. The pin, which is on the rev. for FHB1, is here to be found at the end of the obv. legend. This variety features a small trefoil instead of the pin at the end of the rev. legend. This variety has no pin, nor any other symbol, at the end of the legends. This variety reads DECLARENCIA on the rev., although stylistically it belongs to FHB. The obv. and rev. Rs are constructed differently. The obv. S has a rather flimsy appearance. On the obv., the second double dots are occasionally single, and there is sometimes a dot at the end of the legend. The double dots at the beginning of the rev. can also be single, the second double dots can be omitted.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: FLORENT

Type*

1397

Types for Florent of Hainaut (1289–1297) (cont.)

Legend

Comment

F5 F5 var

This variety is characterised by the angular construction of the obv. S. The obv. and rev. dots can also be omitted, the rev. can be found with a single dot at the end of the legend.

* According to the combined typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” and Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 261–262.

Neither the archaeological data nor the hoards provide clear-cut information regarding the proportions in which the main groups were produced, nor their sequences of issue.1100 FHA appears to be the largest, F5 the smallest. There are two independent but contradictory pieces of information on their chronologies: a near contemporary hoard, «84. Agrinio 1973», suggests that FHB dates earlier than FHΓ.1101 Respective finenesses achieved by Gordus for FHA1 (ca. 25%) and FHB (21.8%)1102 indicate, on the other hand, that the latter was the most recent of the groups. FHA1 was therefore perhaps minted at a similar fineness to the last issue of Charles I/II, as just discussed, although we have no specific data for KA2, while FHB was already considerably baser. Metcalf’s observations regarding the quality of Florent’s issues are apt.1103 FHA2 has a clearly-defined concept of creating neat lettering, and a consistent fashion in which it is executed. Dots are placed throughout in the same positions and never omitted. FHA1 is stylistically very close to FHA2, although the dots are rendered in a more variable way. FHA1 shares with FHΓ the distinctive obv. H. Dots are present at FHΓ in a number of obv. and rev. positions, alone or in pairs. 1100  The only known hoard which was actually concealed during Florent’s lifetime and closes in his issues, from Messene, has only recently been presented by K. Sidiropoulos at the Argos 2011 conference: see Preface, p. xxiv. It is very small, at merely 12 tournois, and could not be drawn on in the present study. 1101  Note, however, that «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», which dates very similarly, provides a very different distribution for the Florent’s groups, which might indicate that the hoard from Agrinio is not typical. 1102  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 262. See also Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 66. This pattern is now confirmed in Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”, fig. 6. 1103  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 261: “… deterioration in the quality of die-sinking and striking.”

1398

appendix ii

The obv. S has a much weaker appearance since it lacks the distinctive sets of punches used for FHA. The appearance of FHB is at once fine but highly varied and perhaps haphazard. FHA2 shares both style and marks with what was to be an early issue of Isabelle (IVA1, see below). However, it would be difficult to break the proximity of FHA and FHΓ, nor would one wish to locate FHB at the beginning of the series. The different patterns and the contradictory evidence of «84. Agrinio 1973» can be resolved with reference to the new archaeometric data. This manages to locate the elusive F5 at the beginning of the chronology, followed by FHΓ, FHA, and then FHB. The shift in fineness towards the last of these groups might very well have been accompanied by a change in weight standard.1104 It is likely that minting ceased at Clarentza sometime in the mid-to-late 1280s (see my previous discussion). «83. Xirochori 1957», which was concealed in 1291 or soon thereafter, but does not contain issues of Florent, allows us to extend this inactivity into the early princeship of Florent. The narrative sources documenting this period,1105 as well as the diplomatic ones,1106 indicate on the one hand the desire on the part of Charles II to decentralise the eastern concerns of the Angevin crown, but at the same time to keep in check the varying forces of the region which were ultimately accountable to him. The settlement of 1289/90 saw the establishment of a new prince with perhaps increased constitutional and political competences, in the light particularly of the ensuing conflict with the duchy of Athens (and the marquis of Bondonitza) over the right of homage.1107 In 1294, Philip of Taranto, the son of Charles II, married the daughter of Despot Nikephoros of Epiros, Thamar, and received certain fiefs in Epiros and Aitoloakarnania. On the same occasion Philip received from his father the overlordship of Achaïa, Athens, Vlachia on the one hand, Corfu, Butrint, Albania, on the other.1108 The homage was henceforth due not to Charles, but to Philip who assumed the role which had been set out for his 1104  The weights of the specimens contained in «92. Pylia 1968/1969», particularly those listed in Graff, “Pylia”, 2, p. 7 (see also Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 201), indicate a reduction for FHB. 1105  Summarised e.g. in Bon, Morée franque, p. 164ff. 1106  Assembled in Perrat and Longnon, Actes, and Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Πρώτα χρόνια του Καρόλου Β΄”. 1107  On the relationship of Achaïa and Athens, see the discussion in Appendix II.9.B, p. 1434. Consider also Florent’s rapid replacement of Richard of Orsini in the position of guardian of Corfu and Butrint: Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 15 (18 April 1290) (= Registri, 35, p. 111, no. 275), as well as his organisational involvements with regard to the marriage of Philip and Thamar (on which see also the next note): Perrat and Longnon, Actes; no. 21 (1 June 1291); no. 105 (24 July 1294) (= Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 337, n. 96). 1108  On the marriage and its political dimension see Longnon, L’empire, pp. 268–269; 272–273 and Nicol, Epiros II, p. 46ff. The policies of Charles II can be viewed as an appendix to

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: ISABELLE

1399

grandfather Charles I in the treaties of Viterbo.1109 In this context the Angevins sought once more to clarify the relationship of Achaïa and Athens in favour of a direct homage of the latter to the former. The political restructuring under way, and the numerous trading concessions which were made to individuals bringing goods to Greece,1110 recall the earlier efforts of his father in 1278–1282 to strengthen the Greek holdings, which brought not least the documented attention to the mint of Clarentza (see above). It is then in this general context that one would seek to place the resumption of coinage at Clarentza.1111 It appears likely that the standards for weight and fineness of the Achaïan issues were substantially reduced in the course of this princeship. It is certain that Athens began minting at a lower standard than Achaïa in the mid-1280s,1112 and one may provisionally conclude that either similar pressures came to bear on Achaïan minting a decade later, or that the Achaïan mint adopted a standard closer to that of Athens. In summary, tournois issues in the name of Florent were probably minted at Clarentza during the period 1294–1297, and in the following hypothetical sequence: F5 (#528) – FΓ (#523–#527) – FHA2 (#518–#519) – FHA1 (#510–#517) – FHB (#520–#522). With the issue FHB Achaïan tournois assumed a substantially lower standard of minting, in terms of weight and fineness. 9.A.5

Isabelle of Villehardouin (12971113–13011114)

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa): «225. Agios Stephanos», «238. Athenian Agora», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «284. Delphi», «296. Isthmia», «299. Kaninë», «316. Mashkieza», «334. Nemea», «351. Sparta». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) from Italy: «411. Barletta», «414. Brindisi», «415. Campobasso», «456. Tropea». the relationship between Charles I and the same despot: Nicol, “Charles of Anjou with Nikephoros of Epiros”, pp. 193–194. On the term Vlachia, see the Preface, p. xvi. 1109  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, nos 80–81 (12 May 1294). 1110  Isolated from the acts by Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Πρώτα χρόνια του Καρόλου Β΄”, pp. 51–53. 1111  Tzamalis is also inclined to date Florent’s coinage from 1293/4 onwards: Tzamalis, “Princess Isabelle of Achaia”, p. 72, n. 6. 1112  Appendix II.9.B, p. 1434. 1113  On the death of Florent of Hainaut see n. 1097. On the possibility that minting in Isabelle’s name only commenced in 1299, see n. 117. 1114  Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 155, n. 40: 12 Feb. 1301 Isabelle marries Philip of Savoy; p. 156, n. 45: on 23 Feb. 1301 Philip receives the principality from Charles II.

1400

appendix ii

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) from the Near East and Asia Minor: «471. Acre», «473. Caesarea Maritima», «479. Kyzikos». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Isabelle of Villehardouin (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «526. Thasos». Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Achaïan series of Isabelle of Villehardouin: «84. Agrinio 1973», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #529–#545 The issues of Isabelle of Villehardouin were neatly produced, with a very clearcut typology established by Tzamalis and Metcalf:1115

Type*

Types for Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301)

Legend

Comment

IVA1 IVA2 IVB1

IVB1 var IVB2 IVΓ Y3

IVB1 and IVB1var distinguish themselves from all other groups by the rendering of the letters S, A, E, C, R. IVB1var displays a different rev. D than IVB1.

The dot in the obv. legend can also be omitted. The dot at the beginning of the rev. legend can also be omitted.

1115  Again, this section owes a lot to the analysis in Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: ISABELLE

Type* Y3 var

1401

Types for Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1301) (cont.)

Legend

Comment This variety is distinguished by the rendering of the letters C and H at the end of the obv. legend. The dots in the obv. legend can also be omitted.

* According to the combined typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” and Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 263–264.

Tzamalis postulated that some issues of Isabelle would have commenced at the same time as those of her husband Florent, that is to say most probably in about 1294, according to the above discussion.1116 This, according to him, creates a more logical and even distribution for the issues emitted at the Clarentza mint. It is certainly true that the relative quantities in which coins were emitted in Isabelle’s name, to judge by the hoards, is at first sight surprising. However, we must not forget that Florent might have issued for less than three years (note that he had already died in January 1297), as compared to the two years, or slightly less, for Isabelle.1117 Tzamalis was badly advised to use «92. Pylia 1968/1969» as his main reference for the distribution of issues. This hoard tails off rapidly after Isabelle and accentuates artificially the issues of this princess. Had he used a combination of later hoards, and assuming production periods for the successor issues in the names of Princes Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6) and Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313) (see below) of three to four years and eight to nine years respectively, he would have arrived at a different

1116  Tzamalis, “Princess Isabelle of Achaia”. 1117  The Registri angioni suggest that minting in Isabelle’s name commenced in 1299, at an unspecified date: Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 350, n. 37: “In Klarentza waren die Münzmeister aus Brindisi fortwährend thätig; die Münzen, die früher den Namen der Fürsten Florenz getragen, wurden nun auf den Namen der Isabella (die nicht etwa gleich nach des Vaters Tode, wie man gewöhnlich annimmt, das Münzregal ausgeübt hatte) geprägt.” (NB: the death in question is of course that of her husband, not father). See also Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 316, n. 1 and Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 263. Tzamalis in “Princess Isabelle of Achaia”, p. 71, denied the validity of this information, although evidently to serve his own theory.

1402

appendix ii

picture: annual production does increase between Florent and Isabelle by 50% or more, but then remains constant for Philip of Savoy, only to revert back to the rates for Florent under Philip of Taranto, and probably the latter part of that princeship. If we add to the figures for Philip of Savoy the contemporary production at Naupaktos,1118 we do in fact witness a large increase in tournois production at the two western Greek mints from the later 1290s to the first years of the fourteenth century. The real surprise is then the collapse at one point during the princeship of Philip of Taranto, rather than the production rates for Isabelle of Villehardouin as such. Tzamalis cites some intriguing archaeometric data for the issues of Isabelle,1119 although the lack of detail regarding the precise groups which were analysed makes it difficult to judge these. The new archaeometric data produced by Baker et al. have confirmed this picture and have added precision: Y3 was minted at a fineness which was substantially lower than Isabelle’s other types, and also lower than Florent’s FHB. There is however no indication that Isabelle’s issues were substantially lighter than those of Florent.1120 The crux of Tzamalis’ arguments rests on the parallels which he draws for three of the groups in the names of Florent and Isabelle, based on the marks at the ends of the legends: FHA and IVA1; FHΓ and IVB1; FHB and IVΓ. The first thing one can remark are some important differences within these supposed pairings: the H in the first; the S, E, H in the second; the A and the abbreviated mint name in the last. More important yet is the fact that within the groups for Isabelle there is a clear internal development which takes place at a time when the issues of Florent were already complete. In fact, the two large southern Greek excavations, in combination with the two hoards concealed during the production period of Isabelle’s coinage (see above), allow us to state without hesitation that IVB came later than both IVA and Y3. The absence of IVA2 in the same hoards would also suggest that Y3 was the earliest of the groups. IVΓ is stylistically related to IVA and Y3, but appears in larger numbers only in some of the later hoards. At the lower chronological end of Isabelle’s minting, the relative sequence of IVB1 and IVB2 cannot be established on the grounds of distribution since IVB2 is very small. However, stylistically IVB2 has retained

1118  See the discussion in Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453. 1119  Tzamalis, “Princess Isabelle of Achaia”, p. 71; compare this to Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 264; Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 67. 1120  Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 201; Graff, “Pylia”, 2, p. 7.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: ISABELLE

1403

features of the earlier groups and represents a transitional phase towards IVB1. It would appear then, to sum up, that all the evidence points to the following order for Isabelle’s issues, which are all to be placed into a very confined period: Y3 (#543–#545) – IVA1 (#529–#531) – IVA2 (#532) – IVΓ (#538–#545) – IVB2 (#536–#537) – IVB1 (#533–#535).1121 What precipitated the low standard at which minting was commenced in the shape of Y3 is not immediately obvious. As stated above, the increase in the production at Clarentza under Isabelle in 1299–1301 is noteworthy, though less so than had been previously thought. We may be witnessing a combination of at least three factors: in the final years of the century the Clarentza mint simply managed to attract more bullion through market forces; the lowering of the minting standard towards the end of the princeship of Florent and the beginning of Isabelle’s minting in the shape of Y3 may also have caused the re-minting of older tournois issues; and finally the role which Isabelle managed to play in the politics of Romania may have brought more bullion to the Clarentza mint through political channels.1122 Despite the events of 1294, much of the decision-making was in the hands of King Charles II and not of his son Philip of Taranto,1123 a fact which could only have been exacerbated when the latter was taken prisoner in Sicily in 1299.1124 Isabelle negotiated, with constant deference to the king, the marriage between her daughter and Guy II de la Roche of Athens,1125 and a truce with Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos.1126

1121  The die combination which I observed between IVB1 (obv.) and IVA1 (rev.) in «97. ANS Zara» remains problematic. 1122  In fact, during Isabelle’s princeship supplies kept arriving from Puglia: Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 203 (= Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 349, n. 21) (24 August 1298). See also generally Bon, Morée franque, pp. 170–173. 1123  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 64. 1124  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 50. 1125  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 263. The relevant acts are Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 211 (= Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 350, n. 28) (3 July 1299) and Perrat and Longnon, Actes; no. 237 (= Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 350, n. 29) (20 April 1300). 1126  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 218 (= Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 350, nn. 34 and 35) (31 July 1299) and Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 236 (18 April 1300).

1404

appendix ii

9.A.6

Philip of Savoy (13011127–1304/61128)1129

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Savoy (Achaïa): «230. Andros», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «254. Berat», «257. Butrint», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «296. Isthmia», «334. Nemea», «339. Orchomenos», «351. Sparta». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Savoy (Achaïa) from Italy: «409. Apigliano», «410. Bagnoli Del Trigno», «411. Barletta», «414. Brindisi», «425. Gerace», «436. Paestum», «439. Piedimonte Matese», «443. Roca Vecchia». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Savoy (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «527. Thessalonike». Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Achaïan se­ ries of Philip of Savoy: «86. Birmingham», «88. Delphi 1933», «90. Limnes 2006», «91. Thebes 1987». Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with Philip of Savoy: «535. Manderen». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #546–#554 Deniers tournois in the name of Philip of Savoy were produced in three clear groups, distinguished principally by the marks which surround the rev. castle, but which nevertheless consistently repeat certain types of lettering: the barred A, the club-footed R, the S which is constructed from two punches, one of which (for the extremities) used twice. This suggested to Metcalf that all of Philip’s issues, unlike those of his predecessors and successors, were made at only one of the supposed two Achaïan mints, namely Corinth. However, beside 1127  See the dating provided in the beginning of Appendix II.9.A.5, p. 1399, n. 1114. 1128  Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 167, n. 104, argues that Philip of Savoy was never officially deposed since his original receipt of the title was, as early as 1304, simply proclaimed as unlawful. With regard to the end of the minting in the name of Philip of Savoy, two dates are of obvious interest: Philip of Taranto’s official investiture with the title of Prince of Achaïa on 9 Oct. 1304 (Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 76), and the departure of Philip of Savoy from Achaïa in late 1304 (Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 185). The traditional date of 1306 for the end of Savoy’s and the beginning of Taranto’s minting is due to the fact that Charles II repeated the earlier act of 1304 on 5 June 1306 (Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 77), and that Philip of Taranto arrived in Greece in the summer of 1306 (Bon, Morée franque, p. 185), and first used the Achaïan title on 3 August 1306 (Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 77). 1129  This section also owes a great deal to Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: PHILIP OF SAVOY

1405

the fact that tournois were only ever issued at one mint of the principality (see above), one must point out that it was arguably Philip of Savoy’s minting at Clarentza which induced the Angevins to open the Naupaktos mint,1130 and that an Angevin act documents the issue of coins at Clarentza precisely during these years (see n. 1137 below):

Types for Philip of Savoy (1301–1304/6)

Type* Legend

Comment

PSA

Whereas the construction of the rev. legends remains consistent in this group, on the obv. different constellations of dots can be identified. The triple dots at either end of the legend can be rendered as single or double dots, whereas the other dots in the legend are regularly omitted. The dot and abbreviation mark between and the D and S can also be rendered as a double dot. The Cs and Es vary between open and closed letter forms. The dots and abbreviation marks in the obv. legend are regularly omitted. Sometimes this mark forms a small hook emanating from the upper right-hand side of the D. On one occasion the second S on the obv. is rendered very crudely in the form of two basic crescent-shaped punches. The Cs and Es vary between open and closed letter forms. The dots and abbreviation marks in the obv. legend are regularly omitted.

PSB

PSΓ

* According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” (see also Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 264–265). PSA has a star under the rev. castle; PSB additionally has two dots to either side of the castle. PSΓ has a lis underneath the castle and two dots to either side.

1130  See Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453.

1406

appendix ii

The large southern Greek excavations, as well as later tournois hoards which have been examined to the right degree of accuracy, show that PSA (#546– #548) was the largest of the three groups, followed in order of magnitude probably by PSB (#550 and #551), or less likely by PSΓ (#553 and #554). Hoards closing in Philip’s issues are all invariably small1131 and are not able to suggest an obvious chronological distribution for the three issues. «86. Birmingham» (together with «88») is nevertheless an important piece of evidence which, on balance, makes a stronger case for the early dating of PSΓ than the late dating suggested by the fact that it has common typological features with Philip of Taranto’s first Clarentzan issues PTB. The most logical sequence, based on this consideration in combination with the coins’ typologies, would therefore be PSΓ – PSB – PSA. The PSA specimens in the «92. Pylia 1968/1969» hoard were lighter than those of the other two groups.1132 Since the later issues of Philip of Taranto in the same hoard (PTA and PTB) were even lighter, we need to conclude that the Achaïan standard of weight, though not of fineness,1133 was slightly reduced during the transition from PSB to PSA. A possible die link between PSB and PSA in «135. Orio 1959» further underpins the overall sequence, even if the latter must nevertheless be re-examined once larger and more conclusive hoards become available in the future. The hoards dating to the period of the princeship of Philip of Savoy, and slightly later, including those which have been studied in greater detail in the context of the 2011 conference on Peloponnesian numismatics, make it quite clear that the Clarentzan issues of Philip of Savoy and the issues of Philip of Taranto at Naupaktos1134 were largely contemporary: «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975» includes none of the latter issues; «86. Birmingham» contains a specimen each of PSΓ and of the rare and early DR1a. At the other end of the spectrum, hoards «88»–«90» contain the Clarentzan series PSA-PSΓ, and DR1–2a from Naupaktos, in mature quantities. Only issue DR2b,

1131  This observation applies also to one hoard from Limnes («90»), and two from Epidauros (only one of which referred to in Appendix I: «89») which I examined in more detail for my respective presentations with M. Galani-Krikou and G. Tsekes at the Νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο conference in Argos (May 2011): see Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Δυτικός μεσαίων” and Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. Compare also Chapter 4, pp. 427–428. 1132  For the weights, see Graff, “Pylia”, 2, p. 7, which confirms the earlier figures of Metcalf, “Pylia”, p. 197ff. 1133  It would appear that the fineness was not tampered with during the princeships of Isabelle, Philip of Savoy, and Philip of Taranto: Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 67. 1134  See Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: PHILIP OF SAVOY

1407

which refers to the Achaïan title of Philip of Taranto, and which first appears in the archaeological record in «91. Thebes 1987», was presumably minted after October 1304, when the mint of Clarentza had already ceased issuing coins in the name of Philip of Savoy. Philip of Savoy was proclaimed prince in Feb. 1301 and arrived in Achaïa more than a year later (Dec. 1302).1135 His rule in Achaïa has received a good deal of historical analysis: from the large catalogue of contemporary complaints one might single out his apparent eagerness to acquire large quantities of money by regular (the rigorous farming of taxes) and irregular means, the latter in the form of so-called donations from local administrative or feudal potentates.1136 We know indirectly from an Angevin act that the mint of Clarentza was producing in order to meet the military needs of the principality, particularly in relation to the Epirote campaign of 1303,1137 and the somewhat earlier Skorta campaign.1138 It is to be expected that this accumulated wealth, to which we might add the bribery of 6,000 hyperpyra (NB: of account) that Philip received from Anna of Epiros,1139 was at least partially re-minted at the Achaïan mint. The Corinth parliament in spring 1304 was Philip’s Achaïan swansong,1140 soon after which he departed for Italy. Of course we do not know when exactly, and for how long, each of the three groups PSΓ-PSA was minted. We must assume that especially in these years a good deal of bullion reached Achaïa through commercial routes. However, the rates of production at the Clarentza mint may well have been augmented towards the second half of Savoy’s princeship, a fact which, if proved to be correct, can be squared with the historical events. Overall, the new archaeometric data produced by Baker et al. reveal that Clarentza minted at a consistent standard throughout Philip’s rule, despite the manipulation of the standard which was going on at the contemporary Naupaktos mint.

1135  Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 161. 1136  Bon, Morée franque, p. 175, n. 1, and Kiesewetter quoted in the last note. 1137   Cited in Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 352, n. 64, and in Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 316, n. 2. 1138  Re-dated in Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 174. 1139  Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 166. 1140  Longnon, L’empire, p. 287.

1408

appendix ii

9.A.7

Philip of Taranto (1304/61141–13131142)

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Taranto (Achaïa): «225. Agios Stephanos», «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «257. Butrint», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «276. Corinth», «284. Delphi», «317. Mazi/Skillountia», «334. Nemea», «335. Nikopolis», «340. Panakto», «351. Sparta», «379. Tinos». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Taranto (Achaïa) from Italy: «409. Apigliano» (?), «411. Barletta», «414. Brindisi», «428. Ischia», «443. Roca Vecchia», «447. Santa Severina». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Taranto (Achaïa) from the Near East and Asia Minor: «481. Nahariyya», «487. Sardis». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Philip of Taranto (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «526. Thasos». Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Achaïan series of Philip of Taranto: «89. Epidauros 1904», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «93. Apollonia», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «101. Megara», «102. Naupaktos 1970», «103. Spata», «104. Tatoï 1860», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «109. Eleusina 1862». Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with Philip of Taranto: «156. Shën Jan», «490. Kărdžali». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #555–#575 Philip of Taranto minted at Clarentza for nearly a decade. These issues are divided into three groups, based principally on the style of lettering and the signs surrounding the rev. castle:1143

1141  See the arguments presented at the beginning of Appendix II.9.A.6, p. 1404, n. 1128. 1142  See the arguments presented in this discussion. 1143  Again, tournois types of Philip of Taranto at Clarentza, their metallurgy and chronology, are considered in Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: PHILIP OF TARANTO 1409

Types for Philip of Taranto (1304/6–1313)

Type* Legend

Comment

PTA var1 PTA var2 PTA var3 PTA var4 PTA var5 PTA var6 PTA var7 PTB

†

PTB var PTΓ

† † † † † † Within this group there is little variation in the conception behind the lettering (see merely PTB var below): relatively open or lightly closed Es and Cs, club-footed Rs, barred As, etc. However, the execution of the obvs is much less consistent than that of the revs, with the extremities of the Rs and Hs either omitted or completed by hand rather than by appropriate punches. Any number of the single dots on the obvs can also be omitted. This variety is characterised by the method of construction of the obv. S. This is the neatest and most consistent of Philip of Taranto’s three groups.

* According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” (see also Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 265). PTB has a lis underneath the castle and two dots to either side; PSΓ two Fs on either side of the castle. † Metcalf points out that PTA is “generally of poorer workmanship. There is considerable variation in style, such that the variety needs to be subdivided.” Despite going through a large number of specimens of this group, this has proven to be impossible. PTAvar1–var7

1410

appendix ii

presented in this table show merely some of the most common tendencies in the rendering of the lettering. These varieties do not stand as single units and there are fluid transitions between the main styles. The main distinguishing features are the way in which the Ss are constructed, the extremities for the Hs and Rs, and the variously open, semi-open or closed Cs, Ds, Es. The greatest variations are however due to the inconsistent application of the lettering. The said extremities on the H and R, or even significant parts of letters, are often omitted or added by hand. Ss are often inverted, mostly those of the kind of var3, but also the other two main shapes can be found back to front. Dots are seemingly placed in the legends at random.

PTA, the most difficult of Philip’s groups to describe and grasp (see the comments above), forms in some respects a bridge between PTB and PTΓ. This is borne out by my chronological considerations here below. PTA and PTΓ share the construction of the Ss and to some extent of the unbarred As. In overall style PTA is however much closer to PTB. It largely shares with it the construction of D, E, C and the shortcuts taken for the extremities of the H and R in lieu of clearly-designed punches. Unlike PTΓ, PTA and PTB have no discernible systems of setting dots into obv. and rev. legends. We have a wealth of hoards dating to the production period of Philip’s issues, and many later ones which can provide us with some ideas on the relative sizes of production of PTA-PTΓ. There are, however, few useful excavation data, since find rates drop at Athens and Corinth (see merely «238», «266», «268») during the first and second decades of the fourteenth century. This is most dramatic at the latter site because of the probable destruction of the ‘Central Area’ at the hands of the Catalans in 1312.1144 To judge by many of the hoards concealed after the end of Philip’s princeship («117»ff), which are not always entirely consistent, PTA and PTB were issued in roughly the same proportions, and PTΓ in substantially lower overall quantities. There can be no doubt about the relative chronologies of the three groups:1145 the series began with PTB since it dominates the hoards which were concealed while the PT series was being issued.1146 In the same measure, PTΓ is absent (with the exception of «105. Thessaly 1992»). This leads to the following sequence of issue: PTB (#568– #572) – PTA (#555–#567) – PTΓ (#573–#575). The new archaeometric data support this entirely. Many of these hoards were concealed and not retrieved as a direct consequence of the Catalan conquest of eastern Mainland Greece in the

1144  See Chapter 4, pp. 435–436. 1145  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 298. 1146  To the hoards listed at the beginning of this discussion should be added the new data presented at the Νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο conference in Argos (May 2011): see n. 1131 above.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: PHILIP OF TARANTO

1411

spring of 1311.1147 This consideration allows one to date PTB and PTA before the event, PTΓ and «105. Thessaly 1992» thereafter. Nevertheless, Catalan raids remained a threat to outlying areas even in the aftermath of the conquest, which makes a Catalan involvement in the non-retrieval of the Thessalian hoard also likely.1148 PTΓ distinguishes itself from PTA and PTB epigraphically, in its omission of the abbreviation for the title of despot of Romania (DR). Philip already held this title by the time that minting in his name started at Clarentza,1149 yet it is probable that he ceded it while this minting was still ongoing, which further underlines the fact that PTΓ was the last of Philip’s Clarentzan issues. The sequence of events which led Philip to gradually relinquish his claims in Greece is relatively well documented.1150 In 1309 Philip’s attempt to marry his firstborn son Charles to Mahaut of Hainaut, daughter of Isabelle de Villehardouin and Florent of Hainaut, widow of the Athenian Duke Guy II, failed. The Catalan invasion of 1311 and the defeat of the Achaïan-Athenian alliance further undermined Philip’s interest in the area and led to an attempt to sell his Greek and Albanian holdings to the Aragonese crown of Sicily.1151 Next, in a double deal involving the houses of Anjou, Valois and Burgundy, Philip was to be betrothed to his second wife Catherine of Valois, and Mahaut of Hainaut was to marry Louis of Burgundy. The treaty was drawn up in April 1313, ratified in July, and at the end of the same month the resulting weddings took place. Philip thus became Latin emperor of Constantinople; in October Louis of Burgundy was finally able to use the title of prince of Achaïa. A year later, in July 1314, Philip ceded his claims in Aitolia and Akarnania, and the title of despot of Romania, to his son Charles1152 and, following the death of the latter in August 1315, to his son Philip (II) (1319).1153 The presented data are obviously problematic: on the early groups PTB and PTA, Philip of Taranto is given the titles of prince of Achaïa and despot of Romania, whereas on PTΓ the latter title is omitted. According to the diplomatic information, however, he relinquished the principality before ceasing 1147  The main tenet also of Baker, “Thessaly”. 1148  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 306. 1149  Contra Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 277: “In 1306 Charles gave Philip the title ‘despot of Romania’”. In fact, Philip had been entitled to use this title since the death of his father in law, Nikephoros of Epiros, which occurred between 1296 and 1298. The arguments are set out in different parts of the book, for example Appendix II.9.D, p. 1442. 1150  This summary is based on Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, pp. 77–80; see also the earlier Kiesewetter, “Filippo I d’Angiò”, pp. 718–720. 1151  See also Abulafia, “The Aragonese Kingdom of Albania”. 1152  Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 94, n. 164. 1153  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 71, n. 52.

1412

appendix ii

to be despot. Since PTΓ dates numismatically after spring 1311, we also cannot assume that Philip dropped the title of despot of Romania on his coins as an immediate reaction to his 1309 divorce from his first wife Thamar,1154 from whom he had received many of these claims, and through whom he had obtained the title of despot of Romania upon the death of her father. We are left with two possibilities: PTΓ was either issued from a certain point after spring 1311 until October 1313, omitting the indicated title for reasons which cannot be reconstructed; or Clarentza continued minting in Prince Philip’s name after October 1313 in the form of PTA, introducing PTΓ only in July 1314. An important consideration which favours the latter reconstruction is the fact that the Clarentzan issues in the names of Ferrand of Majorca and Louis of Burgundy probably date to 1316, or late 1315 at the earliest (see the following discussions). In considering the earlier history of the PT groups, we may now fall back on the three closely related hoards from the Argolis.1155 The latest coin of Philip to be contained in these hoards is PTB, and we related their concealment to a possible Byzantine incursion into the area after the empire’s victory at the battle of ‘Gerina’ (perhaps Kerynaia in Achaïa), which took place in 1309. The Achaïan preparations for the confrontation with the Catalans a couple of years later are insufficiently recorded.1156 Two sets of clearly defined hoards date the beginning of issue of PTA between 1309 and 1311. This large, irregularly and rapidly struck group, which stands so much outside of the Achaïan tradition of minting to that date, can only be considered in the context of the preparations for the campaign against the Catalans. PTΓ must be viewed, lastly, as an effort in restoring the coinage of Achaïa to its former shape, at least in outwardly physical terms. There is nevertheless no indication that the standard at which Philip of Taranto minted at Clarentza differed from that of the last issue of Philip of Savoy (PSA), nor that it changed in the remarkable transition from PTB to PTA.1157 However, the alloy used for PTΓ has recently been shown to be substantially baser.

1154  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 61–62. 1155  Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. 1156  Bon, Morée franque, pp. 187–188; Longnon, L’empire, pp. 299–300. 1157  Weights: see n. 1132, with regard to the figures deriving from «92. Pylia 1968/1969». Tzamalis has kindly provided me with the weights of the specimens contained in «168. Elis 1964». The frequency tables resulting from these for groups PTA-PTΓ showed no marked variations. Fineness: see the older figures produced in Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 67 (uncertain group); Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 265, with reference to Gordus’ figures (PTB). The new archaeometric data are contained in Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: LOUIS

1413

Provisionally we may propose the following chronological arrangement for the three groups: PTB: 1304/1306 to 1309+; PTA: to 1311+ or 1313/1314+; PTΓ: to 1313 or the summer of 1315, when Ferdinand of Majorca conquered Clarentza (see below). Much remains to be clarified, notably the nature of the large increase in coin production at Clarentza for a year or two either side of 1310, and whether it is at all conceivable that the same mint continued minting in Philip’s name beyond October 1313. 9.A.8

Louis of Burgundy (13131158–13161159)

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Louis of Burgundy (Achaïa): «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «266. Corinth». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Louis of Burgundy (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «525. Tărnovo». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #576–#583 The Clarentzan denier tournois issues of the following two princes, Louis of Burgundy and Ferdinand of Majorca, have a lot in common: they were produced in much smaller quantities than those of their predecessors and successors; they share typological and stylistical features (see the respective tables); and they even appear to be linked by the usage of the same rev. die.1160 Tzamalis has created a number of groups for these two princes on the basis of the respective dots and annulets which surround the castle and the initial cross patty. The fact of the matter is, however, that some of the minority constellations are pretty elusive, and no serious stylistical variations are to be found. The main repository for LBB, which lacks the annulets of LBA, seems to be Tzamalis’ Elis hoard itself («168») (see one specimen from the Papadopoli collection: #583).

1158  See above, pp. 1411–1412: Louis married Mahaut and received the title of prince in July and Oct. 1313 respectively. He arrived in Patra in April 1316: Bon, Morée franque, p. 192. 1159  Louis died on 21 Dec. 1316: see Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 82, n. 84. The earlier date used by Longnon, L’empire, p. 308, and Bon, Morée franque, p. 193, is therefore wrong. 1160  Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 76.

1414

Type* LBA

appendix ii Types for Louis of Burgundy (1313–1316)

Legend

Comment The stops in the obv. legend are frequently omitted.

* According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” (see also Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 266). LBA usually has an annulet to the left of the castle, sometimes to the right.

The respective datings of the issues of Louis and Ferdinand are usually built around the period of physical presence of these princes in Achaïa in 1315/ 1316.1161 For Ferdinand’s issues, this is a reasonable supposition given that he had to usurp power in the area and take Clarentza prior to being able to mint in his name. Louis, on the other hand, had already been the legitimate prince for some two years prior to Ferdinand’s arrival, and one might have expected that the mint of Clarentza simply exchanged the name of Philip of Taranto on its issues for that of Louis in October 1313. The numismatic data suggest quite strongly that this was not the case and that there was a rupture between the issues of Philip of Taranto and those of Louis and Ferdinand.1162 This fact might suggest that of the two latter issues, that of Ferdinand preceded that of Louis. No hoards cut through the Clarentzan series at this point, a fact which, in addition to the small overall quantities of specimens that have survived, the stylistic unity, and the aforementioned die linkage, points to a rather narrow chronological range for the two issues. If one had followed the erroneous date of Louis’ death (summer 1316), as repeated by Longnon and Bon, then the sequence of issues would have been less clear, since this prince would not even have been present at the re-taking of Clarentza following the battle of Manolada in July 1316, which saw the death of Ferdinand. In the light of Kiesewetter’s clarification with reference to the older bibliography, it seems however very likely indeed that Louis took over the mint of Clarentza on precisely this occasion and minted there in his name until his death half a year later (July–December 1316).

1161  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 265–266. 1162  Consider however the possibility, raised in the last discussion, that the PTΓ issues of Philip of Taranto were minted as late as 1314/1315.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: FERDINAND

9.A.9

1415

Ferdinand of Majorca (13141163–13161164)

Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #584–#593 If Louis did indeed mint merely for a few months prior to December 1316, then Ferdinand might well have minted for a similar period of time in the first part of the same year, or perhaps beginning towards the end of 1315. We must assume that the bullion which both princes minted at Clarentza derived mostly from the usual commercial sources, although a Ragusan act of the period suggests direct contacts between Sicily and Clarentza and that Ferdinand might have been in receipt of some material aid.1165 The issues of Louis and Ferdinand, at 21 and 20% silver for two pieces analysed by Chrestomanos,1166 were perhaps minted on the Achaïan standard of Philip of Taranto. As we have stated, the typology of the two issues was also very similar as can be seen from the following table:

Types for Ferdinand of Majorca (1314–1316)

Type*

Legend

Comment

FMB

* According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” (see also Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 266). FMB usually has annulets to the left and right of the castle.

I reproduce here the standard legend of FMB, which is in my experience the most common of Ferdinand’s groups, although FMA (with the full stops instead of the annulets) and FMΓ (with merely one annulet to the left of the

1163  Ferdinand married Isabelle de Sabran, granddaughter of William of Villehardouin and daughter of Isnard de Sabran, in Feb. 1314, and took the title of prince. The events surrounding the marriage, the birth of a son, and the subsequent death of Isabelle in Catania are narrated by Muntaner from first-hand experience. Ferdinand took the town of Clarentza in the summer of 1315. Bon, Morée franque, pp. 190–191 and Appendix B; Berg, “Moreote expedition of Ferrando of Majorca”; Kiesewetter, “Ferdinando (Ferrán) di Mallorca”. 1164  Ferdinand died at the battle of Manolada in July 1316. 1165  Krekić, Dubrovnik, pp. 182–3, no. 106. 1166  Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων”, p. 119.

1416

appendix ii

castle) show no differences in the lettering (all three types are illustrated #584–#593). 9.A.10

Mahaut of Hainaut (13161167–13211168)

Excavation and single deniers tournois of Mahaut of Hainaut (Achaïa): «225. Agios Stephanos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «290. Eutresis», «305. Kenchreai», «337. Olympia», «351. Sparta», «385. Zaraka». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Mahaut of Hainaut (Achaïa) from Italy: «409. Apigliano», «416. Capaccio Vecchia», «427. Guardiano», «435. Otranto», «446. Salerno», «447. Santa Severina». Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Achaïan se­ ries of Mahaut of Hainaut: «115. Shën Dimitri», «116. Amphissa ca. 1977», «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972», «118. Akarnania ca. 1960», «119. Ioannina 1986», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975», «389. Roca Vecchia», «390. Martano», «391. Gallipoli». Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with Mahaut of Hainaut: «147. Nivicë». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #594–#611 With the issues of Mahaut of Hainaut we see an increase in production levels. Metcalf comments on this fact with some surprise.1169 We have seen that the issues of Louis of Burgundy and Ferdinand of Majorca might have had a combined chronological span of much less than a year. We have also seen that towards the end of Philip of Taranto’s princeship production rates began to fall. On the other hand, the levels of production and the typological variety which can be witnessed for Mahaut are reminiscent of the situation at the mint of Clarentza at the turn of the century. In this sense, the surprise should not be over-stated and lies, if anywhere, more in the period ca. 1311–1316 than in the subsequent period during which the western Peloponnese may have attracted 1167  Louis of Burgundy died in December 1216 (see n. 1159) and the princeship passed to his wife Mahaut. 1168  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 83: In October 1321 King Robert of Anjou finally clarifies the protracted situation regarding the principality of Achaïa, involving also Philip of Taranto and the house of Burgundy, in favour of his younger brother John of Gravina. On 5 January 1222 John agrees to pay 10,000 gold ounces to Robert for this privilege: Bon, Morée franque, p. 201, n. 1. 1169  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 267.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: MAHAUT

1417

bullion freely and unhindered by the difficult political constellation, as it did in other periods of the existence of the mint of Clarentza.1170 This said, the years 1316/1317–1321 saw a particularly uncertain situation for Achaïa. Mahaut ceased to collaborate with the Angevin authorities and refused to consummate her marriage to John of Gravina.1171 An intervention by the republic of Venice in the affairs of Achaïa became a real threat.1172 Meanwhile, the nominal Emperor Philip of Taranto directed his attention largely to Constantinople itself in the period 1318–1320,1173 so that it was left to his brother King Robert of Naples to begin to set in motion the developments1174 leading to the 1321/1322 settlement that has been cited. Metcalf and Tzamalis offer complex typological treatments of the issues of Mahaut. Each of these has its particular merits and I have combined them in the following table:

Type* MA1 a, b, c MHB1 MHB1 var MHB2 MA3

Types for Mahaut of Hainaut (1316–1321)

Legend

Comment

Occasionally the dots in the obv. legend are omitted. Occasionally the dots in the obv. legend are omitted. Occasionally the dots in the obv. legend are omitted. Occasionally the dots in the obv. legend are omitted.

* According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” and Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 267. MA1a has an annulet to the left of the castle; MA1b has a flower underneath the castle and occasionally annulets to the left and right; MA1c has additionally two small dots on either side of the flower. MHB1 has a small C to the left of the castle, occasionally an annulet to the right, more rarely underneath. MHB2 has a small C to the left of the castle, but never any annulets. MA3 has a small cross underneath the castle, very rarely to the left (MA3b). 1170  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 472, n. 58. 1171  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 82. 1172  Luttrell, “Venezia e il principato di Acaia: secolo XIV”, pp. 408–409. 1173  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 81. 1174  Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 402, nn. 16–18; Longnon, L’empire, pp. 309–313; Bon, Morée franque, pp. 193–195.

1418

appendix ii

MA1, MHB, MA3, and their sub-divisions, are logical units based largely on the elements around the castle. They are nevertheless very similar, and the series as a whole defies any attempts to establish an internal sequence based on stylistical considerations. The construction of the obv. and rev. legends for MA1a-c, MHB1var, and MA3 is in fact the same, and MHB1 and MHB2 distinguish themselves merely by the two different forms of the lis, and in the case of the latter the different shape of the M. A number of tournois hoards date to the production period of Mahaut’s issues. Of these, only one («117») has been studied with the required degree of accuracy: in the light of this hoard it seems likely that MA1 was the first of the three groups (#594–#598). This is confirmed by the preponderance of MA1 in some hoards concealed in the earlier part of John of Gravina’s princeship («130» and «132» in particular). Later hoards contain the three groups in diverse proportions. The aggregate, confirmed by the largest of the analysed hoards («168. Elis 1964»), suggests that about half of the coins of Mahaut belong to MA1. The other half is divided between MHB and MA3 at a proportion of about 2:1. The hoards do not allow one to determine the relative sequence of production of MHB (#599–#605) and MA3 (#606–#611). The weights of the individual specimens contained in the same hoard, communicated to me by Tzamalis, demonstrate that no discernible change in the standard had occurred since the issues of Philip of Taranto.1175 The existing metallurgical data confirm this trend.1176 9.A.11

John of Gravina (13211177–13321178)

Excavation and single deniers tournois of John of Gravina (Achaïa): «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «265. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «284. Delphi», «305. Kenchreai». 1175  See p. 1412, n. 1157. 1176  Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων”, p. 119; Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 119. The figure of ca. 21% suggested by Pegolotti may well relate to Mahaut’s issues: Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1379. 1177  John of Gravina was prince of Achaïa from October 1321: see p. 1416, n. 1168. 1178  Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 431, nn. 7 and 8: on 17. Dec. 1332 John of Gravina and his nephew Robert of Taranto (whose father Philip of Taranto had died a year earlier in Dec. 1331: Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 84), and Philip’s widow and Robert’s mother Catherine of Valois, exchanged control over the Angevin territories in Epiros and Albania, and in Achaïa. John received an additional 5,000 gold ounces to compensate for the smaller revenue he received from the new territory, for which the bank of the Acciaiuoli stood as guarantor: see also Longnon, L’empire, p. 323; Bon, Morée franque, pp. 207 and 209; Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 74; Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, p. 23.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: JOHN

1419

Excavation and single deniers tournois of John of Gravina (Achaïa) from Italy: «426. Gravina», «435. Otranto», «444. Rome», «447. Santa Severina». Excavation and single deniers tournois of John of Gravina (Achaïa) from Asia Minor: «487. Sardis». Excavation and single deniers tournois of John of Gravina (Achaïa) from the Balkans: «509. Jantra». Denier tournois hoards and graves concealed during the production of the Achaïan series of John of Gravina: «124. Attica 1950», «125. Eleusina 1894», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966», «133. Birmingham», «134. ANS 1952», «135. Orio 1959», «136. Lord Grantley Hoard A», «138. Tritaia 1933», «139. Atalandi 1940», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «141. Brussels without inventory», «142. Patra 1955A», «393. Bitonto», «406. Policoro», «469. Rhodes ca. 1927», «491. Istanbul 1871».1179 Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with John of Gravina: «146. Mesochori»(?), «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «155. Lepenou 1981», «158. Petsouri 1997» (?), «196. Delphi 1894B», «403. Muro Leccese». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #612–#627 The issues of John of Gravina and of his nephew and successor, Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) (see the next discussion), are close: they share stylistical and typological features and are characterised by a certain degree of internal consistency, while being on the whole rather poorly executed. A significant reduction in minting standards nevertheless only occurred during the period of Robert’s princeship. Before examining these individual issues in terms of their typologies and circulation,1180 it would be useful to set out some fundamental points regarding their relationship. According to some older opinions, built on Lambros’ and Cox’s identification of Achaïan soldini,1181 the mint of Clarentza ceased the production of tournois at some point during John’s princeship, and only recommenced it in 1346, upon the death of Robert’s mother Catherine of Valois. This scheme has been long refuted by Metcalf and others, though 1179  In addition to the hoards listed here from Appendix I, the Argos 2005a hoard of florins, gigliati, pierreali, grossi, gros and denier tournois has been said to close in the issues of John of Gravina, which if correct is noteworthy since it was concealed in ca. 1340: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”, p. 230. 1180  As I have also done in Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 223–229. The fate of the Achaïan tournois during the time of Robert of Taranto is also dealt with in Baker, “Corinthe”. 1181  See Appendix II.4.E.2, pp. 1322–1323.

1420

appendix ii

resurrected and expanded more recently to fit the southern Italian situation,1182 even if the evidence is stacked against it and it is implausible from a technical and historical point of view. Achaïa did not mint soldini which might have interrupted the tournois series; on the basis of a pivotal Euboian hoard («135. Orio 1959») we can ascertain that the bulk of John’s issues were late within his princeship, whereas the early issues of Robert were produced in small quantities, which occasionally allowed them to remain underneath the archaeological radar. Further, it is very likely that the mint of Clarentza closed in the later 1340s, and certainly by 1353: the minting of Venetian torneselli in that year1183 was inspired by the end of tournois minting, and in certain early hoards of Venetian torneselli Robert’s issues are already entirely mature. Any of the serious inconsistencies in the inclusion of Robert’s issues in hoards is due to their metrological shortcomings and to their avoidance by hoarders. In summary, we must assume that the Clarentza mint emitted tournois without significant breaks, even if at varying rates of production, from 1321 to the later 1340s, or slightly later. The consistency in the issue of coinage during John’s princeship, as under Princess Mahaut previously, stands in stark contrast to the haphazard fashion with which the Angevins and their allies applied themselves to the affairs of the principality.1184 John of Gravina and his brother and imperial overlord Philip of Taranto launched rival Greek campaigns in 1321; John another during 1324/1325 which targeted Achaïa, Albania and Epiros. His main intention in Epiros was to attempt, in vain, to receive the homage of John II Orsini.1185 In 1330/1331 Walter of Brienne and Lecce (Duke Walter II of Athens) attempted to regain the duchy but spent most of his effort on Epiros, where Orsini’s homage to the Angevin overlords was to be his lasting achievement.1186 Prior to his death in 1331, Philip of Taranto engaged in a Corfiot venture. The best entry into the coinage of John of Gravina is through its complex typology, set out in the following table:

1182  See the summary in Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 279, n. 82 and p. 283, n. 101. 1183  On this coinage see Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 1184  See Longnon, L’empire, p. 320ff; Bon, Morée franque, p. 202ff; Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, pp. 70–74, for the general background. More specific themes are to be found in Luttrell, “Argos and Nauplia”, esp. p. 36 (on Walter of Brienne), and Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 94–95, 97–98 (on the respective Epirote campaigns). 1185  On the coinage of John II Orsini, see Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1466–1476. 1186  See, in addition to the cited literature, the Ragusan dimension to this enterprise: Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 190, no. 156.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: JOHN

Types for John of Gravina (1321–1332)2

Type*

Legend

IGA1–3 IGA4

IGB1–4 IGB1 var

IGB3 var IGΓ1–4 IGΓ1 var

1421

Comment Occasionally the dots in the obv. legend are omitted. The difference between IGA4 and IGA1–3 is the shape of the obv. S, which has an elongated central part. There are occasionally dots in parts of the obv. and rev. legends. This variety has a different construction for the obv. S. IGB1 coins display the two shapes for the S in roughly equal proportions. This variety omits the I at the end of the obv. legend. Occasionally the dots in the obv. legend are omitted. The rev. uprights on some IGΓ1 specimens are rendered in this distinctive fashion.

* According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” and Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 267–268. For IGA1–4 the rev. castle is surrounded by dots or pellets to the left and right. In Appendix I, I have not attempted to differentiate between dots and pellets since these are seldom well enough readable to provide proper statistics. IGA1 has nothing underneath the castle; IGA2 a small B; IGA3 a small M; IGA4 a small T. IGB1 has a small cross underneath the castle; IGB2 an L to the left and a pellet to the right; IGB3 has pellets or dots to the left and right; IGB4, which I have added to Tzamalis’ typology, has no ulterior marks next to the rev. castle. IGΓ1 has a pellet underneath the castle; IGΓ2 a pellet either side of the castle; IGΓ3 nothing surrounding the castle, but a dot in the first and third quadrant of the large obv. cross patty; IGΓ4 a dot in the first and third quadrant of the large obv. cross patty, and a dot either side of the rev. castle.

Tzamalis has distinguished three clear groups, based on stylistical and epigraphical traits. A number of hoards have now been studied to the required degree of detail. Judging by some of the large later hoards, concealed after the end of John’s princeship (e.g. «153», «160», «168», «192», «397», «398»), IGA was produced in much larger quantities than the other two groups. A range of denier tournois hoards were concealed during the period of production of

1422

appendix ii

IG. These hoards may be put in an approximate relative chronology based on the overall figures for the issues of Mahaut and John of Gravina which they contain, as has been done in Appendix I. Two important considerations become apparent in viewing this material: all three groups IGA, IGB, IGΓ, make their appearances relatively early on; and IGΓ is undoubtedly the earliest of the groups, and IGB is earlier than IGA (see particularly «130»–«134»). Despite the fact that IGA and IGB are to be found in hoards that seem to date early within the period 1321–1332, there are developments within these two groups which occur towards the end of John’s princeship, and which often only manifest themselves in hoards concealed during the time of his nephew Robert. More precisely, IGB3, IGA1 and IGA4 are late within the respective IGB and IGA groupings. The observation that many developments particularly within IGA occurred towards the end of John’s princeship can be substantiated in absolute chronological terms on the basis of one pertinent hoard which can be dated with some confidence on historical grounds: «135. Orio 1959» (abandoned in 1328). We can ascertain from this piece of evidence that IGA1, IGA4, and perhaps even IGA2, were still in production at or after this date. In summary, John’s groups were minted in the sequence IGΓ, IGB, IGA. All were in production by the mid-1320s. IGA was a conscious stylistical revival of IGΓ, which is the neatest of the groups. No obvious historical reasons can be given to explain why the output of the Clarentza mint might have been so large in the last years of the 1320s, and after. The frequency tables for the weights that I was able to establish for the three groups on the basis of «168. Elis 1964» would seem to confirm this chronological arrangement, in terms of the quality of striking.1187 IGΓ produces a neat curve of equal mean and mode (0.78g) on the basis of merely 104 coins. Despite the much larger number of available coins, IGB1, and none of the IGA varieties, were capable of producing modes. With this in mind it should nevertheless be emphasised that the IG coinage as a whole is perhaps surprisingly well put together from the point of view of the construction and uses of punches for lettering, and there are none of the excesses that we witness for Philip of Taranto (PTA), who also increased his output in the later course of his princeship. Very few archaeometric data concerning the coinage of John of Gravina are currently available, and none specific to the three groups, but it would appear that the previous standard of Mahaut of Hainaut was still adhered to.1188 1187  Again I thank Mr Tzamalis for providing me with the appropriate information. 1188  Chrestomanos, “Ανάλυση αρχαίων νομισμάτων” (18% silver); Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 68 (19%). The figure of Pegolotti, which may refer to the issues of John or of his predecessor Mahaut, is slightly higher: Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1379.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: ROBERT

9.A.12

1423

Robert of Taranto (13321189–13641190)

Denier tournois hoards and graves concealed during the production of the Achaïan series of Robert of Taranto: «151. Brussels 1904», «152. Unknown Provenance ca. 1964», «153. Larisa 1955», «158. Petsouri 1997» (?), «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «163. ANS 1986», «395. Paracopio di Bova», «396. S. Vito Dei Normanni». Later denier tournois hoards closing their Achaïan series with Robert of Taranto: «165. Agrinio 1967», «167. Kaparelli», «168. Elis 1964», «170. Eleusina 1952», «192. Corinth BnF», «198. Delphi 1894A», «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886», «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #628–#637 Robert of Taranto was the last prince to mint deniers tournois at Clarentza. As has already been noted,1191 this coin production was marked by a considerable reduction in fineness (perhaps 15% silver).1192 Tzamalis has distinguished two groups:

Types for Robert of Taranto (1332–1364)

Type*

Legend

Comment

RAA 1–3 RAB RAB var1

1189  Robert and his mother Catherine of Valois acquired the principality in late 1332: see p. 1418, n. 1178. 1190  Robert’s death: Longnon, L’empire, p. 329; Bon, Morée franque, p. 219, n. 4. 1191  See the comparison of the issues of John of Gravina and Robert of Taranto at the beginning of Appendix II.9.A.11, pp. 1419–1420. 1192  Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 68.

1424

appendix ii



Types for Robert of Taranto (1332–1364) (cont.)

Type*

Legend

Comment

RAB var2 * According to the typology of Tzamalis, “Elis” and Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 268. RAA1 has a small N under the rev. castle; on RAA2 and RAA3 nothing surrounds the castle. RAA2 and RAB have a dot in the first or second quadrant of the large obv. cross.

The main difference between group B and A, apart from their orthography and the symbols around the rev. castle, lies in the construction of the letters C and E. The extremities particularly of the I-punch in RAA are also more heavily serifed. In group B one can occasionally witness simple stops at the beginning and end of the legends. Group RAB1var2 provides a bridge between the groups, in terms of spelling and typology. There are a number of denier tournois hoards which were either concealed during this production period, or which date later but close their Achaïan series with Robert’s issues. The study of Robert’s coinage is impeded in two ways: the quality of the striking is so low that it is often difficult to discern between the groups and their varieties, so that only few hoards have been analysed to the required degree of accuracy. There also does not appear to have been a natural, linear progression in the hoarding of these issues. In fact, the relative quantities of specimens in such contexts are initially somewhat haphazard, and actually diminish in later hoards.1193 Robert’s issues were also imported into southern Italy in relatively smaller quantities than the coins of his predecessor.1194 In this context it is perhaps also significant that not one single or excavation tournois of Robert’s has ever been recorded for Greece, Italy, or anywhere else.1195 It would appear that contemporaries were already turning their back on the denier tournois coinage of Greece while it was still in production. Despite of the problematic nature of the evidence, it is obvious that RAB is the earlier of the two groups: it is represented relatively well in some of the 1193  Baker, “Corinthe”. 1194  Baker, “Apulia”, p. 248. 1195  This statement, based on the information gathered in appendices, is now contradicted by the find of a single coin of Robert at Riganokampos, south of Patra: see Chapter 2, pp. 106 and 119.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ACHAÏA: ROBERT

1425

earlier hoards (see «153» and «160»), while this group is completely dwarfed by RAA in the later hoards. Although we naturally have no data on the longevity of RAB, we may suppose that Clarentzan production rates were initially low after 1332. This might lead to the wrong impression, based on a number of hoards (see for instance «149», «154», «155», «158»), that there was a break between the issues of John of Gravina and Robert of Taranto. While RAB is early and Robert’s coinage evidently had some teething problems, the series as a whole attains full developments by mid-century: maturity in the two RA groups is reached by the time of «168. Elis 1964», concealed presumably in 1356, and even some of the earlier hoards contain good overall quantities of the issues of Robert. The larger RAA, minted therefore during a great part of the later 1330s and the 1340s, is stylistically a revival of IGΓ and IGA. According to the numismatic evidence, tournois ceased to be emitted in the years around 1350. The arrival in Clarentza in 1338 of Catherine of Valois and her son Robert, aimed at overseeing at first hand the affairs of the principality, was a very unusual occurrence in the history of Angevin Achaïa.1196 A flurry of activity aimed at the military and economic stabilization of the principality, involving also Nicholas Acciaioli, who had already previously been in receipt of Moreote fiefs from Catherine,1197 and whose family firm had overseen the monetary transfer between John of Gravina and Robert of Taranto in the Achaïan settlement of 1332,1198 came to little avail and was followed by the retreat of the protagonists to Italy in 1341. The remainder of the decade is marked by Catherine’s death (1346) and Robert’s Hungarian captivity (from 1348). While the closure of the Clarentza mint can hardly be brought in connection with these latter events, which touched little upon the administration of the Morea, it would nevertheless be reasonable to assume that the highpoint of the mint’s output lay around the year 1340. One wonders whether the Black Death of 1347/13481199 might have impacted on the minting staff. The fact that Achaïa had ceased to issue tournois by 1353 is certain.1200 The purpose of the new Venetian tornesello is quite clearly indicated by the Council of Forty act of 29 July 1353 which saw the

1196  See Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, pp. 85–88; Tzavara, Clarentza, p. 50ff. Compare on this and what follows also Chapter 3, pp. 275 and 284. 1197  Topping, “Estates of Niccolò Acciaiuoli”; Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, docs I–III; on Nicholas’ participation in the Achaïan venture, see also Tocco, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, pp. 41–44. 1198  See n. 1178 above. 1199  See Chapter 1, p. 30 and Chapter 3, p. 214. 1200  See Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 175, n. 35.

1426

appendix ii

creation of this coinage,1201 and by subsequent legislation,1202 namely to provide the Venetian colonies with ready cash with which to ensure effectual government. While old tournois were still in circulation, only an operational mint emitting fresh coinage could have ensured a satisfactory supply upon demand. 9.A.13

Possible Later Princes

Finds: «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B» Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #638–#639 The specific coinage in question was first presented in print by Lord Grantley according to an assemblage of tournois coins he acquired in Athens («210. Lord Grantley Hoard B»).1203 He identified them as issues of James of Majorca (lived 1315–1349). James, the son of Prince Ferdinand,1204 was king of Majorca (as James III, 1324–1344) and pretender to the princeship of Achaïa. He was taken to Catalonia by Muntaner himself and was created heir to Mahaut on her Italian deathbed in 1331 in defiance of the Angevin succession. In 1344 he was offered the princeship by a reunion of Moreote lords.1205 The two coins published by Grantley read respectively on the obv. I0COBVS>MOROA (according to my autopsy of this specimen, now in the Ashmolean Museum:1206 #639) and MOR(?)II (now in the Fitzwilliam: #638), on the rev. 6IBOSA (…) VIC and CIBANI SIVIS. In 1976 Artemis added a third specimen which appears to be closer to the second of Grantley’s coins.1207 This formed the basis of a line drawing presented by Tzamalis in 1981,1208 and was finally sold in the John Slocum sale.1209 Neither Artemis nor Tzamalis took issue with the basic identification of James, although the latter tested a number of theories of how this coinage might have come into being. Malloy et al.1210 have however tentatively proposed James of les Baux as the issuer of the coins, and he is presented in the Slocum sale catalogue in unambiguous fashion in this 1201  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 91, no. 1. 1202  Summarized in Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 18–19. 1203  Grantley, “Crusaders”, pp. 50–52. 1204  On whose coinage, see Appendix II.9.A.9, p. 1415. 1205  Bon, Morée franque, Appendix B.2, pp. 191, 200, n. 4, 213–214. 1206  Metcalf, Ashmolean, coin no. 1025 (wrongly given as no. 1024 in the accompanying catalogue). 1207  Artemis, “Τα νομίσματα του Δουκάτου των Αθηνών”, p. 54. 1208  Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, p. 124. 1209  J ohn J. Slocum Collection, no. 836. 1210  Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, no. 137 and p. 408.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

1427

manner. James was the nephew of Prince Philip II, son of Robert of Taranto (1332– 1364),1211 and was duke of Andria in Puglia, titular emperor of Constantinople (1374–1383), and prince of Achaïa (1382–1383).1212 On balance, the identification of James of Majorca as the issuer of these rare coins is much the more convincing. Given his position within the Angevin succession, James of Baux cannot have been responsible for the obvious epigraphical incongruencies, and especially the rev. references to the town of Thebes. Grantley’s original comments on this coinage ring, however, quite true: in areas removed from Greece the distinction between Achaïa and Athens could be blurred. Even Muntaner uses the term Morea for what is demonstrably the Greek Mainland on two separate occasions.1213 Thebes in particular must have held a prominent position in the perception of Greece in the Iberian peninsula, although there were no constitutional links which tied James as the deposed king of Majorca and pretender to the principality of Achaïa to the Catalan dukes of Athens. The Toulousain undertype of the first coin published by Grantley and now preserved in Oxford is final proof that this coin must have originated in a Catalan context. 9.B Athens Hoards containing deniers tournois of Athens: «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «84. Agrinio 1973», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», «86. Birmingham», «88. Delphi 1933», «89. Epidauros 1904», «90. Limnes 2006», «91. Thebes 1987», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «93. Apollonia», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «102. Naupaktos 1970», «103. Spata», «104. Tatoï 1860», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «109. Eleusina 1862», «115. Shën Dimitri», «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972», «118. Akarnania ca. 1960», «119. Ioannina 1986», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975», «124. Attica 1950», «125. Eleusina 1894», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966», «133. Birmingham», «134. ANS 1952», «135. Orio 1959», «136. Lord Grantley Hoard A», «138. Tritaia 1933», «139. Atalandi 1940», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «141. Brussels without inventory», «142. Patra 1955A», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «151. Brussels 1904», «152. Unknown Provenance 1211  On whose tournois coinage see Appendix II.9.A.12, pp. 1423–1426. 1212  Bon, Morée franque, pp. 251–252; 254–256; Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 88. Compare also Chapter 3, p. 368. 1213  Muntaner, chapter 222, in the context of En Ferrand Ximeno de Arenos’ mission to the duchy of Athens to secure mercenaries for the Catalan Company which was still in Asia Minor; chap. 240, as the same Company enters Boiotia.

1428

appendix ii

ca. 1964», «153. Larisa 1955», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «155. Lepenou 1981», «157. Thebes 1990», «158. Petsouri 1997», «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «163. ANS 1986», «165. Agrinio 1967», «167. Kaparelli», «168. Elis 1964», «170. Eleusina 1952», «192. Corinth BnF», «196. Delphi 1894B», «197. Kephallonia», «198. Delphi 1894A». Graves containing deniers tournois of Athens: «214. Athenian Agora», «215. Athens», «218. Corinth». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Athens: «223. Acrocorinth», «227. Ai Lias», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «244. Athens», «248. Athens», «249. Athens», «257. Butrint», «258. Byllis», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «269. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «284. Delphi», «292. Glyki», «296. Isthmia», «310. Krestena», «312. Lamia», «316. Mashkieza», «318. Melitaia», «334. Nemea», «336. Olena», «341. Pantanassa», «354. Thebes», «367. Thebes», «381. Τrikala», «384. Ypati». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Athens: «389. Roca Vecchia», «390. Martano», «391. Gallipoli», «393. Bitonto», «394. Cosa», «395. Paracopio di Bova», «396. S. Vito Dei Normanni», «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886», «403. Muro Leccese». Graves in Italy containing deniers tournois of Athens: «404. Capaccio Vecchia», «406. Policoro». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Athens from Italy: «409. Apigliano», «411. Barletta», «412. Bitonto», «414. Brindisi», «415. Campobasso», «416. Capaccio Vecchia», «417. Capo Colonna», «418. Castel Fiorentino», «419. Castello Di Scarlino», «420. Cavallino», «422. Cosenza», «430. Loreto», «433. Ordona», «435. Otranto», «437. Paestum», «442. Roca Vecchia», «443. Roca Vecchia», «445. Salerno», «448. Santa Severina», «452. Squillace», «454. Sepino». Hoards in the eastern Aegean and Asia Minor containing deniers tournois of Athens: «468. Izmir 1968», «469. Rhodes ca. 1927». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Athens from Crete and Asia Minor: «475. Irakleion», «483. Pergamon» «487. Sardis», «488. Troy». Hoards in the Balkans containing deniers tournois of Athens: «490. Kărdžali», «491. Istanbul 1871», «496. Balkan 1987», «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Athens from the Balkans: «521. Rentina», «525. Tărnovo», «526. Thasos», «527. Thessalonike». Hoards in western and northern Europe containing deniers tournois of Athens: «530. Aurimont», «532. Puylaurens», «534. Villeneuve», «535.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

1429

Manderen», «536. Riec-Sur-Belon», «537. Mairé», «538. ChampagneMouton», «540. Limerle». Later stratigraphical fills containing deniers tournois of Athens: Appendix I.13, no. 35. Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Athenian series: «81. Troizina 1899», «83. Xirochori 1957», «84. Agrinio 1973», «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», «86. Birmingham», «88. Delphi 1933», «90. Limnes 2006», «91. Thebes 1987», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «388. Filignano»(?), «528. Skrivergade» (?), «529. Dieuze», «530. Aurimont». Later denier tournois hoards closing with the Athenian series: «490. Kărdžali»(?), «535. Manderen». Denier tournois hoards concealed in ca. 1311, during the production of the Athenian series or just thereafter: «93. Apollonia», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «101. Megara», «102. Naupaktos 1970», «103. Spata», «104. Tatoï 1860», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «109. Eleusina 1862». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #640–#695 The tournois coinage of the duchy of Athens, emitted at the Thebes mint,1214 is second only in Greece to that of Achaïa in terms of longevity, size, quality, and spread. It has been dealt with in all of the standard reference works,1215 in a separate article,1216 an entry of the Guida per la storia delle zecche italiane,1217 and as part of a general assessment of Greek minting during 1289–1313.1218 Since all tournois issues of the Thebes mint refer to the rulers of Athens as dukes, rather than lords, they must date to 1280 and later, the year of the

1214  Tzamalis and Metcalf have speculated, as they did in the case of Achaïa (see Appendix II.9.A.2, p. 1389), that more than one mint was operational in Athenian territory: Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 273–274 and 277. To my mind, it is historically and numismatically improbable that Athenian tournois were produced anywhere else but in Thebes. 1215  See, amongst others, Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 329–346; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 376–391; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 268–277. 1216  Artemis, “Τα νομίσματα του Δουκάτου των Αθηνών”. 1217  Baker, “Tebe”, which covers a lot of the same material as the present discussion. 1218  Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”.

1430

appendix ii

creation of the duchy.1219 The dukes in question were William I de la Roche (1280–1287), Guy II de la Roche (1287–1308), and Walter of Brienne (1309–1311). The Catalan conquest of 1311 ended the effective control over Boiotia and Attica by the Franco-Italian line of dukes. There is clear numismatic evidence, to be presented in the further course of this discussion and in Appendix II.9.L, pp. 1481–1483, that the standard tournois series of these dukes ended at that point in time, but that a derivative and easily identifiable series was minted during the early part of Catalan domination. The duchy of Athens began minting tournois more than a decade after the principality of Achaïa, and the two series were closely connected during their further histories. For this reason the relationship of these two political entities bears particular consideration.1220 In the 1250s they were pitted against each other over the succession of Negroponte, a situation which also affected their respective petty denomination issues in terms of iconographies, standards, and circulation. The temporary end of Athenian coin production and Athenian defeat by Achaïa (1258/1259) coincided, and might have been related.1221 It is possible that Prince William II of Villehardouin sought the constitutional submission of Athens to Achaïa during these events, but there is only very slight evidence indeed, if any at all, in the treaties of Viterbo of 1267 that this was accomplished. It appears from the relevant acts of the Registri that a succession of lords and dukes of Athens were willing to pay homage to Charles I and II of Anjou as kings of Sicily and overlords of Romania, not as princes of Achaïa (a title held by Charles I in 1278–1285; by Charles II in 1285– 12891222). Athens also did not fail to lend material and practical support to the Angevin military efforts particularly in the 1270s. Duke William de la Roche became bailo of Achaïa in 1285. The fragile balance between Sicily/Romania, the principality, and the duchy, which rested on the personal union of the first two during the period 1278–1289, was disturbed when the Angevins sought to de-centralise their Greek interests: Florent of Hainaut was created prince in 1289/1290, and in 1294 Philip of Taranto, the son of Charles II, received the suzerainty over Achaïa and Athens.1223 The direct homage of the duke to the prince was demanded by the Angevins, initially unsuccessfully, and it was 1219  See my discussion of the petty denomination issues of Athens, where this distinction can be found in the legends of the coins: Appendix II.8.A, pp. 1359–1364. 1220  On this relationship see Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene” and Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 245–247. 1221  See Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374. 1222  On the Achaïan coins of these two princes see Appendix II.9.A.3, pp. 1391–1394. 1223  Appendix II.9.A.4, pp. 1395–1399.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

1431

only in October 1296 that Guy II and his mother Helena finally gave homage to Florent. The years of Isabelle of Villehardouin’s princeship (1297–1301) saw the normalisation of the relationship between Achaïa and Athens: Guy’s marriage to Isabelle’s daughter Mahaut was arranged in 1299, and in the same year Helena sought Isabelle’s intervention against her son Guy following his infringement of some of her goods.1224 Guy II paid homage to Prince Philip of Savoy1225 in 1302/1303, supported him in his military endeavours in Epiros and the Peloponnese, and attended his parliament at Corinth in 1304.1226 Between May 1307 and October 1308, the date of his death, Guy II was also bailo of the principality for the new prince, Philip of Taranto.1227 The situation during the interregnum (October 1308–April 1309), and the rule of Walter of Brienne, until his death at the battle of Almyros (March 1311) and the end of the Franco-Italian duchy of Athens, was particularly convoluted and will be addressed in the context of the relevant coins below. The Athenian tournois series can be broken down according to a number of criteria. There are two main obv. legends, G.DVX and GVI.DVX. Since there was an obvious chronological progression from the former to the latter it has been traditionally assumed that the legends separate neatly the issues of Dukes William and Guy II. Tzamalis’ study of the important «83. Xirochori 1957» has, however, shown that some of the G.DVX issues were undoubtedly of Guy. The rare issues bearing the legend GVIOT, Guy’s nickname during his minority according to the Chronicle of Morea, provide an important chronological anchor for the early part of the series, even though it remains uncertain at which point between the death of his father in 1287 and his own knighthood (24 June 1294) he might have ceased to use it.1228 The evidence from «388. Filignano» makes it likely that Athens had not begun to issue tournois by the mid-1280s. The main groups of the G.DVX and GVIOT issues, and their sub-varieties, provide us with further insights:

1224  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, no. 220. 1225  On the Achaïan coinage of Philip, see Appendix II.9.A.6, pp. 1404–1407. 1226  Longnon, L’empire, pp. 283–287; Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”, pp. 266–267. 1227  Appendix II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413; Longnon, L’empire, p. 293; Longnon, “Frankish States in Greece, 1204–1311”, p. 268. 1228  Longnon, L’empire, pp. 262 and 275.

1432

Type* GR101 GR102

GR103

GR104 GR105 A3var1

A3var2

A7var1

A7var2

appendix ii Types for Athens, G.DVX and GVIOT.DVX obv. legends

Legend

Comment Some of the dots in the legends are occasionally omitted. The dots between the trefoils at the beginnings of the legends are sometimes omitted, dots and trefoils are exchangeable in the remainder of the legends. The only stops used in this group are trefoils, although these can be occasionally omitted, and can point in different directions. There is a variety which combines the obvious stylistic characteristics of GR103 with a rev. castle for GR102.

The lower annulet after the obv. G is occasionally omitted. The triangular rev. stops occasionally point upwards and are sometimes omitted. The triangular rev. stops occasionally point upwards and are sometimes omitted. This variety is characterised by the absence of rosettes. The annulets at the centre of the rev. legend can be found to be omitted. This variety is characterised by the rosette in the rev. legend. On one occasion the rosette was placed at the beginning rather than the centre of the legend.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

Type*

1433

Types for Athens, G.DVX and GVIOT.DVX obv. legends (cont.)

Legend

A7var3

A8var1 A8var2

A8var3

Comment The trefoils and triangles in the rev. legend can be found in different constellations. The construction of the S is different to that of A7var1–2.

The nail at the end of the rev. legend has on occasion been found to be modified to look like an L. The obv. stops are sometimes omitted, as is the nail at the end of the rev. legend.

* According to the typology in Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, p. 116, and Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 272– 273. Note the different forms of the rev. castles for GR101–105 (two arches above the bottom line for GR101–102, double bottom line for GR103–105).

GR101–103 (#640–#646) have obvious typological analogies with the GVIOT issue (GR104) (#647–#650). Hoards «81. Troizina 1899» and «83. Xirochori 1957» clearly underline the early dating of GR101–103 and of GR105 (#651 and #652). «81» might have been concealed earlier than «83» but is, due no doubt to its physical and political proximity to the duchy, more mature in the Athenian series, and contains a specimen of Metcalf’s A3, apparently the next type to be minted (#653–#655). The proportion of GR105 amongst the Athenian coins rises from 74% in «83» to above 80% in «81», «84», and «85». Accordingly, GR105 is more recent than GR101–103 and GR104 and was therefore most probably already an issue of Guy II rather than of William. Even GR101–103 might post-date GR104, in which case William would be deprived of any tournois at all, although some of the experimentation taking place within GR101–103 (see for instance the G.DVX.DATENES legend of GR101, contained in «83» and «85», as well as the varying shapes of the rev. castle) would suggest that these are the earliest of all the groups.1229 Since hoards «81» and «83» were concealed in the 1229  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 271–272.

1434

appendix ii

very late 1280s(?) and/or very early 1290s, it would appear that the GVIOT issue (GR104) is to be dated to 1287 or shortly thereafter. As the evidence currently stands, the Athenian tournois coinage was launched in about 1285 with GR101, followed by GR102 and GR103, continued in 1287 or a bit later with GR104, and then some time before 1290 with GR105.1230 It remains possible, as Tzamalis suggested, that Athens began the production of tournois at the Thebes mint precisely as William was appointed bailo in 1285,1231 although one must assume that the right to mint had been conferred on the dukes by Charles I of Anjou on the creation of the duchy in 1280. It is also possible that this minting operation began as a direct result of a perceived need for fresh tournois after the closure of the Achaïan mint, in the case that this did indeed occur at one point during the period ca. 1284–1287.1232 The metallurgical data show that the Thebes mint did not profit from the same Neapolitan bullion which had previously aided the mint of Clarentza.1233 Whether or not the first Athenian tournois were emitted while Achaïa was still minting, the initial Athenian standard was certainly lower, if not with regard to weight,1234 then to fineness.1235 There is another piece of numismatic evidence regarding the defiance of the de la Roche of the 1289/1290 settlement in favour of Florent of Hainaut, namely the issue of Helena, mother of Guy II, at Karytaina.1236 At some point during the minting of Florent a lower standard was endorsed by Achaïa,1237 perhaps similar to that of Athens. This might have happened on the occasion of the settlement between Athens and Achaïa of October 1296, but we have no proof on this matter. The evidence for the subsequent history of the issues with the G.DVX legend is sparse and sometimes conflicting. There are no relevant archaeometric data so far. The only site which can offer us some idea on the relative production rates of the groups is «238. Athenian Agora». Accordingly, GR105 and A8 (#661 and #662) were issued in similar orders of magnitude, A3 and A7 (#657–#660) in much smaller numbers. This is contradicted by some later hoards (e.g. «95», 1230  Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, pp. 268–269. 1231  “Tzamalis”, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, p. 120. 1232  Appendix II.9.A.3, pp. 1391–1394. 1233  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 249. 1234  The evidence from «92. Pylia 1968/1969» (Graff, “Pylia”, 2, p. 7) is not particularly conclusive. 1235  Metcalf points to some surprisingly low silver contents for GR101–103 which were established by Gordus: Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 272. More recent analyses have established a range of 22–25% for GR105: Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, pp. 227 and 248. See also Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Bʹ”, p. 63. 1236  Appendix II.9.C, pp. 1440–1441; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 247. 1237  Appendix II.9.A.4, pp. 1395–1399.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

1435

«99», «131», «134», «135», «140») which suggest that A3 was also a substantial group. «81. Troizina 1899», as we have seen, allows us to place A3 immediately after GR105. The obv. for A7 is occasionally combined with a rev. for GVI.DVX (more precisely GR20A: see for instance «92», «94», «95», «99», «123», «140», «159», «497», and #663), which clarifies further the sequence. «84. Agrinio 1973» and «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975»1238 were concealed in the period 1300–1301, but have yet to show much progress in the Athenian series since hoards «81» and «83», which had been concealed about a decade earlier. «88. Delphi 1933» and three hoards from the Argolis which I discussed at the Νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο conference in Argos,1239 concealed respectively in ca. 1305 and ca. 1309, already show much progress even in the later GVI.DVX series. We notice, however, that one early and immature hoard («84») was found at quite a remove from the Thebes mint, whereas the later hoards were concealed within the orbit of the Athenian state. This geographical factor might have accentuated the respective immaturities/maturities of the Athenian series in these hoards. In the absence of more conclusive hoard evidence we must locate the transition from the G.DVX legend to the GVI.DVX legend in the shape of A7/GR20A at one point during the very last years of the thirteenth century, or the very first years of the fourteenth. Presumably for much of the 1290s the Thebes mint was emitting successively groups A3 and A8. The GVI.DVX issues have been divided by Tzamalis and Metcalf into a number of groups:

Type* GR20A

GR20A var

Types for Athens, GVI.DVX obv. legends

Legend

Comment Individual annulets on the obv. and rev. can occasionally be omitted. This variety is distinguished by the use of single stops rather than double annulets in the obv. and rev. legends, although these can also be occasionally omitted.

1238  See also «86. Birmingham», which is very small but seems to support this trend. 1239  Two are included in Appendix I («89» and «90»): Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”.

1436

Type* GR20B

GR20Γ

GR20Δ

GR20Ε

GR20Ζ

f

appendix ii Types for Athens, GVI.DVX obv. legends (cont.)

Legend

Comment All possible single- and doublestop combinations on the obv. and rev. have been recorded for this group. Many single- and double-stop combinations on the obv. and rev. have been recorded for this group. The obv. and rev. stops can be omitted, as can the obv. centre trefoil. The rev. centre stops can be omitted. All possible single- and doublestop combinations on the obv. and rev. have been recorded for this group. The dot following the obv. GVI can be omitted.

* According to the typology in Tzamalis, “Elis” and Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 276. GR20Z features a spur rowel underneath the rev. castle.

A substantial quantity of hoards, listed separately at the beginning of this discussion, can be dated to about 1311, the year of the violent take-over of the duchy by the Catalan Company.1240 Some of these hoards have not reached maturity in the official Athenian coinage, while others have, which is compelling evidence for placing the end of this series at that point in time. For the period from about 1305 to just before 1311 we have a further handful of hoards at our disposal, notably «88. Delphi 1933», «91. Thebes 1987», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», as well as the hoards from the Argolis which have already been mentioned. It is clear that GR20Z (#681–#684) is the largest and latest of the substantial 1240  Already noted in Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 305. On the Catalan episode see also below in the current discussion.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

1437

groups, and that GR20B (#668–#670) is also relatively large and late.1241 Mules reveal the following relationships: GR20A and GR20Γ (see «99. Delphi 1927»; «397. Manduria 1916»); GR20B and GR20Δ («130. Romanos Dodonis 1963»). An obvious sequence for the five larger groups presents itself: GR20A (#664– #667) – GR20Γ (#671–#673) – GR20Δ (#674–#677) – GR20B – GR20Z, which is corroborated and further substantiated by stylistical observations. The first two issues have the rendering of the letter V in common. Other letters are idiosyncratic and set both groups apart from the rest of the series (X and S). GR20Δ shares the D with GR20Γ, but otherwise moves towards the style of the two later groups. GR20B and GR20Z are in all their features of lettering identical, and with the highly consistent pattern of placing stops in parts of the legends. Of the smaller groups, group f (#685) is in its lettering closest to GR20Δ, and might have represented a short interlude in the middle of the series. GR20E (#678–#680) shares with GR20Z the lettering and the spur rowel, and must be located towards the end of the series. Recent archaeometric data are not relevant for the sequence of these Athenian types, yet they show that also in this period Thebes minted at a slightly lower standard than Clarentza, if managing nonetheless not to unduly compromise the quality of its product.1242 Before attempting to date and describe Athenian coin production in the first decade of the fourteenth century, a few more issues must be considered. The following appear in our record of coin finds: DVX.ACTENAR, Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”, p. 192, no. 1 (see also Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274) («92», «94», «95», «117», «131», «135», «142», «151», «170», «196», «397», «398», «399», «497»: #690–#695); DVX.ATENES, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274, type A4b (and c) («135», «170», «198», «238», «534», «538»: #686 and #687); DVX ATeNeS / ThñBA' CIVIS, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 275, type A6 («238»: #688 and #689); G.DVX.ATENAR, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274 («94»). Epigraphically and stylistically – the broad open form of lettering, the fashion of constructing the T, A, N, R – these issues belong undoubtedly to a single group which stands quite apart from the remainder of the Athenian tournois series. There is also the possibility that this group was minted on a lower standard.1243 The DVX.ACTENAR and G.DVX.ATENAR issues have close parallels in the petty denomination coinage.1244 Both of these tournois and petty denomination series are conventionally called anonymous, although strictly speaking the term 1241  See Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 248, n. 180, and Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 297, although I had initially erroneously assumed GR20B to be the later of the two groups. 1242  Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”. 1243  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274. 1244  Appendix II.8.A.3, pp. 1363–1364.

1438

appendix ii

does not apply to the issues with the last of the cited obv. legends. Tzamalis has redated these issues from the 1280s/ early 1290s to the later years of the first decade of the fourteenth century.1245 The absence of such coins from «83. Xirochori 1957», and their consistent appearance from hoard «92» onwards, is important proof in this matter. There are no diplomatic sources illuminating the events leading up to the arrival in Thebes of Duke Walter of Brienne, the count of Lecce and the son of the late Hugh of Brienne, in April 1309.1246 His invitation to the Catalan Company to come to Boiotia brought the downfall of the duchy in 1311, prior to which he had paid the large army, according to Muntaner’s account, “… quatre unçes lo mes per home a cauall armat, dos per cauyall alforrat et una unça per hom de peu”.1247 We know furthermore from Muntaner about the length of the payment, namely two months, and we have a fair idea that an ounce might have been the equivalent of about 1,000 tournois, since in 1299 there were 32 tournois to the tarì,1248 42 in 1337/1338,1249 that is to say respectively 960 and 1260 tournois to the ounce (at 30 tarì to the ounce). While we ignore the size of the army, this still gives us a vivid picture of the extent of the payment. Tzamalis’ interpretation of the anonymous issues is to my mind quite correct: they are a reflection of a short interregnum1250 which affected the Thebes mint during the production of GR20Z. The fact that GR20Z must have been minted prior to the turn of 1308/1309 is demonstrated by «91» and two of the hoards from the Argolis. The sudden need for new dies following the death of Guy in October 1308 and the uncertain succession can account very well for the incongruous style of the anonymous issues, while their anonymity and perhaps 1245  Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, p. 121. The traditional attribution to Hugh of Brienne (father of Walter of Brienne) and his wife Helena, during Guy’s minority, can be found in Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 339. 1246  Bon, Morée franque, p. 186, n. 2. 1247  Muntaner, chapter 240; Hendy, Studies, p. 15, notes the accuracy of these salaries by comparing them to the more general ones given by Pachymeres (although he ignores the small difference in value of the respective ounces of South Italy and Byzantium). Compare also Chapter 3, p. 355. 1248  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238. See also Appendix III.3, p. 1540. 1249  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. II (1337), p. 53, lns 6–10, and Carile, La rendita feudale, p. 127: “… yperperorum mille centum quinquaginta sterlingii unius ad yperpera Clarencie, que reducta ad uncias generalis ponderis, ad racionem de tornesibus xxj pro quolibet carleno et carlenis ipsis duobus pro quolibet tareno et tarenis ipsis triginta per unciam computatis sunt et faciunt uncias septuaginta tres et grana undecim et dimidium”. Therefore, at 21 tournois to the gigliato (carlino), 2 gigliati to the tarì, 30 tarì to the ounce, we arrive at 1260 tournois to the ounce. 1250  Tzamalis, “Η πρώτη Aʹ”, p. 130.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ATHENS

1439

even their lower finenesses reflect the political stalemate. There is every reason to believe, particularly in the light of the payments to the Catalans, that the duchy emitted tournois until the end of its existence. Such minting activity cannot be covered by the anonymous types, or arguably by the earliest of Walter’s issues (G.DVX.ATENAR, Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 274), nor even by GR20E, which was quite possibly the last of the regular series. We can also witness in the hoards a final boost in GR20Z production until 1311. We must therefore assume that the decision was taken, by or on behalf of the new Duke Walter, to resume the traditional GVI.DVX series at one point between spring 1309 and spring 1311 in the form of GR20Z. This might have been inspired by the fine tradition established by groups GR20A-Z, and by the existence of dies for both GR20Z and GR20E, which had presumably been cut in good number by the time of Guy’s death. The Thebes mint was never stretched for dies in the same way as the Clarentza mint1251 in the run-up to the engagement with the Catalans. According to this line of argumentation, GR20E was only a short time through its prospective period of issue when Thebes was lost in 1311, to judge by the rather low quantities in which it has survived. Metallurgical data establish a very steady standard of ca. 19% silver for the later G.DVX series, and the GVI. DVX series,1252 in line with the Achaïan coinage of the period.1253 Exclud­ing GR20Z, the minting of which took place in highly exceptional circumstances both with regard to Guy’s death and the payments to the Catalans, we get the impression that the Thebes mint emitted coinage very steadily, and at a very high level indeed, throughout the period ca. 1290–1308. The bulk of the GVI. DVX series in particular is so regular and beautifully controlled that one may hypothesise a biennial sequence of groups by projecting backwards from the possible 1307 starting date of GR20Z: GR20A (beginning ca. 1299) – GR20Γ (ca. 1301) – GR20Δ (ca. 1303) – GR20B (ca. 1305). Naturally, such a scheme will require verification. The generally upward tendency in coin production observable in Achaïa, if not some of the fluctuations seen in the principality which were due in some measure to political shifts, is mirrored by Athens. In these years, both political entities had very similar output figures. There is no evidence of issues from one of the mints being re-minted at the other, and we can conclude that bullion external to Greece reached both mints in approximately equal proportions.

1251  See Appendix II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413. 1252  Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 70; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 227. 1253  Appendix II.9.A.5–7, pp. 1399–1413.

1440

appendix ii

9.C Karytaina Hoards containing deniers tournois of Karytaina: «83. Xirochori 1957», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «168. Elis 1964», «196. Delphi 1894B», «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Karytaina: «268. Corinth». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Karytaina from the Balkans: «526. Thasos». Hoards in western and northern Europe containing deniers tournois of Karytaina: «535. Manderen». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #696–#700 The lordship of Karytaina in the western part of Arkadia, a rich source in cattle according the account of Sanudo,1254 issued a tournois coinage:1255

Type*

Types for Karytaina

Legend

Comment

1

* A systematic typology for the pennies of Karytaina has never been worked out. All the specimens which I inspected adhered to the described system and style of lettering and stops, although Malloy et al. suggest that there are further variations with possible annulet stops.

The legend +,hELEIIA,DIGRA / +,6LARI6TIA,S,F, is usually interpreted as “Helena, by the Grace of God, lady (NB: not actually in the legend) of the halffief of Karytaina”. The person in question features also in our account of the 1254  Sanudo, p. 127: “Prima fece (N.B. the protagonist is an earlier lord of Karytaina, Geoffrey of Bruyères, in the context of his flight from Greece to Italy) ammazzar e scorticar molte bufale, che avea già poste attorno il loco de Claramont, e le fece apparecchiar e caricar in uno navilio (…) egli passò in Puglia …”. 1255  This issue is covered by the standard literature (e.g. Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 324– 325; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 374–375; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 281– 282) and by a separate article: Artemis, “Νομίσματα μιας Ελληνίδος βαρώνης”. As in many other cases, it was Lambros who first drew attention to its existence: “Monnaies et bulles inédites de Néopatras et de Carytaena”. See also Baker, “Caritena”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: KARYTAINA

1441

tournois coinage of Athens.1256 Helena Angela was the mother of Duke Guy II de la Roche, and received her title over Karytaina through her marriage to her brother-in-law Hugh of Brienne in September 1291.1257 It is possible that Helena had by this point in time already played a role in the early Athenian tournois coinage, perhaps during the reign of her previous husband William de la Roche, and most probably during the minority of her son Guy (from 1287). Helena was also a protagonist in the conflict between Athens and Achaïa during the years 1289/1290–1296. It is particularly interesting that the reference to God’s Grace in the coin’s legend is in direct defiance of Helena’s overlord, Prince Florent of Hainaut (1289/1290–1297).1258 Although she held the half-fief until the end of her life, and she is still documented in 1299,1259 a possible context for this coinage issue is provided by these considerations. It is also noteworthy that the Karytaina issue distinguishes itself markedly from the Thebes issues of the duchy of Athens. The only numismatic evidence which we have for the dating of the Karytaina coinage is «83. Xirochori 1957», and particularly the absence of coins of Florent from this hoard. A lot rests on the likely existence and extent of the gap in Achaïan minting at the turn of the 1290s, so an element of uncertainty must remain. Putting together the disparate historical and numismatic elements we may tentatively conclude that the tournois issue of Karytaina dates to the last months of 1291 or shortly thereafter. Hoard «83», in addition to the considerations of style, might confirm that Helena had indeed launched a separate minting operation in the western Peloponnese and did not merely issue from the pre-existing Thebes mint. Once in circulation, the small tournois issue of Karytaina spread evenly.1260 9.D Corfu Hoards containing deniers tournois of Corfu: «160. Patra 1955C»(?). Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Corfu: «395. Paracopio di Bova», «399. Naples 1886». 1256  See the preceding discussion. 1257  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, nos 22, 23, 24. 1258  Appendix II.9.A.4, pp. 1395–1399. See also Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, 247. 1259  In relation to the controversy involving her son Guy II and some of her goods: Appendix II.9.B, p. 1431. 1260  Malloy et al., with reference to a passage in Schlumberger, assume that there was a preferential presence of the issue in «399. Naples 1886», and by inference in Italy in general, which called for a specific historical interpretation. In fact, Schlumberger had merely discussed a single specimen originating in that city, and the coinage of Karytaina is absent from all of the Italian hoards and from the single finds which I have assembled in Appendix I.

1442

appendix ii

Graves in Italy containing deniers tournois of Corfu: «404. Capaccio Vecchia». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #701–#704 On 13 August 1294 Philip of Taranto, the son of King Charles II of Anjou, assumed the lordship over the Angevin possessions in Albania and Corfu. On 17 November of the same year he married Thamar, the daughter of Despot Nikephoros of Epiros, from whom he received certain mainland Greek fiefs in dowry.1261 A very rare tournois coinage combines obv. and rev. references to Philip and Corfu: +PhVSøDeI,gR0 / +cORFOIDNS.1262 Philip issued coinage also at Clarentza and Naupaktos, usually under the title of Despot of Romania.1263 The present coinage also distinguishes itself through a unique form of lettering:

Type* 1

Types for Corfu

Legend

Comment The stops in the legends can be single or completely omitted. The lis at the end of the obv. legend can also be omitted.

* A systematic typology for the pennies of Corfu has never been worked out. This drawing is based on the specimens in the BnF and the «395. Paracopio di Bova» hoard.

According to the conditions of the union of Philip and Thamar, the former was to acquire the title of despot of Romania as a direct consequence of the death of his father-in-law. The coinage under discussion here, which omits this title and features Philip merely as lord of Corfu, was therefore first minted at one point after August 1294, and until another point between September 1296 and August 1298, the period during which Nikephoros died. We do not possess any direct documentary evidence regarding the minting operation in Corfu. To judge by the precedent of the Angevin re-structuring of the Clarentza mint 1261  Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, p. 63. See also Appendix II.9.A.4, p. 1398. 1262  On this coinage see Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 389 (with references to a tradition going back to the earlier nineteenth century); Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 280; Baker, “Corfù”. 1263  In addition to the titles of prince of Taranto and prince of Achaïa: see Appendix II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413 (with the exception of PTΓ, which certainly post-dates 1311) and Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: CORFU

1443

under Charles I1264 we must assume that minting at Corfu was regulated at the highest administrative level, under the supervision of the captain general,1265 and might have been launched sooner rather than later following the events of summer 1294. There is in fact some evidence that one of Philip’s first decisions in 1294, in response to Aragonese incursions, was to tighten the administration and to increase the security of the island capital.1266 I re-attributed the single Corfu tournois which had been originally reported for «238. Athenian Agora»,1267 and there is apparently now some doubt as to the inclusion of another specimen in «160. Patra 1955C». No secure Greek finds are therefore currently on record, which contrasts with the rather more healthy southern Italian situation. The old Neapolitan hoard («399») represents the single most important repository anywhere of this issue; in a Campanian grave a Corfiot specimen was found beside merely one other – much more common – tournois issue («404»); and a recently acquired lot from a Calabrian hoard also contained one such coin («395»). It appears that this tournois coinage from Corfu, minted in the last years of the thirteenth century by the prince of Taranto, preferentially moved in the direction of the Regno. 9.E Salona Excavation and single deniers tournois of Salona: «238. Athenian Agora». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #705–#706 Ancient and modern Amphissa in Phokis, on the northern edge of the Gulf of Corinth, was known as Salona in medieval times.1268 This lordship under Athenian authority launched arguably the next (tournois) coinage of Greece.1269 It is defined by some basic parameters, which have been repeated and discussed by the cited authorities since the nineteenth century: the 1264  Appendix II.9.A.3, p. 1393. 1265  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, pp. 131–133. 1266  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, pp. 47–48. 1267  Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, p. 77, no. 1960. See also Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 280. 1268  Bon, “Forteresses médiévales”, pp. 164–186; TIB 1, s.v. Salona. 1269  On this coinage see, amongst others, the usual treatments in Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 347–350; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 392–393; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 280–281; two separate articles (Kravartogiannos, “Φραγκικά νομίσματα των Σαλώνων”; Nitti and Papageorgiou, “Φραγκικά τορνέσια των Σαλώνων”); and the overview in Baker, “Salona”.

1444

appendix ii

two types, the unmistaken identity of the ruler who issued them, and a dated episode involving this coinage and the main authorities concerned, that is to say the lord of Salona, the duke of Athens, the king of Sicily (Naples), and his son, the despot of Romania. The two types which are cited in the literature both read +%ThOMaS% / +%DeLLaSOLa% but are distinguished by the designs in the rev. fields, a coat of arms (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.13) and a Tours-style castle (Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.14).1270 It used to be believed that excavations at the Athenian Agora had unearthed four coins of Salona, of which three of the second type,1271 but my own autopsy has led me to dismiss all of these with the exception of one XIII.13 issue (see «238» and #705). The drawing below is based on this specimen and on a very similar one in the Paris collection (#706). These were the only specimens and the only variety known to me until quite recently.

Types for Salona

Type

Legend

Comment

1

Another specimen of XIII.13 came to auction in 2013.1272 The lettering is similar to the above, but there are double annulets stops between all or virtually all of the letters on the obv. and on the rev. between DEL and LASOLA. Reading between the lines, nobody seems to have seen an example of XIII.14 since it was first described by Lambros and drawn by the numismatist and illustrator Carlo Kunz in the 1860s. I would prefer to suspend judgment on the very existence of this issue until further proof becomes available. The coins’ legends identify quite clearly a ruler of Salona by the name of Thomas. Given the general chronological profile of the tournois coinage of Greece, the only possible candidate is Thomas of Autrementcourt,1273 who 1270  See for instance Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, plate XI, no 108; Kravartogiannos, “Φραγκικά νομίσματα των Σαλώνων”, p. 103. 1271  Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, pp. 77–78. 1272  Mazarakis, “Salona”. The same specimen is also illustrated in Saint-Guillain, “Salona”, fig. 2. 1273   On this family, which is known alternative as Stromoncourt, see Longnon, “Les Autrementcourt” and more recently Saint-Guillain, “Salona”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: SALONA

1445

was called upon to perform homage to Prince Florent of Hainaut in 1294 together with his duke, Guy II de la Roche, and who died in 1311 at the hands of the Catalan army in the services of Duke Walter of Brienne.1274 This baron is usually referred to as Thomas III, although Saint-Guillain proposes to omit the numbering altogether. An Angevin act of 20 December 1301,1275 in which Charles II addresses a certain Raymond,1276 states that Thomas of Salona had emitted tournois at a mint in his territory, but that this was prohibited by the duke of Athens, and that henceforth he may produce coins in his name at Naupaktos. In addition to providing us with invaluable information on the latter mint, the subject of the next discussion, this sheds interesting light on the hierarchy of minting rights within Latin Greece: Thomas, as SaintGuillain notes, was not a vassal of Naples but simply of Athens. Scholars have regarded this episode as an important element in the dating and attribution of the issues of Thomas. In combining these various data we may conclude that at one point between 1294 (or earlier) and 1301 coins were minted in the name of Thomas at a Salona mint. It is uncertain when this might have begun or ceased, although both might have occurred in 1301 or just before given the limited minting operation which can be witnessed. It is equally uncertain when after late 1301, if at all, minting was resumed in Thomas’ name at Naupaktos. Doubt is shed on this matter by the close stylistic resemblance of Schlumberger’s two types, which are quite different to any of the Naupaktos issues of the despot of Romania. Even if the existence of XIII.14 were to be confirmed, it is possible that both types were minted at Salona in 1301 or just before. 9.F

Naupaktos Hoards containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «86. Birmingham», «88. Delphi 1933», «89. Epidauros 1904», «90. Limnes 2006», «91. Thebes 1987», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «102. Naupaktos 1970», «103. Spata», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «109. Eleusina 1862», «115. Shën Dimitri», «117. Uncertain Attica (?) 1972», «118. Akarnania ca. 1960», «119. Ioannina 1986», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975», «124. Attica 1950», «125. Eleusina 1894»,

1274  See Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1430 and 1438–1439. 1275  Cited by Schlumberger. 1276  Who can presumably be identified as Raymond of Candolle, vicar of Naupaktos: Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 227.

1446

appendix ii

«126. Attica (?) 1951», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966», «133. Birmingham», «134. ANS 1952», «135. Orio 1959», «136. Lord Grantley Hoard A», «138. Tritaia 1933», «139. Atalandi 1940», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «141. Brussels without inventory», «142. Patra 1955A», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «151. Brussels 1904», «152. Unknown Provenance ca. 1964», «153. Larisa 1955», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «155. Lepenou 1981», «158. Petsouri 1997», «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «163. ANS 1986», «165. Agrinio 1967», «167. Kaparelli», «168. Elis 1964», «170. Eleusina 1952», «192. Corinth BnF», «196. Delphi 1894B», «197. Kephallonia», «198. Delphi 1894A». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «223. Acrocorinth», «236. Argos», «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «257. Butrint», «260. Chelidoni», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «299. Kaninë», «310. Krestena», «367. Thebes». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «390. Martano», «391. Gallipoli», «393. Bitonto», «395. Paracopio di Bova», «396. S. Vito Dei Normanni», «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886». Graves in Italy containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «406. Policoro». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Naupaktos from Italy: «409. Apigliano», «411. Barletta», «422. Cosenza»(?), «425. Gerace», 429. Lagopesole, 431. Mesagne, «437. Paestum» (?), «443. Roca Vecchia», «444. Rome», «447. Santa Severina», «454. Sepino», «458. Velia». Hoards in the eastern Aegean containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «469. Rhodes ca. 1927». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Naupaktos from Asia Minor: «474. Ephesos», «483. Pergamon», «487. Sardis». Hoards in the Balkans containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «490. Kărdžali», «491. Istanbul 1871», «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Naupaktos from the Balkans: «521. Rentina», «526. Thasos». Hoards in western and northern Europe containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «535. Manderen». Later stratigraphical fills containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: Appendix I.14, no. 18. Denier tournois hoards concealed during the production of the Naupaktos series: «86. Birmingham», «88. Delphi 1933», «89. Epidauros 1904»(?), «90. Limnes 2006»(?), «91. Thebes 1987»(?).

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NAUPAKTOS

1447

Later denier tournois hoards closing with the Naupaktos series: «490. Kărdžali» (?), «535. Manderen». Denier tournois hoards concealed just after the production of the Naupaktos series, to ca. 1311: «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «93. Apollonia», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «97. ANS Zara», «98. Athens ca. 1999», «99. Delphi 1927», «100. Lamia 1983», «101. Megara», «102. Naupaktos 1970», «103. Spata», «104. Tatoï 1860», «105. Thessaly 1992», «108. Unknown Provenance 1975», «109. Eleusina 1862». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #707–#727 The mint of Naupaktos, in western Mainland Greece, at the northern entrance to the Gulf of Corinth, was responsible for a large and varied tournois coinage:

Types for Naupaktos

Type*

Legend

Comment

DR1a DR1b

DR1c

DR1d DR1e

DR1e var

On a good many specimens the crosslet at the end of the rev. legend is omitted. Dots appear at the end of the obv. legend in different constellations. The rev. legends consistently feature the crosslet. Dots appear at the end of the obv. legend in different constellations.

Dots appear at the end of the obv. legend in different constellations. The nail at the beginning of the rev. legend has also been found horizontally. This variety is characterised by the shape of the flower at the end of the obv. legend.

1448

appendix ii



Types for Naupaktos (cont.)

Type*

Legend

Comment

DR1f DR2ai DR2aii DR2aii var DR2aiii DR2aiii var DR2bi DR2bii DR2biii

† Individual dots in the obv. legend are occasionally omitted. This variety distinguishes itself from DR2aii through the symbol at the beginning of the rev. legend. Individual dots in the obv. legend are occasionally omitted. This variety distinguishes itself from DR2aiii through the symbol at the beginning of the obv. legend.

Individual dots in the obv. legend are occasionally omitted. Individual dots in the obv. legend are occasionally omitted.

* According to the typology in Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 278–279, completed in Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 249 and 273. DR2bi-iii feature lis underneath the rev. castle, in DR2biii this lis is surrounded by two pellets. † DR2ai supposedly has lis at the beginning and end of the obv. legend. I have never seen such a coin, and a specimen attributed to this group (Ashmolean, no. 1104) is most likely to be classified as GR2aii. I would therefore doubt whether DR2ai existed.

According to the coins’ legends, their issuer was Philip, prince of Taranto, despot of Romania, and (in DR2b) prince of Achaïa. The mint of Naupaktos (Nepanto/Lepanto1277) is clearly indicated on the rev. Metcalf has made substantial inroads into the typology of this coinage, which had been traditionally divided on purely epigraphical grounds into Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.20 (= DR1 and DR2a) and pl. XIII.26 (= DR2b). Since the development of this typology in the 1980s and 1990s, a substantial number of relevant hoards have been studied to the required degree of detail, and can be drawn upon 1277  Markl, Ortsnamen Griechenlands, s.v. Naupaktos.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NAUPAKTOS

1449

here. None of the existing numismatic overviews1278 have sought to grapple with the complex history of Naupaktos at the turn of the fourteenth century, and its changing political fortunes in particular,1279 nor have they been able to fully exploit Philip’s changing titulature and the history of his minting in other Greek locations.1280 With these considerations in mind, it will be necessary to analyse all the evidence afresh:1281 according to the information presented in previous discussions, Philip of Taranto married Thamar of Epiros in 1294, and received certain Angevin fiefs in Epiros/Albania in the same year. He was producing tournois at Clarentza as prince of Achaïa from 1304 or 1306, and he ceased to feature as despot of Romania on the same coinage either in 1311 or in 1314. The Corfiot coinage demonstrates that for some time during his early Greek involvements Philip did not yet use this title. This harmonises perfectly with the documentary sources. While Philip received in dowry from Thamar locations in western Mainland Greece (Vonitsa, Angelokastron, Eulochos, Naupaktos),1282 he was required to await the death of his father-in-law Nikephoros to become overlord – in the western conception – of the remainder of the territories governed by the Angelodoukai of Epiros, and to assume the title of despot of Romania. Nikephoros’ death can be dated, according to the extant Angevin documentation, between September 1296 and June 1298.1283 There is some evidence that during this period Naupaktos had slipped from Angevin control. In July and October of 1295 King Charles II urged Prince Florent against the rulers of Neopatra in order to regain precisely that part

1278  For instance Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 385–388; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 396–398; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 277–280. There are also two articles on this coinage (Artemis, “Νομισματοκοπία της Ναυπάκτου”; Kravartogiannos, “Νομισματοκοπία της Ναυπάκτου”), which make no ulterior contribution to the discussion. On the respective pp. 339–340, and p. 4, n. 17, these authors introduce and then dismiss a supposed joint issue of Philip and his wife Thamar. 1279  And in fact there is no entirely satisfactory single account available: particularly disappointing is the entry in TIB 3, s.v. Naupaktos. 1280  On the Greek involvement of Philip of Taranto, son of King Charles II of Anjou, and his coinages at Clarentza and Corfu, see Appendix II.9.A.4, pp. 1395–1399; II.9.A.6, pp. 1404–1407; II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413; II.9.D, pp. 1441–1443. 1281  In Baker and Calabria, “Filignano”, p. 270; Baker, “Lepanto”, first clarifications are undertaken. The present account is more or less the same as that already contained in Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece”. 1282   Kiesewetter, “Trattato”, pp. 181–184; Kiesewetter, “Principi di Taranto e la Grecia”, pp. 63–64. 1283  Nicol, “The date of the death of Nikephoros I of Epiros”.

1450

appendix ii

of Aitolia.1284 Perhaps the town was only conquered in 1300/1301.1285 We know from the discussion of the Salona coinage that in December 1301 the Naupaktos mint was operational.1286 One might surmise that the permission given by Charles II to Thomas III of Autrementcourt to mint there was made precisely on the occasion of the opening of this mint. Earlier in the same year Clarentza had started striking in the name of Philip of Savoy, which may well have sparked the desire for a separate Angevin minting operation in western Greece, to capture the bullion which was reaching the area in great quantities. Hoards «84. Agrinio 1973» and «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», devoid of coins of Naupaktos, are large enough to be able to demonstrate that such issues cannot have been minted earlier than the proposed date of 1301. «86. Birmingham» confirms that the experimental and rare DR1a was indeed, as one would be expected to believe, the earliest group from the Naupaktos mint (#707). The following hoards («88»–«91»1287) show progressions in the series of Naupaktos and Achaïan: DR1–2a appears to have been minted during the same period as the issues of Philip of Savoy; DR2b during the transition to the Achaïan issues of Philip of Taranto. While we can be quite confident that Clarentza ceased to mint in Savoy’s name in late 1304, it is more difficult to ascertain when in the period between late 1304 and 1306 it might have resumed with the PTB issues.1288 The town of Naupaktos also experienced an important caesura during these years: Nikephoros’ widow and son, Anna and Thomas, were naturally aggrieved by the settlement of 1293/1294, which had seen to the direct or indirect integration of the despot’s territories into the Angevin empire.1289 After making overtures to the imperial Byzantine authorities, and being attacked by the joint forces of King Charles II of Anjou, Count John I of Orsini of Kephallonia and Zakynthos, and Prince Philip of Savoy in the early summer of 1304, they evidently managed to launch counter-attacks and to take Angevin positions. We

1284  Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 79. On Neopatra, see also the next discussion. 1285  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 49 and 51. In 1300 the Greek bishop of Naupaktos appealed to the Angevin authorities to gain access to his see: Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 240. 1286  Appendix II.9.E, pp. 1443–1445. 1287  The picture is confirmed by the three hoards from the Argolis, studied more recently, which were presented at the Νόμισμα στη Πελοπόννησο conference in Argos (May 2011): Baker and Tsekes, “Limnes”. 1288  Appendix II.9.A.6–7, pp. 1404–1413. 1289  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 56–57; Kiesewetter, “Trattato”, pp. 188–190.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NAUPAKTOS

1451

that also Naupaktos was in the hands of Thomas for a short while because in the summer of 1306, following a large-scale Angevin offensive, he agreed to relinquish it again.1290 It is difficult to judge when Naupaktos was taken from the Angevins: certainly not in the summer of 1304, to judge by the negotiations between the Angevins and Anna and Thomas in early 1305; possibly in the summer of 1305, when Thomas attacked again, leading to the treaty between Philip of Taranto and Orsini of October 1305;1291 but most likely in the spring or early summer of 1306. On 10 February 1306 Philip of Taranto confirmed a number of benefits to the Neapolitan banker Adoardo Bisca, amongst which the profits from the Naupaktos mint, in return for a yearly loan of 31,000 hyperpyra.1292 We must assume, though this is not entirely imperative, that Naupaktos was then still in Angevin hands and that its mint was still emitting tournois. To judge by the evidence of the hoards and by the stylistical affinities of the issues in question, there was a short period during which Philip of Taranto issued coins at Naupaktos (DR2b) and Clarentza (PTB) contemporaneously.1293 The latter minting operation had begun by 1306, if not a while earlier. Philip may have used his Achaïan title on his Naupaktos coinage from October 1304 onwards. Dating DR2b quite this early would create obvious problems for the Clarentza chronology. Numismatically, one would wish to locate the beginnings of DR2b and PTB in the course of 1305, but this might be difficult to square with the political situation. While it appears therefore certain that the coinage of Naupaktos was launched in 1301, the sequence during the last phase of this minting from 1304 onwards is much less clear. Perhaps DR2b was issued over a long period, but in smaller numbers than the previous DR1–2a, because less bullion was reaching the town during the difficult military and political situation which I have described. Perhaps the town was intermittently taken by Anna and Thomas, and then Angevin minting resumed for a short while in early 1306. Alternatively, the mint may have continued until spring or early summer of 1306 and then closed permanently after the loss of the town.

1290  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 67; Kiesewetter, “Trattato”, pp. 199–201; Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, pp. 91–92. 1291  Kiesewetter, “Trattato”, p. 192. 1292  Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 359, n. 59; Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 388, n. 1; Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, p. 91, n. 134. 1293  Compare the present table and the table on p. 1409 which reproduces Philip’s Achaïan legends, and particularly the club-footed Rs, the open Es, the Ds and Cs, and the fleurs de lis.

1452

appendix ii

During the period ca. 1301–late 1304 the newly established mint of Naupaktos was emitting as much coinage as Clarentza, which is a significant achievement. A shift in attention from the Peloponnesian to the Aitolian mint can to some extent be seen through the slight decline of Achaïan minting in the wake of the issues of Isabelle of Villehardouin (1297–1299).1294 We ignore the precise mechanisms by which Naupaktos managed to produce coinage in such large quantities. It is certain that the standard at which it minted was lower than that of Achaïa, in terms of weight1295 and fineness,1296 offering therefore perhaps a cheaper and – at least superficially – more attractive product. In the December 1301 letter of Charles II to Raymond, the king’s representative, in which he instructs him to oversee the minting of coins on behalf of Thomas III of Autrementcourt,1297 he states twice the participation of Clarentzan merchants in this minting operation.1298 This is a concrete example of how the flow of bullion might have been changed to favour Naupaktos. We also know that bullion reached Naupaktos directly from the Regno through administrative channels: consignments are documented for the beginning of 1304,1299 but we may suppose that there were also earlier ones since it was already in 1302 that Philip of Taranto was liberated from Aragonse captivity and the treaty of Caltabellotta was signed (late August). This allowed Philip and Thamar to take active steps in securing their succession to Despot Nikephoros, especially in the light of the threat from the new ruler of Neopatra, John II (from early 1303),1300 and from Anna and Thomas of Epiros. If Naupaktos did indeed mint on a lower standard than Clarentza (and Thebes), maybe the Venetian concerns with inferior tournois in 1305 related directly to the issues of the Naupaktos mint.1301

1294  Appendix II.9. A.5–6, pp. 1399–1403. 1295  Graff, “Pylia”, 2, p. 7. 1296  The excessively low fineness achieved by Gordus (see Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 278) is to some extent adjusted by Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 70, although at a total number of two analysed coins none of this information is particularly reliable. Baker et al., “Height of denier tournois minting in Greece” has now confirmed that Naupaktos initially minted at a lower standard, which was only harmonised with the Clarentzan standard once the authorities started minting in both places for Philip of Taranto. 1297  Appendix II.9.E, p. 1445. 1298  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 349–350. 1299  Asonitis, Νότιο Ιόνιο, pp. 84–85. 1300  On whose coinage, see the next discussion. 1301  Appendix II.9.A, p. 1382.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NAUPAKTOS

1453

From ca. 1301 to late 1304 (DR1–2a) and on to ca. 1306 (DR2b), as one can see from the typological table, a number of groups succeeded one another. To judge by some of the hoards studied to the right level of detail («92», «95», «97», «117», «130», «131», «134», «135», «140», «149», «163», «397», «398»), DR1b was the largest, followed by DR1c and DR2aii and iii. Occasionally DR1e is also well represented. DR2b is a lot smaller than DR1–2a combined. These hoards do not, however, allow one to place the groups in a sensible chronological order, apart from putting DR1a at the beginning (see above). This wellconceived and well-struck coinage has not provided me with a single mule or transitional issue. One needs to consider therefore the typological features to establish some form of relative sequence: DR1e would need to be placed at the end of DR1 on account of the obv. symbol it shares with DR2aii and DR2aiii. DR1f shares with DR1a the construction of the letter S. The symbols and markings in the obv. legends suggest a progression from DR1b to DR1c, and ultimately to DR1d. DR2aii shares with DR2bi the small crosslet. DR2bi-iii have obvious progressions in the move from the crosslet to the double stops, and from the simple lis beneath the castle to one surrounded by pellets. The following chronological order, to be verified once more hoard data become available, can therefore be suggested: DR1a (#707) – DR1f (#717 and #718) – DR1b (#709 and #710) – DR1c (#712–#714) – DR1d (#715) – DR1e (#716) – DR2aiii (#722 and #723) – DR2aii var – DR2aii (#719–#721) – DR2bi (#724) – DR2bii (#725 and #726) – DR2biii (#727). 9.G Neopatra Hoards containing deniers tournois of Neopatra: «87. Vourvoura», «89. Epidauros 1904», «91. Thebes 1987», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «94. Naupaktos 1977», «95. Kapandriti 1924», «99. Delphi 1927», «105. Thessaly 1992», «109. Eleusina 1862», «119. Ioannina 1986», «123. Sterea Ellada 1975», «124. Attica 1950», «126. Attica (?) 1951», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «131. Attica (?) 1967», «135. Orio 1959», «141. Brussels without inventory», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «151. Brussels 1904», «154. Delphi 1894Γ», «159. Patra 1955B», «168. Elis 1964», «170. Eleusina 1952», «192. Corinth BnF», «196. Delphi 1894B», «198. Delphi 1894A». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Neopatra: «268. Corinth». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Naupaktos: «395. Paracopio di Bova», «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #728–#739

1454

appendix ii

The next tournois coinage to be produced in Greece was that of the mint of Neopatra (Phthiotis).1302 Galani-Krikou and I researched this coinage in great detail and the present discussion is almost entirely based on our joint findings.1303 Nearly 150 specimens of the Neopatra mint have over time been recorded or simply referred to, of which about 60 were usable in our die study (see below). A shorthand for the traditional typology, based on Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.17–19, can be created: type 1 (XIII.18) is the earliest and most prolific of the three groups; type 2 (XIII.19) the second and somewhat rarer group. Meanwhile, the existence of type 3 (XIII.17), which has a pedigree going back to De Saulcy, but has not actually been seen since it was drawn in the first half of the nineteenth century,1304 is very doubtful indeed and is omitted from further considerations. Type 1, a very heterogenous issue, reads +A3GeLVSSABc / +DeLLAPATRA (with variations: see the table below). The obv. contains a complex combination of information on nomenclature, while the rev. unambiguously states the mint. Type 1 has been further sub-divided according to the detail at the end of the rev. legend: this is a small P, a small L, or no or diverse marks.1305 Accordingly, we have established Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, type 1, group P; type 1, group L; type 1, group VARIA. Type 2 reads +DVXãNGeLVS / +DeLAPATRIA (again with variations), and differs markedly from the previous type in terms of titulature.

1302  For instance Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 382–383; Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 401–403; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 282–283. 1303  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”. Baker, “Neopatra” has benefitted from this research. Tzamalis had also been working towards a typology for these issues: “Εlis”, p. 72; “Igoumenitsa”, p. 300. 1304  A supposed specimen from «238. Athenian Agora» (Thompson, Coins from the Roman through Venetian period, p. 78, no. 1969) proved, on inspection, to be a counterfeit: see Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”, pp. 410–411, nn. 5 and 12. It is especially noteworthy that Lambros did not have such a coin in his extensive collection: see Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα και μολυβδόβουλλα, pp. 46–47. 1305  Tzamalis (see n. 1303 above) postulated the existence of two different mints on the basis of the letters P and L, which was always improbable but made all the more impossible by considerations of style, dies, chronology, in the present discussion.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NEOPATRA

Type* Type 1, group P var1

Type 1, group P var2

Type 1, group P var3

Type 1, group P var4 Type 1, group P var5 Type 1, group L var1

1455

Types for Neopatra

Legend

Comment Towards the end of the obv. legend, after the letters S, S, A, B, C, different combinations of single stops and single or double triangular annulet arrangements have been observed. Occasionally there are large contraction marks after the letters B and C. Very rarely single dots are interspersed in the rev. legend. This variety is characterised by the fleur de lis at the end of the obv. legend. The remainder of this legend, especially the last five letters, is frequently interspersed with single or double dots, more rarely with triangular annulet arrangements. This variety is characterised by the double annulet stops which are to be found consistently on the rev. The obv. either mirrors these or, more frequently, bears the usual triangular annulet arrangements. This is a variation on the previous var3, distinguished by the particular shape of the D and E on the rev. This is a variation on var1, distinguished by the club-footed R on the rev. and the variable construction method of the letter E. The legends in this variety are sometimes interspersed by simple stops, mostly on the obv., particularly at the beginning of the legend and after the last two letters.

1456

Type* Type 1, group L var2

Type 1, group VARIA var1 Type1, group VARIA var2 Type1, group VARIA var3 Type1, group VARIA var4 Type1, group VARIA var5

appendix ii Types for Neopatra (cont.)

Legend

Comment This variety is characterised by the single and double triangular annulet arrangements which, together with simple stops, are to be found between the components of the end of the obv. legend. The Ds and Es are usually square as depicted, but can also be rounded as in var1. There are occasional simple stops in the rev. legend. This variety displays single stops, principally towards the end of the obv. legend, more rarely at the end of the rev. legend, or in fact no stops at all. This is a variation on var1, distinguished by the formation of the obv. S. This is a variation on var1, distinguished by the distinctive triangular dot formations at the end of the legends. Like the previous variety, this variety displays triangular dot formations, arranged however differently, in both legends. The Ss are as in var2. This variety, a variation on the previous one, is distinguished by the different spelling of the rev. legend, which is interspersed with one triangular dot formation.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NEOPATRA

Type* Type1, group VARIA var6

Type 2 var1

Type 2 var2

Type 2 var3

1457

Types for Neopatra (cont.)

Legend

Comment This variety is characterised by the three dots at the end of the obv. and rev. legends, appended at the bottom by a stem which results in a construction resembling a fleur de lis. This variety is distinguished, on the rev., by the particular spelling of the mint name and inverted crescents to the left and right of the castle. The lis and stops in the obv. legend are occasionally omitted. This variety is distinguished by the single L in the spelling of the rev. legend, and the absence of the crescents described for var1. The lis is consistently present on the obv. This variety is a development of the previous var2 with regard to the described rev. features, although it deploys a new set of lettering for the V, A and R on the obv. and rev. The obv. lis and the rev. annulet are occasionally omitted.

* According to the typology in Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Νομισματοκοπείο Νεών Πατρών”.

A general chronology for the Neopatra issue and the types is fairly easy to reconstruct. Hoards «84. Agrinio 1973» and «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975» are large enough to constitute useful negative evidence and to establish that the mint was not operational until after ca. 1300. The hoards from «88. Delphi 1933» onwards, and especially «92. Pylia 1968/1969», prove that type 1 was earlier than type 2 (#738 and #379). Type 1, groups P (#728–#732) and L (#733–#735) were minted in roughly equal quantities, as one can glean from some of the later hoards. «92» and «95» demonstrate that P was the earlier of the two. Type 1,

1458

appendix ii

group VARIA (#736) makes its first hoarded appearance in the second of these hoards (probably concealed in 1311). «105. Thessaly 1992» (concealed 1311–1313, or even later) displays a significant shift towards type 1, group L, and indeed group 2, and showcases the series in maturity. On the basis of the hoards alone, the entire series can be located in the decade between the very early 1300s, and the very early 1310s. Whereas earlier numismatists had considered all the independent rulers in Thessaly and the eastern Mainland in the second half of the thirteenth century as potential issuers of these anonymous coins, it is quite clear that this could only have been John II Angelos Doukas,1306 ruler of Vlachia from 1303–1318.1307 His grandfather, John I, who was the bastard son of Michael II of Epiros,1308 had ruled the territory from 1267 to 1289 as sevastokrator, according to the ample evidence given in Byzantine histories (Gregoras, Pachymeres) and Frankish sources (Chronicle of Morea, Sanudo). An encyclical letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople of 1277 derides him, on the occasion of his excommunication for his anti-Unionist stance, as the ‘so-called’ sevastokrator.1309 Upon his death, his two younger sons Constantine and Theodore were joint rulers of the territory. They too, according to Pachymeres, bore the title of sevastokrator.1310 The death of Constantine, probably in early 1303,1311 left Thessaly to his minor son John II. According to Gregoras he continued the ‘rule of the sevastokrators’.1312 It is in fact unlikely that John II himself was ever in receipt of this title from the emperor,1313 and in other passages Gregoras is quite derisive of John and his state,1314 and both he and Metochites effectively implied that after 1303 Thessaly was rulerless.1315 However, by the time of his death in 1318 this ruler held the title of despot according to the verse epitaph written by Manuel Philes.1316 Loenertz has demonstrated that the early thirteenth century rulers of Epiros rightfully held the names of Angelos and Doukas, that the more illustrious 1306  The following historical considerations owe some substantial points to Magdalino, Thessaly. 1307  On this term see the Preface, p. xvi. 1308  On whose coinage see Appendix II.1.B.7, pp. 1240–1243. 1309  Hofmann, “Patriarch Johann Bekkos”, p. 145; Laurent, Regestes, pp. 227–228, no. 1435. 1310  Pachymeres, X.3. 1311  Kiesewetter, “Livre de la conqueste”, p. 175. 1312  Gregoras, VII.7. 1313  Polemis, The Doukai, p. 98, n. 55; Ferjančić, “Sevastokratori”, pp. 182–183. 1314  Gregoras, VI.8; VII.5; VII.7. 1315  Magdalino, Thessaly, p. 199. 1316  Magdalino, Thessaly, p. 210. See also Nicol, Epiros II, p. 74, n. 40.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NEOPATRA

1459

Komnenos was however an unjustified pretension.1317 The mentioned Greek language sources, most of which were hostile or belittling, refer to the various family members as Doukai. In the Latin sources the name Angelos predominates, the family name of Doukas having mutated into the inaccurate title of dux, as it had done very similarly in the case of the so-called despots in Epiros of the same family.1318 The complex relationship of Epiros with the house of Anjou is discussed in other parts of this appendix.1319 Varying levels of direct and indirect dependency of Epiros and its rulers on Naples were established. The situation in Thessaly was much looser. John the Bastard, the half brother of Nikephoros of Epiros, was aided considerably by the Angevins in the course of the 1270s in the context of his struggle with central Byzantine authority.1320 Although William de la Roche of Athens married John’s daughter Helena in 1275,1321 there is no indication that the two rulers established anything akin to a feudal bond in the western sense.1322 The ensuing conflict between Thessaly and Epiros was soon to leave the Latin position in ambivalence. As Charles II and Philip of Taranto sought to reassert their positions in Epiros after 1300,1323 Duke Guy II de la Roche was personally warned by the former not to lend Thessaly any support.1324 With the death of Constantine in 1303, the tutelage over the young John II was given to Guy II de la Roche by an assembly of local barons.1325 Early events show that this decision was well justified, although Magdalino demonstrates that soon these two political entities were to stand in conflict with one another. Guy evidently profited from the usufruct of the Thessalian territories, and often disposed of it in fashions which were against the interest of Thessaly. The death of Guy in 1308 brought matters to a head. The Thessalian state and Byzantium had come closer in the face of the Catalan menace to both of their territories. It is very likely that John II married an illegitimate daughter of Emperor Andronikos II in 1309. The new duke, Walter of Brienne, arrived in Athens in April of that year, and John was according to Muntaner 1317  Loenertz, “Origines du despotat d’Épire”, p. 363. 1318  Prinzing, “Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung I”, p. 93. 1319  Notably Appendix II.9.A.7, pp. 1408–1413; II.9.D, pp. 1441–1443; II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453. 1320  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 246. 1321  Bon, Morée franque, p. 704; see Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1427–1439, for the contemporary Athenian rulers and their tournois coinage; Appendix II.9.C, pp. 1440–1441, for Helena’s coinage at Karytaina. 1322  Magdalino, Thessaly, p. 162ff. 1323  Appendix II.9.F, pp. 1445–1453. 1324  Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 358, n. 38. 1325  On this and on what follows, see Magdalino, Thessaly, p. 195ff, where the sequence of events is best documented.

1460

appendix ii

in direct defiance of him. The Catalan invasion in 1311 was to seal the fate of the duchy of Athens, and substantially weaken the Thessalian state. It is of particular interest that John II sought to bribe the Catalans upon their arrival in Thessaly, according to the account of Gregoras, to persuade them to proceed further into Attica and to attack the duchy.1326 The historical context, as well as the archaeological/stylistical considerations, can be further interpreted in the light of our die study. We analysed the obv. and rev. specimens within type 1, group P; type 1, group L; type 1, group VARIA; type 2. Estimates of the original number of dies used to produce the issues (Dest) and 95% confidence intervals, according to the method developed by Esty,1327 can be given for some of the rev. units. The obverses, that is to say the sides bearing the central cross, have been omitted: for type 2 the obverses of the 11 inspected specimens, while showing a large number of die identities, were too badly readable to provide concrete numbers. For type 1, the opposite was true: groups L and VARIA produced the same number of dies as inspected specimens (19 and 11 respectively), while in group P only one die was found to have struck two of the 19 specimens, resulting in a 95% confidence interval which was simply too large to be meaningful. The same was true also for the rev. of type 1, group VARIA (11 specimens, 10 dies). Useful raw (n = number of coins in sample; d = number of dies; d1 = number of dies on single coins) and derived (Dest, possible min./max. within the 95% confidence range) data for the remaining units are presented in the following table: Unit

n

d

d1

Dest

min.

max.

Type 1, group P, rev. Type 1, group L, rev. Type 2 rev.

19 19 11

14 10 8

11 7 6

46 21 24

23 12 13

117 41 74

In addition to establishing die identities within types and groups, we compared obv. dies for type 1 across the groups. We found no die linkages between groups P and L, but two dies which were used both for group L, var1, and group VARIA, var1, that is to say varieties bearing simple stops. Logically, there are no rev. links across the three groups since these are defined by the different marks at the end of the legends. On the basis of these obv. die linkages it would 1326  Gregoras, VII.7. 1327  Esty, “Dies”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: NEOPATRA

1461

seem that the transition between groups L and VARIA was marked by a desire to abandon the previous system of characterising the issues with a letter on the rev., while still holding on to old obv. dies. Given the general scarcity of die linkages in the entire series, is it possible that the abandonment of the old system was rather sudden and unforeseen? The die linkages between L and VARIA show furthermore that the more simple varieties of L and VARIA are chronologically close, and that by extension the variety of L which displays the obv. triangular annulet arrangements (var2) is early within L, and the varieties of VARIA which show various dot combinations (var3–6), are late. The former in particular is an expected finding since P also nearly universally has the said sets of annulets on the obv. (var1). The last point of interest resulting from the die study concerns the transition from type 1, group VARIA, to type 2. The die counts suggest that the anvil die, that is to say the die which was more protected, less prone to breakage, and therefore in less need to be substituted, changed from being the rev. (the side bearing the castle) die in type 1, to the obv. in type 2. In summary, the various data can be made to fit admirably. Minting must on all accounts be brought in connection with Guy II de la Roche’s direct involvement with Thessaly after 1303, from a legal and organisational point of view. The precedence of Guy’s prohibition of minting at Salona, and the subsequent Angevin reaction,1328 shows that he was able to take decisions on mints autonomously within his territory. The quality of type 1 is testimony to Athenian involvement. There is a remote possibility, which is difficult to verify, that type 1 was actually minted at Thebes. The obv. legend of this type 1 (+A3GeLVSSABc) is pretentious, John having neither been a sevastokrator nor a Komnenian, and it stands in direct contrast to metropolitan Byzantine appreciation of John and the territory he ruled. The choice of Angelos as the accompanying family name would not seem to have been the preferred one in the light of the original documents, although it was the only name which was practical in its latinised form. The shift to type 2 would have occurred late within the period 1303–1311, very likely when John II turned against the Latin rulers of Athens and formed a direct alliance with Byzantium. It seems likely that John would have received the title of despot, which he held on his death in 1318, upon his 1309 marriage. With the +DVXãNGeLVS legend the false claim of being a sevastokrator was dropped, as well as the family name of Komnenos, while DVX referred to the title of despot. It is additionally a provocation to the dukes of Athens, who were veritable dukes within the hierarchical structures of the Latin Empire, and who displayed the title on their coins. In a period when 1328  Appendix II.9.E, pp. 1443–1445.

1462

appendix ii

Guy was arguably in control of the minting at Neopatra, such a title would not have been conceivable. The breach between Athens and Neopatra is further exemplified by the style and poor quality of the type 2 issue. It seems quite likely that Athenian technology, possibly in the form of manufactured dies or single punches, could no longer be relied upon. One might tentatively locate the die linkages between type 1, group L and type 1, group VARIA within a period of uncertainty in which the system of die usage had to be rapidly abandoned. Would it be unreasonable to equate the respective letters of P and L with the name of mint masters, the last of whom might have been withdrawn in the wake of Guy’s death in October 1308? Type 1, groups P and L, would have been minted successively during 1303–1308, group VARIA for about a year thereafter, while type 2 was probably completely minted by 1311.1329 Although the town of Neopatra was not taken by the Catalans until 1318, John was virtually besieged and his landed resources were severely curbed. Any fresh supplies of bullion would have been difficult to come by. It is indeed possible that this last issue was produced solely to bribe the Catalans upon their arrival in Thessaly (see above). 9.H Tinos Hoards containing deniers tournois of Tinos: «95. Kapandriti 1924», «101. Megara», «105. Thessaly 1992», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «159. Patra 1955B», «168. Elis 1964», «170. Eleusina 1952», «196. Delphi 1894B». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Tinos: «230. Andros», «238. Athenian Agora». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #740–#745 The denier tournois coinage minted on the Cycladic island of Tinos has been known since the mid-nineteenth century.1330 This was a small and neatly produced issue, with one overriding style of lettering:

1329  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 304. 1330  See Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 399–400, with reference to Promis, the first to publish such a specimen. See further Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 289, and Baker, “Teno” and Baker, “Cicladi medievali”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: TINOS

Type* 1

1463

Types for Tinos

Legend

Comment The stops at the beginning and end of the rev. legend can also be omitted.

* A systematic typology for the pennies of Tinos has never been worked out.

The issuer and mint are stated in a simple manner: George Ghisi at Tinos. Although in the fourteenth century there were three rulers of Tinos by the name of George, Promis and Schlumberger confidently identified the issuer of this coinage as George I (1303–1311) with reference to the general pattern of tournois production in Greece, and to the fact that the rev. legend was quite clearly inspired by one of the earlier issues of Athens.1331 Metcalf confirmed this with reference to two pertinent hoards, to which can now be added the particularly decisive information deriving from «95» and «105». In 1240–1248 the homage for Negroponte and the other islands of the Aegean was transferred from the Latin Empire to Achaïa.1332 George I had strong ties with the principality: before 1292 he had already married the daughter of Guy of Dramelay which brought him the lordship of Chalandritsa; he was castellan of Kalamata; and he fought for successive princes in Skorta (1304) and against the Catalans, at whose hands he was killed in 1311.1333 His desire to mint tournois, and the right to do so, must be considered in this context. Tournois of Tinos, as I note elsewhere,1334 circulated preferentially on the Greek Mainland, and only belatedly in the western Peloponnese. This was either a direct consequence of the campaign of 1311, or a reflection of the integration of the northern Cycladic islands with the remainder of Greece via Euboia and Attica, which might have been easier before the Catalan take-over in the eastern Mainland in 1311. With this in mind, and with reference to the Athenian analogy, one may tentatively date the Tinos issue to the first years of the fourteenth century.

1331  Particularly Theban issue A8: see Appendix II.9.B, p. 1433. 1332  Loenertz, Ghisi II, p. 30; Hendrickx, “Régestes”, no. 279; Sanudo, pp. 102–103 and 218. 1333  Bon, Morée franque, pp. 160, 167, 178, 183. 1334  Baker, “Cicladi medievali”.

1464 9.I

appendix ii

Chios and Damala Hoards containing deniers tournois of Chios: «123. Sterea Ellada 1975», «129. Aegean Area (?) 1858», «135. Orio 1959», «139. Atalandi 1940», «168. Elis 1964», «196. Delphi 1894B», «198. Delphi 1894A». Hoards containing deniers tournois of Damala: «129. Aegean Area (?) 1858». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Chios: «397. Manduria 1916». Hoards in the Balkans containing deniers tournois of Chios: «490. Kărdžali». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #746–#751

The Aegean island of Chios is not part of the primary area treated in this book. Nevertheless, the Zaccaria family, which ruled the island from 1304 to 1329, had close ties with the Peloponnese and minted tournois for one of its holdings there (Damala),1335 while the tournois from the Chios mint also circulated predominantly in Mainland Greece. During the period 1304–1329 the Zaccaria family emitted a handsome range of fine gold and silver denominations at the Chios mint.1336 It is surely of some significance, particularly with regard to the relations between Greece and the eastern Aegean, that the Chiot denier tournois, a more humble but arguably the mint’s most prolific denomination, was only begun about a decade and a half into this minting operation. This coinage has been well known and described for more than century.1337 It is usually attributed, in accordance with the obv. legend, to the sole rule of Martin Zaccaria, dated after 1324 because it omits reference to imperial Byzantine authority, and before 1329, when he was deposed and fled the island. This scheme has been revised by Mazarakis relatively recently,1338 and it would now appear that the possible dates for the tournois coinage are 1320/1322–1329. Prior to this, Metcalf had already suspected that a 1324 dating was marginally too late, especially in view of «123. Sterea 1335  The other holding was the lordship of Chalandritsa (Bon, Morée franque, p. 459), which had previously belonged to George I Ghisi: see the above discussion of the Tinos coinage. 1336  The rule of the Zaccaria family in Chios and its coinage are mentioned in Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 1337  Representative for the older bibliography are Promis, La zecca di Scio, p. 37 and pl. I.2, and Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 415 and pl. XIII.32. For more recent treatments, see Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις”, p. 60, and pl. 2, nos D2a and D2b; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία”, pp. 47 and 49, nos Δ2 and Δ3; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 291. 1338  Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”, pp. 110 and 117.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: CHIOS AND DAMALA

1465

Ellada 1975». The composition of another supposedly anomalous hoard, the Bulgarian «490. Kărdžali», can also be better explained now that the dating of the Chiot coinage has been revised (see also my comments in the relevant entry of Appendix I). None of the cited authorities have paid much attention to the typology of the Chiot tournois issues. Having seen a good number of specimens myself, it becomes in fact obvious that there was only one substantial type:1339

Type 1

Types for Chios

Legend

Comment There is no evidence of dots around the extremities of the large obv. cross patty, as depicted in Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.32.

The relative uniformity of the series might suggest that it was minted over a rather confined period towards the beginning of Martin’s sole rule. The absence of issues of John of Gravina in «123», which were first minted from autumn/winter 1321,1340 is a fairly clear indication of when tournois started to be minted at Chios. The fact that the hoard was found on the Mainland, that Chiot tournois, as other Chiot denominations in the fourteenth century,1341 evidently entered the Greek area via Euboia, Attica and Boiotia, and that coins of Clarentza often reached areas outside of the Peloponnese with a slight delay, gives us a bit of a leeway in its dating. It is very probable that Chios began minting tournois at one point in the period from 1320 to 1322. Apparently closely associated, though stylistically different, with the Chios issue was a coinage which reads on the obv. and rev. +c0STcD0M0L0. No new data regarding this coinage have become available since the days of Lambros and Schlumberger (for the specimen in the Paris collection, see #751).1342 Although this is an anonymous piece, hoard «129. Aegean Area (?) 1339  I am unable to tell the difference between Mazarakis’ two varieties. 1340  See Appendix II.9.A.11, pp. 1418–1422. 1341  See Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 1342  Lambros, “Damala”. See also Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 325–326 and Baker, “Damala”. The specimen illustrated by Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, plate X, is not from the Paris collection, hence it is only the second specimen known to me.

1466

appendix ii

1858» convincingly allows us to attribute it to the same Martin Zaccaria, lord of Damala. I have not been able to confirm Schlumberger’s terminus post quem of 1325 for this issue.1343 In fact it would appear probable that the Chios and Damala issues were minted concurrently, perhaps even at the same mint. Given the more or less obvious dating of the Chios issue, this may have occurred in the wake of the re-taking of control over the principality of Achaïa by the Angevins in October 1321, a process which would bind Martin Zaccaria even more closely into the affairs of the Latin Empire: in 1324 he was called upon to serve during the campaigns of John of Gravina,1344 and a year later John’s brother, the despot of Romania, Philip of Taranto, created Martin ‘king and despot of Asia Minor’.1345 This provides a convincing political framework for the tournois issues of Chios and Damala, and it underpins their chronologies. 9.J

Arta Hoards containing deniers tournois of Arta: «127. Roussaiïka Agriniou 1966», «128. Thesprotia 1974», «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963», «139. Atalandi 1940», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «147. Nivicë», «148. Naupaktos 1976», «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «151. Brussels 1904», «152. Unknown Provenance ca. 1964», «159. Patra 1955B», «160. Patra 1955C», «168. Elis 1964», «192. Corinth BnF», «196. Delphi 1894B», «197. Kephallonia», «198. Delphi 1894A». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Arta: «237. Arta», «238. Athenian Agora», «257. Butrint», «266. Corinth», «341. Pantanassa», «354. Thebes», «375. Thessaly». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Arta: «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Arta from the Near East: «481. Nahariyya». Hoards in the Balkans containing deniers tournois of Arta: «492. Tărnovo», «494. Thessalonike», «495. Vidin», «498. Silistra 1932». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Arta from the Balkans: «502. Baniska», «503. Čerenča», «504. Červen», «505. Drobeta-Turnu Severin»,

1343  Renaud, the previous lord of Damala, was killed in 1311. The date of his daughter Jacqueline de la Roche’s marriage to Martin is uncertain, but would have taken place more or less straight after his death: Bon, Morée franque, pp. 195–196. 1344  Bon, Morée franque, p. 205. 1345  Miller, “Zaccaria”, p. 48.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ARTA

1467

«509. Jantra», «510. Kasrici»(?), «511. Košarica», «512. Ljutica»(?), «513. Nesebăr», «514 Ohrid», «516. Păcuiul lui Soare», «517. Pepelina», «518. Perperikon»(?), «519. Plovdiv», «520. Rahovec», «524. Šumen», «525. Tărnovo», «526. Thasos». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #752–#787 Deniers tournois issued in the name of Despot John at Arta (+IOhSDeSPOTVS / +De0RT0c0STRV) have a pedigree going back to Lambros and Schlumberger.1346 They are to be considered the last development within the second generation of official Greek tournois issues. However, they are in certain respects quite exceptional: together with the exceedingly rare Corfu coinage,1347 they were produced further to the northwest than the other issues; they circulated widely in the southern Balkans; and there are hoards which contain exclusively Artan issues. Most extraordinary of all is the typological and qualitative variety in which this series was produced. This has been commented on by all the cited writers, but the only available system of reference remains Schlumberger’s pl. XIII.16, despite Tzamalis’ work in this respect.1348 I have attempted to approach this material afresh with a view to setting out a new typology for the issues,1349 in the process of which I examined a good quantity of finds listed in Appendix I, as well as museum pieces. Like Tzamalis, I identified three groups. I borrowed his ‘IO’ abbreviation, omitted his ‘10’, but added in the usual manner A, B, Γ, with the implication that there was a chronological progression from one to the next. The characteristics of these three groups needed to be re-defined: while Tzamalis was right to use the style of lettering and the decorations around the rev. castle as diagnostic criteria, he ignored orthography and the quality of execution and metal. It turns out in fact that IOA and IOB have distinctive lettering and rev. decorations. IOΓ, on the other hand, is characterised by its inferior, coppery appearance, and by the fact that it borrows features from both of the preceding groups. It occasionally bears correct legends (IOΓvar1), but has more often than not orthographical mistakes which sometimes degenerate into complete randomness (IOΓvar2). This, and the metrological shortcomings which will be further explored below, 1346  Lambros, “Unedierte Münzen und Bleibullen der Despoten von Epirus”; Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 374–375 and pl. XIII.16; Lambros, Ανέκδοτα νομίσματα και μολυβδόβουλ­ λα, pp. 10–15, nos 4–20. See more recently Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 398–400; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 283. 1347  Appendix II.9.D, pp. 1440–1441. 1348  Tzamalis “Εlis”, p. 80. See also his Φραγκοκρατίας, p. 114. 1349  For initial comments in this respect, see Baker, “Apulia”, p. 231. See also Baker, “Arta”.

1468

appendix ii

beg the obvious question of whether IOΓ was in fact an unofficial issue which was minted by somebody other than Despot John, and not at the Arta mint. This proposition needs to be rejected with reference to archaeological and historical evidence (see below). The inherent danger of IOΓ to numismatists is that it can be mistaken for one of the other two groups, should one concentrate on individual features instead of taking a more holistic approach to identification:

Type IOA var1

IOA var2

IOA var3

Types for Arta

Legend

Comment See the table below for the rev. castle decoration. There are very occasionally dots underneath the rev. castle, at the end of the legends and between their main components. There is an alternative construction method for the rev. A, with a continuous thin bar at the top and two equally thin legs underneath, well spaced out one from the other. See the table below for the rev. castle decoration. There is an alternative construction method for the rev. A, with much larger upper extremities drooping downwards. See the table below for the rev. castle decoration. There is a spur rowel underneath the castle, a dot to the left, and what appears to be a head to the right (see Lambros, p. 500, no. 16: “behelmetes nach links gewandtes Köpfchen”, no. 18; Malloy, p. 399, no. 119: ‘helmeted’). The area on the die between the head and the adjacent letter A also has the tendency to crack. The punches used for the letters O, D, E, C are indented to varying degrees. There is one variety (die?) with a much better constructed S, with a neatly swung central punch and two triangular punches for the extremities.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ARTA

Type IOA var4

IOB

IOΓ var1

IOΓ var2

1469

Types for Arta (cont.)

Legend

Comment See the table below for the rev. castle and obv. cross patty decorations. More often than not this variety is not distinguished by the two Ss beside the rev. castle, but by an S in the obv. field, which is encountered in the second and third quadrants of the cross. A good number of specimens have no Ss at all, but share nevertheless the distinctively closed form of lettering. See the table below for the rev. castle decoration. The B is occasionally interpreted as an E (see Schlumberger). The lettering is altogether smaller and more angular than in IOA, the h and the R are nearly identical, and the S is very distinctive. This var. of IOΓ bears no decorations around the rev. castle. The legends consist mostly of single-punched letters and are orthographically correct. Var2 of IOΓ gathers all ulterior developments of var1. While the style of lettering, insofar as actual letters can be discerned, is the same, there can be mistakes in the legends, and there can also be decorations around the rev. castle (see the table below, and see also my comments for «147. Nivicë» for further possible rev. decorations). Amongst the specimens IOΓvar2, those with rev. marks are in the minority. About a third of the remainder bears very small mistakes, such as the inversion of one or two letters, or of the letter S; a further third bears entirely incomprehensible combinations of the basic letters I, O, D, S, C; a final third bears legends which can still be identified as Artan in general terms, of

1470

Type

appendix ii Types for Arta (cont.)

Legend

Comment which the following is a characteristic selection: +IDNSDcS [ ] +Dc0RT0c0T [ ] +IOOSc [ ] +Ic0RTc0S [ ] V +OISDcS [ ] +DcT0c0VT [ ] rev. D0R [ ] TRV rev. [ ] TO0 [ ] 0T rev. [ ] Dc0II00c0STRV rev. +DcIT0c [ ] TcV



Type* IOA var1

IOA var2

IOA var3

IOA var4

Rev. castle / obv. cross patty decorations for the issues of Arta

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ARTA

Type* IOB

IOΓ var2

IOΓ var2

IOΓ var2

IOΓ var2

IOΓ var2

IOΓ var2

Rev. castle / obv. cross patty decorations (cont.)

1471

1472

appendix ii

Tzamalis established a silver content of 10% for an Artan specimen, which must have been an IOA or IOB issue.1350 To my knowledge, no other attempt has been made to measure scientifically the metallurgical composition of Artan issues. To judge by the superficial appearance of this coinage, IOA resembles most the standard billon tournois issues of Achaïa, Athens or Naupaktos, even though the occasional IOA specimen appears to be inferior. About half of the IOB issues seem to be entirely of copper, as are all of the IOΓ issues, although Gerasimov, who has handled a large number of Artan coins, suggests that some of these copper coins may have been silver washed.1351 In line with what one might expect to find from a copper coinage, a sample of 47 IOΓ coins reveals widely fluctuating weights, with specimens of good preservation being either exceedingly light or heavy. Clearly, the metrology of the series will require particular attention in the future. In terms of style and quality, there is a very logical progression within IOAIOΓ, moving from one group or variety to the next. One would therefore only reluctantly break up the series and attribute any of its components, even the worst specimens of IOΓvar2 (#782–#787), to other mints or issuing authorities. This internal unity is reinforced by the geographical and chronological data derived from the archaeological record. Leaving momentarily aside the two single-type hoards from western Greece («127» and «128»), the first manifestation of the issues of Arta is to be found at «130. Romanos Dodonis 1963» (for a coin from this hoard, see #757). On the basis of a single specimen of John of Gravina1352 the appearance of Artan group IOAvar1 must be located in the mid- to later 1320s. By about 1330 group IOA is apparently fully developed, and IOB has commenced (see «140. Ermitsa 1985A», #753–#756, #760, #762–#765, #767–#772). IOA was probably the larger of the two groups, as we may infer from some other finds (see «151. Brussels 1904»; «238. Athenian Agora»; «266. Corinth»), and from general survival rates reflected in collections. Nevertheless, the study of some significant hoards remains imperative in this respect (especially «139. Atalandi 1940» because of its early dating, and «168. Elis 1964» because of its large size). In view of their metrological differences, it is possible that IOA (and to some extent IOB) and IOΓ might not always have been handled and hoarded together. Nevertheless, it is important that «140. Ermitsa 1985A», with 24 Artan specimens, did not contain a single example of the latter group. Hoards «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A» and «494. Thessalonike», on the other hand, demonstrate that IOΓ 1350  Tzamalis, “Elis”, p. 80. 1351  Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 34. 1352  Appendix II.9.A.11, pp. 1418–1422: IGA1.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ARTA

1473

had commenced by the mid-1330s. This is confirmed by the overstriking of Artan issues at the Thessalonike mint, which occurred before 1341 (see below). Clearly, IOΓ is an intriguing group which still requires a lot of work. It would seem that most of the information which we might have derived from «148. Naupaktos 1976» is now lost (see however my comments in Appendix I regarding this hoard and the possibility of finding specimens in different collections. See also #775–#780 and #783–#787, since some of these specimens may have derived from the hoard), but «127. Roussaiïka Agriniou 1966», and especially «147. Nivicë», and the unillustrated coins from some Bulgarian finds (notably «495. Vidin» and «525. Tărnovo»), have a lot of potential for future investigation. Nevertheless, on the basis of what I have been able to see we can ascertain that this is a unified group which is represented in the western Greek Mainland («148»), in Epiros and present-day Albania («128» and «147»), in Italy («397»), in Macedonia («494. Thessalonike»), and in Bulgaria (see «492. Tărnovo» in addition to «495» and «525» and most other listed sites). In this spread and movement it mirrors the other Artan issues, since earlier groups are equally present in the outlying areas, Italy («398»), Macedonia («494. Thessalonike» and «514 Ohrid»), and Bulgaria («495»). IOΓ was obviously the largest of the Artan issues. It was also more prone to travel and to survive away from its area of production, for different reasons (see below). Bendall has extensively pursued the question of overstriking in the Palaiologan period. He has established that five issues of so-called copper assaria from the Thessalonike mint during the reign of Andronikos III (1328–1341) were overstruck on Artan tournois.1353 The only concrete findspot for such overstruck coins is «494. Thessalonike», but other specimens sporadically enter the antiquities market.1354 I have been able to examine coins of this kind in the Bendall and Pottier collections, the latter now housed in the Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque royale Albert I (Brussels). One of the Pottier coins (tray 8–10, coin 44: #781), was an IOΓvar1 issue overstruck by PCPC, no. 270 (= DOC V, nos 919–920). Three coins from the Bendall collection (PCPC, nos 270–272) were also overstruck on coppery issues of Arta, that is to say IOΓvar1 and 2. It should be noted that another hoard of very similar origin to «494. Thessalonike» might be able to provide some useful negative evidence in this 1353  P CPC, p. 16; Bendall, “An Update on Palaeologan Overstrikes”; Bendall, “Palaeologan Notes”. The flat Palaiologan copper coinage is not discussed in this appendix since it had no presence in our area. See merely Appendix II.1.B, p. 1209, n. 73, and Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 176: presumably such “assaria” were commonly known as folles and performed a similar function to the earlier tetarteron coinage. 1354  The relevant specimens from «494» have recently been re-examined by Shea, “Longuet’s ‘Salonica hoard’”.

1474

appendix ii

respect.1355 Apart from one specimen which Bendall calls an intruder, this hoard does not contain any of the Thessalonican issues that are usually overstruck on Artan tournois, nor does it contain Artan tournois as such. With a dating of ca. 1330, the hoard manages to provide an upper chronological limit for the arrival and overstriking of IOΓ in Macedonia, which would according to the combined information have occurred during the 1330s. «495. Vidin» contains the most remarkable issues beside the genuine Artan coins which have already been discussed. These are tournois-style copper issues with curiously square flans. They are uniface, bearing only the large central cross patty, with nonsensical legends reproducing the main letters of the Artan issues (I, O, h, S). Prior to the publication of the hoard Penčev had already included these in his overview of imitative issues in Bulgaria,1356 although it seems that such coins were confined perhaps to this hoard, or at any rate to northwestern Bulgaria. They are further testimony to the arrival of Artan tournois in the Balkans, which would certainly have occurred before 1360 according to the evidence of this hoard. I should like to mention, merely in parenthesis, that one of the possible identifications of the so-called Wallachian tornesi which were sold by copper weight in Constantinople in the 1430s might well have been the Artan tournois which were so prominent throughout Bulgaria,1357 including the Danube and Black Sea regions bordering the contemporary Wallachian state. The production and spread of Artan tournois will require analysis within a historical framework. Their movements in particular might have identifiable political, economic or military dimensions. One must also not disregard monetary phenomena. The gathered data suggest that even IOΓ was minted at Arta, and had been completed by the time of the death of its issuer John II Orsini in 1336 or 1337 (see below). It is noteworthy that in Macedonia this issue was specifically gathered and culled from circulation for re-usage as coin flans. Also in Bulgaria this coinage will have fitted in with prevailing local copper coinages,1358 leading to a local imitative issue, and to formidable circulation patterns – in geographical terms –, encompassing eventually the heartland of the Bulgarian Empire under Ivan Aleksandăr (1331–1371) and his successors, the Black Sea coast, and perhaps the imperial Byzantine capital. Artan coins held a prominent position amongst pre-Ottoman copper coins at key Bulgarian sites (see «524. Šumen» and «525. Tărnovo»). The other side of the story regards 1355  Bendall, “Early Fourteenth-Century Hoard”, esp. pp. 272–273. 1356  Penčev, “Imitacionni monetosečenija”, pp. 25–26. 1357  Morrisson, “Badoer”, pp. 234–235. 1358  Gerasimov, “Moneti na frankskija vladetel Ioan II Orsini”, p. 35.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ARTA

1475

the Greek situation: like other inferior tournois issues, such as those of the Catalan Company,1359 the later Artan tournois were generally avoided and not hoarded together with the standard issues of Latin Greece, or specifically set aside. From a monetary point-of-view, this issue was therefore simultaneously pushed out of Epiros, and drawn towards Macedonia and Bulgaria. John Orsini,1360 count of Kephallonia and Zakynthos, assumed control in Arta in 1323 through the murder of his elder brother Nicholas. He soon managed to extend his power northwards, and over Ioannina in particular.1361 He was created despot by Andronikos III at a date later than 1328.1362 Prior to this, in 1324/1325, the prince of Achaïa John of Gravina had already attempted in vain to secure Orsini’s homage for the Angevins. This was finally achieved in 1331 by Duke Walter of Brienne.1363 During this episode, Andronikos III made significant inroads into John’s territories.1364 Following the death of sevastokrator Gavrielopoulos in 1333 John occupied large parts of northern Thessaly, which he had lost again by the time of his death some time before 1337.1365 According to the evidence which has been presented, John II Orsini sought to create a denier tournois issue in emulation of those of the other Greek mints, very probably before the bestowment of the title of despot, and certainly before being integrated into the structures of the Latin empire as ruler in Epiros. The large-scale Thessalian campaign after 1333 provides the most obvious context for the striking of the inferior IOΓ issue, and for its subsequent spread.1366 It is nevertheless also conceivable that it dates slightly earlier, to the context of the conflict with Andronikos III, and that the first wave of these coins was brought to Macedonia then. While the arrival of IOΓ in Macedonia can be dated to a specific interval, the overall chronology for the more general northward movement of all Artan tournois issues is less certain. It is possible that tournois reached both Serbia and Bulgaria in the 1330s because of the presence there of earlier issues IOA and IOB, but in reality there is currently no precise evidence on this matter. Because Serbia operated a silverbased coinage system,1367 it would have been seldom the final destination for the often sub-standard Artan coins. On the other hand, it is likely that the 1359  See Appendix II.9.L, pp. 1481–1483. 1360  See also his entry in PLP, no. 207. 1361  P LP, no. 207. 1362  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 93, n. 42, and p. 95. 1363  Appendix II.9.A.11, p. 1420. 1364  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 97. 1365  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 101ff. On the death of John see specifically p. 105, n. 83. 1366  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 311. 1367  See Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305.

1476

appendix ii

ever expanding Serbian state and the people moving within it, especially in the context of warfare, would have provided a vehicle for the dissemination of Artan coinage. After Orsini’s conquests a common border between the territories he controlled and the Serbian kingdom was established in the vicinity of Kastoria and Florina.1368 If the first tournois of Orsini reached Bulgaria in the 1330s, they could have arrived there either via Serbian- or Byzantine-held Macedonia. By the time the newly created Serbian empire of Stefan IV Dušan conquered Epiros and John’s former capital of Arta (1347), the history of the Artan tournois in Mainland Greece, Epiros, and Macedonia, had for all intents and purposes been written. It is nevertheless possible that the new unity of large tracts of land under discussion here brought a final impetus to the spread of tournois in the name of Orsini, which may have lain dormant and separated from better-quality tournois issues within the territory of his former state, towards Bulgaria in the later 1340s and 1350s. It was in this particular context, for instance, that a rare western Bulgarian silver coin, minted by Michael IV at the Vidin mint in the mid-1340s, travelled to Thesprotia.1369 Vidin has already been noted as one of the key Bulgarian areas in receipt of Artan tournois, and as the place where these were copied on a large scale. For how long Artan tournois remained in circulation in more northerly areas is difficult to pinpoint. Perhaps Artan tournois only really came to be prized in eastern Bulgaria in the period after the death of Ivan Aleksandăr in 1371 and the rapid decline in domestic copper coinage. In Macedonia itself, Artan tournois may also have enjoyed a prolonged circulation. I have discussed elsewhere1370 how the standard of the Thessalonican tornesi of the 1380s continued to be inspired by the heavier Greek issues rather than the lighter Venetian torneselli. It is possible that Ottoman domination from the late fourteenth century onwards supported rather than hindered the prolonged survival of this coinage since it would have fossilised all copper denominations. If we chose to interpret Badoer’s testimony in the manner indicated by me above, then Artan tournois were still available well into the fifteenth century.

1368  Živojinović, “La frontière serbo-byzantine”, p. 66. 1369  This coin from Riziani (Doliani), discovered too late to be included in Appendix I, is published in Baker and Metallinou, “Riziani”. See also Appendix II.4.C, p. 1303, n. 606. 1370  Appendix II.1.E.4, pp. 1273–1274.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ITALIAN

9.K

1477

Italian Tournois Hoards containing deniers tournois of Campobasso: «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B», «211. Chalkida». Graves containing deniers tournois of Campobasso: «214. Athenian Agora». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Campobasso: «223. Acrocorinth», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «267. Corinth». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Sulmona: «399. Naples 1886». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Tocco: «399. Naples 1886». Hoards in Italy containing deniers tournois of Campobasso: «401. Santa Croce Di Magliano», «402. Sant’Agata De’ Goti»(?), «403. Muro Leccese». Graves in Italy containing deniers tournois of Campobasso: «405. Monopoli». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Sulmona from Italy: «421. Collecorvino». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Campobasso from Italy: «411. Barletta», 413. Brindisi, «439. Piedimonte Matese», «443. Roca Vecchia», «457. Tufara». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #788–#807

Within the Italian peninsula, tournois (tornesi) were issued principally in two distinct historical periods, by different political authorities and at a variety of mints.1371 In general terms, these coinages were a reflection of the spread of the Greek tournois coinage into Italy, as discussed elsewhere in this book.1372 The Italian issues were also invariably very small, managing to leave merely faint traces on the indigenous archaeological record, let alone on that of Greece. The only Italian tournois produced in larger quantities and found in our area are from the Campobasso mint, dating somewhat after the chronological limits of this study. Everything being taken into account, the subject matter of Italian deniers tournois is of only marginal importance to this book.

1371  On this subject, see generally Travaini, “I Denari ‘Tornesi’”, Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, as much as the relevant passages in MEC, and Ruotolo, “Denari tornesi dalla Grecia all’Italia meridionale”. 1372  Chapter 2, pp. 99–100.

1478

appendix ii

The kingdom of Sicily (Naples) issued tournois at the end of the fourteenth century in the context of the conflict between the Durazzesco line to the throne – Charles III (1382–1386) and his son Ladislas (1386–1414) – and Louis I and II of Anjou. The tournois, beside other denominations, were produced at Sulmona1373 and Tocco,1374 in the modern region of Abruzzo. For Sulmona, coins are known for Charles III (see #788) and Ladislas. The Tocco coinage is very rare and only two specimens of Ladislas have traditionally been illustrated in line drawings, one from the British Museum which provided the basis for Schlumberger’s plate,1375 and another in the «399. Naples 1886» hoard. These coins are now either lost or difficult to access, and the recent photographic illustration of a third specimen from a local private collection is therefore all the more important.1376 This issue had already in the nineteenth century been variously attributed to mints on the Greek island of Leukada or in the Abruzzese towns of Luco or Tocco, and these identifications have persisted to our own days.1377 From all possible angles, Tocco in the 1390s provides much the more convincing context for such an issue, a view which is now confirmed by the existence of other denominations from this mint.1378 «399. Naples 1886» gives a telling impression of the order of magnitude in which the tournois of Sulmona and Tocco, as compared to the Greek issues, were produced. Beside a single specimen reported for the Abruzzo region («421»), the Neapolitan hoard is the only recorded archaeological context for these issues. A second wave of tournois issues evolved from the later 1450s onwards.1379 Upon the death of Alfonso the Magnanimous in 1458, the kingdom passed to his natural son Ferdinand I, although this succession was challenged by the papacy and by the Angevins. This led to a military conflict, during which (principally over the years 1459–1462/3) the respective parties issued a large number of coins and denominations at different mints. Deniers tournois constituted only a small part of this output. The complex questions regarding the tournois of Ferdinand himself, produced apparently at a number of mints in Campania, Calabria, Molise, Puglia, with different iconographies and at varying standards, 1373  M  EC, pp. 33–34; 238; 243, with reference to earlier bibliography. See also D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 374 and 378, pl. XIV.10. 1374  M EC, pp. 34–35; 244. See also D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 346–347, s.v. Luco. 1375  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.27. 1376  D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 418–419 and pl. XVI.1. 1377  For recent opposing views see notably Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 284, and Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 441. 1378  Pannuti, “Tocco”. See also Baker and Calabria, p. 283, n. 101, and Baker, “Leuca”. 1379  See generally Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, pp. 441–444; MEC, pp. 346–368, with ample bibliographical references.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ITALIAN

1479

which are almost exclusively known from documentary sources, need not concern us. By contrast, the coins minted during precisely the same years by the opposing camp at Campobasso, now the capital of the Molise region, have managed to leave a lasting numismatic record. These coins have been known and amply described since the nineteenth century,1380 and comprehensive studies by Ruotolo1381 (summarised and expanded by D’Andrea and his collaborators1382) now provide historical and numismatic points of reference, although there is still no adequate system of classification and the relevant entries in Appendix I list the Campobasso issues in a generic fashion. There are outstanding questions relating to these issues. It might be asked, in the light of their commonness, whether all the coins bearing a Campobasso signature were actually produced by the count of Campobasso, Nicola II (Cola) of Monforte, at one single mint, or whether some of them derive perhaps from quite legitimate parallel issues, minted by other protagonists in the conflict. There is the question of whether the same Cola was also responsible for the rare issue of San Severo in northern Puglia,1383 and for the doubtful issue at Lucera.1384 Numerous modern forgeries also make the study of this coinage difficult. The recent identification of a coinage for Cola and his successors at Limosano, which lies 14km to the north of Campobasso, and other possible mints, has added another dimension to this monetary production:1385 this appears to be a fairly large and varied coinage, which was produced in the same style and quality as that of Campobasso. The existence of the Limosano 1380  See the overview in MEC, pp. 349–350. 1381  Ruotolo, “Conte Nicola II di Monforte”; Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero; Ruotolo, “Denari tornesi dalla Grecia all’Italia meridionale”, pp. 470–474. 1382  D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 284–296, pl. XI and XII; D’Andrea et al., Monete del Molise, pp. 141–168. 1383  Ruotolo, Le zecche di Campobasso e Sansevero; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 442; MEC, p. 351; D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 360–361, pl. XIII.1; D’Andrea et al., Monete del Molise, pp. 201–204; D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete medioevali della Puglia, pp. 235–239, all with reference to the original publication by Ruggero. 1384  M EC, p. 351; Travaini, “Deniers Tournois in South Italy”, p. 442; D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete medioevali della Puglia p. 221. 1385  See principally D’Andrea et al., Monete del Molise, pp. 174–200, with reference to the discoveries made by the local archaeologist Mario Pagano, who has publicised his findings in a number of articles. The previous D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 342–345, pl. XIII, is less detailed and contains some errors which were subsequently corrected. Ruotolo, “Denari tornesi dalla Grecia all’Italia meridionale” also comments in Pagona’s work. For recent finds of Campobasso and Limosano (?) from present-day eastern Lazio, and further comments on the coins’ typologies and Pagano’s postulations, see Ranucci, Cittareale, pp. 36–38, 42–43, 46–47.

1480

appendix ii

coinage underlines some of the stated uncertainties of the Campobasso issues themselves, with regard to the place and origin of production. Although most of the Limosano specimens were found locally only after 2000, other previously misidentified specimens have subsequently come to light, which raises the question of whether some of the coins in our Appendix I attributed to Campobasso may in fact also have been from Limosano. There are certain points of interest to us in the fifteenth-century Italian tournois coinages: the relevant mints were mostly located on the Adriatic face of the kingdom, within the modern regions of Puglia and Molise which enjoyed relatively easy access to the Ionian area and beyond. «403. Muro Leccese» manages to describe vividly the tournois coinages which were in usage at such a late date in this part of the kingdom, and which were still mostly of Greek origin despite of their age and the impressive output at Campobasso and related mints. With regard to the material found on Greek soil, it will obviously be of some importance to establish the precise typologies of the Italian issues, and to verify the possibility that some of these were local imitations of the Campobasso type.1386 Given that «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B» is no longer available, the Athenian Agora and Ancient Corinth provide the most important assemblages in this regard. I was able to inspect all of the 21 Campobasso coins from «238. Athenian Agora»: amongst the readable pieces the great majority (9) belong to the standard type with small, thin and neat lettering reading +ŒC0ÓPIb0SSIŒ /+ŒNIcOL0ŒcONIŒ (usually no marks surrounding the castle, occasionally the same rosettes), and variations thereof: see D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 286–289. There are two specimens which bear stars around the obv. and rev. crosses instead of the rosettes (#804 and #805); one with fleurs de lis on the rev., around the small cross patty and beside the castle (#803). One coin bears the legend +ŒC0ÓPIb0SSIŒ on both sides (#806): compare hoard «401. Santa Croce Di Magliano» and D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, p. 291). Amongst this material there are only a few specimens that do not fit the known typology, for example #807 which looks rather irregular, and coin X-189/2 with broader forms of lettering and composed Ss (not illustrated). The specimen in Grave XXXIX at «214. Athenian Agora» (#795) is genuine but otherwise undiagnostic. The ten coins from «239. Athens» have a somewhat different profile than those from «238», in that there are proportionally more star and fleur de lis combinations. There is also one of the varieties combining Achaïan and Campobassan legends, which must be termed a counterfeit: see D’Andrea and Andreani, Monete dell’Abruzzo e del Molise, pp. 293–294). The disconcerting feature of this particular coin, and 1386  A possibility raised in Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, pp. 129–130.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: ITALIAN

1481

of some of the other known ‘muled’ varieties, is that the Campobassan side can barely – if at all – be distinguished from the great majority of the other Campobassan coins. This raises the fear that some of the latter are equally counterfeits. Whether or not such coins of the ‘muled’ or standard varieties are Greek or Italian will be difficult to determine. The picture from Corinth, where I was able to inspect the specimens from «223», «267», and other single finds not recorded in Appendix I, repeats the Athenian pattern: all but one coin (#802) display the standard rosette decoration, as does the single coin contained in «211. Chalkida».1387 Most of the coins of the Campobasso type found in Greece are therefore of the standard types which must be, a priori, considered to be of genuinely Italian origin. Nevertheless, there remain some possibilities within this material for identifying a local Greek production of coins of the Campobasso type.1388 We can rule out that there were any coins of the newly-discovered Limosano mint at Athens or Corinth. All in all we are left with a rather mixed impression of the coinage in Cola of Monforte’s name: the cited Euboian hoard and Athenian grave, as much as the previously discussed «403. Muro Leccese», show how marginal the Campobasso emissions were amongst the tournois still in mid-fifteenth century usage. On the other hand, of all the material emanating from Corinth and Athens, and indeed from Greece as a whole, the coins of Campobasso are almost the only numismatic manifestation with a date of production in the central decades of the 1400s. 9.L Catalan Company in Attikoboiotia Hoards containing deniers tournois of Catalan Attikoboiotia: «109. Eleusina 1862», «133. Birmingham», «134. ANS 1952», «136. Lord Grantley Hoard A», «141. Brussels without inventory», «151. Brussels 1904», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing deniers tournois of Catalan Attikcoboiotia: «214. Athenian Agora». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Catalan Attikoboiotia: «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «240. Athens», «263. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «271. Corinth».

1387  Stahl, Tornesello, pl. 3, no. 35. 1388  See also my assessment in Baker, “Denari tornesi”, although it is now clearer to me that coins of the Campobassan type already possessed a complex typology at the source, and I am now less confident in being able to pinpoint individual specimens which might have been of Greek manufacture.

1482

appendix ii

Graves in Italy containing deniers tournois of Catalan Attikoboiotia: «405. Monopoli». Excavation and single deniers tournois of Catalan Attikoboiotia from Italy: «425. Gerace». Later stratigraphical fills containing deniers tournois of Catalan Attikoboiotia: Appendix I.14, no. 1. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #808–#835 The distinctive issues under discussion here bear legends which are based on the standard GR20 legends of Athens, +GVIDVXATeNeS / +TheBANIcIVIS,1389 although the obverses are sometimes combined with Achaïan reverses from the period of Florent onwards +DecLAReNcIA.1390 To judge from our most substantial assemblages of the coins of this type («136», «141», «238») («141» is the source of nearly all the illustrated specimens), only about 10–20% are of the ‘muled’ variety. While the latter usually (see «136» for an exception to this rule) reproduce obv. and rev. legends in their standard forms, more than half of the specimens with Athenian obverses and reverses, to judge once more by the same assemblages, display certain variations in the legends which remove them from the Athenian prototype. This is a large and neatly produced coinage, but which nevertheless stands quite obviously apart from the remainder of the denier tournois coinages of Greece. Beside the epigraphical variations, it can be easily recognised from the small, gothic style of single-punched letters, the rather smaller flans, and the coppery appearance. This coinage was already discussed in the literature of the nineteenth century, although it was naturally the combination of Athenian and Achaïan legends which first caused writers to comment: Schlumberger, together with Lambros, rejected any convoluted constitutional explanation for this issue and simply concluded that it was a counterfeit.1391 The coins were next discussed by Seltman as counterfeits on two separate occasions.1392 In the first article he stated explicitly that they were minted by the Catalans, while the second article provides us with the system of referencing which we still use today (Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”, var. c and d). In Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 389–391, the authors, who include Seltman, consider a number of partially anonymous types as possible issues of Catalan Athens, but the key Seltman varieties 1389  See Appendix II.9.B, pp. 1435–1436. 1390  Appendix II.9.A, pp. 1396ff. 1391  Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 340 and pl. XIII.10. 1392  Seltman, “Two deniers of medieval Athens”; Seltman, “Late deniers tournois”.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: CATALAN

1483

c and d are ascribed there to Florentine Athens after 1381. This is incompatible with the chronological evidence that I have gathered. While Seltman var. d (= Schlumberger, Numismatique, pl. XIII.10), because of its Clarentzan rev., can be easily identified also in older publications, coins of var. c (reading +GVIDVXATeNeS / +TheBANIcIVIS, and variations thereof) often remained embedded in more general figures for coins of the duchy of Athens in the various hoard and excavation reports. I went through a number of finds, including the important «238. Athenian Agora» (see also the related «214» and «239»), with a view to verifying the full extent of var. c.1393 The coins are heavily concentrated in Attica, less so in Boiotia. They are present in «109. Eleusina 1862», concealed perhaps 1311–1313, but largely absent from Corinth (see merely a few finds for «263»–«271»), a site which was partially destroyed by the Catalans in 1312. The two substantial assemblages that are now in London and Brussels («136» and «141») document a coinage which was purposefully emitted and brought into circulation, but then apparently culled. Frequency tables I produced for the weights of the coins in these respective hoards remained flat and dispersed. In the combined light of the geographical, chronological, typological, and qualitative evidence, I could confirm that I was dealing with an issue of the Catalan Company, minted probably in short succession to the taking of the town in the spring of 1311. The account of Muntaner underlined such an interpretation, since he speaks of the Company’s need for ready cash in the wake of the conquest of the duchy of Athens.1394 When this issue may have ceased is presently impossible to ascertain, and it may well have lasted a decade or two after its inception. One would usually assume that Thebes was the mint for these issues, in succession to the issues of Burgundian times. However, this might not have been the case since excavations at Thebes have failed to bring to light a single specimen, whereas they are prolific at the Athenian Agora. As a postscript we must refer to a discussion surrounding an enigmatic billon/silver coin with Greek legends, bearing the image of St. George and a large T, which has been ascribed to the last phase of Florentine rule in Boiotia in the middle of the fifteenth century:1395 this attribution of a specimen, which stands outside of any local tradition, to a mint which had not been operational for 150 years, and to a Greek dynasty which had no previous inclination to mint, must be viewed with extreme caution.

1393  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 300–301. See also Baker, “Tebe”. 1394  Baker, “Thessaly”, p. 306–307. 1395  Olbrich, “Boiotien”.

1484

appendix ii

9.M Counterfeits Hoards containing deniers tournois counterfeits: «85. Unknown Prov­ enance June 1975», «92. Pylia 1968/1969», «97. ANS Zara», «99. Delphi 1927», «105. Thessaly 1992», «119. Ioannina 1986», «124. Attica 1950», «132. Nisi Ioanninon 1966», «134. ANS 1952», «135. Orio 1959», «140. Ermitsa 1985A», «142. Patra 1955A», «147. Nivicë»(?), «148. Naupaktos 1976» (?), «149. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891A», «158. Petsouri 1997», «160. Patra 1955C», «168. Elis 1964», «197. Kephallonia», «198. Delphi 1894A», «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B», «211. Chalkida», «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Graves containing denier tournois counterfeits: «214. Athenian Agora», «216. Clarentza», «218. Corinth». Excavation and single denier tournois counterfeits: «236. Argos», «238. Athenian Agora», «239. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «263. Corinth», «264. Corinth», «265. Corinth», «266. Corinth», «267. Corinth», «268. Corinth», «270. Corinth», «271. Corinth», «275. Corinth», «299. Kaninë», «312. Lamia», «315. Livadeia», «340. Panakto», «357. Thebes», 380. Trianta Zourtsas», «385. Zaraka». Hoards in Italy containing denier tournois counterfeits: «393. Bitonto», «395. Paracopio di Bova», «396. S. Vito Dei Normanni», «397. Manduria 1916», «398. Taranto Celestini», «399. Naples 1886», «403. Muro Leccese». Excavation and single denier tournois counterfeits from Italy: «416. Capaccio Vecchia», «433. Ordona», «435. Otranto», «441. Ripafratta», «443. Roca Vecchia». Hoards in the Balkans containing denier tournois counterfeits: «495. Vidin», «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987». Excavation and single denier tournois counterfeits from the Balkans: «524. Šumen»(?), «527. Thessalonike». Later stratigraphical fills containing denier tournois counterfeits: Appendix I.14, nos 7, 13. Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #836–#892 The counterfeiting of the denier tournois types of Greece – the latter dating from the 1260s to the late 1340s/early 1350s – was a much more widespread phenomenon than the counterfeiting of the previous generation of French royal and feudal tournois.1396 It is certain that Greek tournois continued to be 1396  Appendix II.3.E, p. 1293.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: COUNTERFEITS

1485

counterfeited after the end of their production, well into the second half of the fourteenth century, perhaps even later, that is to say a period which was dominated by the Venetian tornesello, which in turn was also counterfeited locally.1397 The evidence begins with «85. Unknown Provenance June 1975», concealed in about 1300, and it is perhaps significant that some of the larger earlier hoards of Greek tournois – for instance «81. Troizina 1899» or «83. Xirochori 1957» – are devoid of counterfeits, as is the last generation of hoards of French tournois in Greece («63. Kordokopi 1972» and «70. Corinth 8 May 1934»). An average tournois hoard of fourteenth-century Greece contains anything up to 1% of counterfeits (and a higher percentage in the smaller hoards). Superficially, this appears to be a small number, but we must take into consideration the enormous quantities at which tournois were emitted at Clarentza, Thebes and Naupaktos, the fact that counterfeits appear in such hoards in similar proportions to some of the smaller legitimate mints, and that counterfeits would also have been deliberately excluded from hoards. Counterfeits are relatively much more plentiful at excavated sites. Nevertheless, these vary widely and give equally distorted pictures of the extent of this counterfeiting activity since such coins were more easily prone to be lost casually, and counterfeits were quite obviously rounded up by the authorities and gathered at at least two of the key sites. A thorough typological investigation of the counterfeits encountered in Greece has not yet been undertaken, although individual groups of coins have been described and illustrated.1398 The most basic piece of information which describes any counterfeit is the identification of the prototype. Beyond this there are numerous qualitative categories. In the broadest sense, there are on the one hand some very well executed counterfeits which are to be distinguished from their prototypes only through some minor details: as a rule of thumb, any tournois types which do not adhere to the precise style of lettering and marks which are set out in this Appendix II.9 are likely to be counterfeits. There are on the other hand counterfeits which are deficient in all their aspects (epigraphy and lettering; style of obv. and rev. fields; size and metal). In between, there is the whole spectrum of variations. I have tried to convey these typological aspects in the relevant entries of Appendix I. The final important consideration is any form of manipulation, especially cancellation, which the specimens have undergone. The full range of counterfeits can be gleaned from the illustrated specimens #836–#892. 1397  Appendix II.4.F.2, pp. 1331–1332. 1398  Seltman, “Late deniers tournois” represents an attempt to classify certain Athenian counterfeits. Some of this material derived from «210. Lord Grantley Hoard B».

1486

appendix ii

The sites offer the broadest spectrum of phenomena. The finds from Ancient Corinth have so far received the greatest amount of attention, particularly the coins from the Frankish complex known through the publications of Orestes Zervos.1399 Since the same author is planning also a more in-depth study of this phenomenon at Corinth, and especially the process of checking and elimination, I have not dealt with this material to any degree of depth. Counterfeits of different designs and qualities are available beside genuine tournois in all areas of Corinth. Away from the ‘Central Area’, counterfeits have been found at the recently excavated Panayia field («270»), at the Kraneion basilica («271»), and at the site of Kokkinovrysi to the west of the Theater («275»). However, the greatest mass of evidence derives naturally from the area of the ancient agora/forum, as it does for genuine tournois issues as well. The various categories which have been created for the different excavations which have taken place there over the years («263»–«267») usually paint similar pictures: amongst the genuine tournois, those of Achaïa dominate in quantitative terms (see for example #841 and #842), followed by those of Athens at about half the numbers, and Naupaktos at just over 10% of the Achaïan coins (#853 and #854). For about every ten Achaïan tournois there is one counterfeit tournois of Achaïan type. Despite of the distribution for the genuine tournois, there are nearly as many counterfeits copying the issues of Naupaktos as those of Achaïa. The Frankish complex («268») has produced similar overall patterns, but further accentuates the tendencies: at 83 and 98 specimens respectively, there are nearly as many counterfeited as genuine Achaïan tournois there. Most astonishing is the figure of 132 Naupaktian counterfeits, at merely 11 genuine pieces from that mint. The overall impression is that the various forms of cancellation, that is to say bendings and cuttings, were more marked at the Frankish complex than elsewhere in Corinth. This phenomenon, together with the quantitative distributions, lead to the logical conclusion that counterfeit 1399  Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1989”, nos 73; 75; 80; 81; 82; 83; Williams and Zervos, “Corinth, 1990”, nos 101–102; 105; 108; 110–112; 119; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1991”, nos 51; 54; 56; 59; 66; 67; 68; 69; 70; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1992”, nos 88; 90; 98; 99; 100; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1993”, nos 86; 92; 94; 97; 102; 102a; 104; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1994”, nos 117; 122; 124; 129; Williams and Zervos, “Frankish Corinth: 1995”, nos 93; 100; Zervos, “Frankish Corinth, 1996: The Coins”, nos 100; 102; 103; 111; 112; 113; Williams et al., “Frankish Corinth, 1997”, nos 97; 98; 100; 103; 105; 106. See also Zervos’ clarifications of some of the technical details of production, verification, and cancellation of these coins, “Three unusual counterfeit Deniers Tournois”. It is noteworthy that prior to Zervos, none of the publications dealing with the Corinthian material had commented on the widespread medieval counterfeiting activities at the site, and that therefore some of the statistics deriving from the older excavations and publications are not usable in this regard.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: COUNTERFEITS

1487

deniers tournois were purposefully transferred to the area of «268» for cancellation. Counterfeit deniers tournois were in Corinth not used specifically as grave inclusions («218»). The chronological profiles of the counterfeits at the Frankish complex and elsewhere in the ‘Central Area’ are very tight: the great mass of counterfeits date, according to their prototypes, to the period 1299– 1304, with only a few outliers before and after. I managed to find merely eight coins at Corinth (see «263» and «266») which were of a cruder style, datable in all likelihood to the further course of the fourteenth century. The large-scale counterfeiting of Naupaktos issues requires a specific explanation. It would indeed have been within the five indicated years that most or even all of the genuine Naupaktos issues reached the town through trade and other forms of traffic in the Gulf of Corinth. If counterfeiting was rife in precisely that period then the issues of Naupaktos would have provided a logical prototype for counterfeiters. However, at «268» there were marginally more Clarentzan issues of Philip of Savoy than Naupaktos issues (15 and 11), both with very similar dating, while the latter were ten times more prone to be counterfeited. This pattern calls for an additional political explanation, namely the avoidance of the issues of the ruling prince as the prototype for counterfeiting, and the preference for the products of a mint situated outside of the principality, issuing in the name of another political entity. Perhaps knowledge of the fact that the genuine Naupaktian issues were inferior to their Clarentzan counterparts was spreading amongst the population,1400 and provided a further incentive to target this type for counterfeiting. Excavations at Clarentza have produced a very large quantity of late and crude counterfeits («262»: #870–#873),1401 although most of them may also have been gathered for cancellation by holing, halving, and quartering, and for eventual elimination in what has been termed the Eastern Gate Dump 2003.1402 They are also preferentially thrown into graves («216»: #869), together with counterfeit torneselli. The archaeological context at Clarentza would suggest that this activity is to be dated around the turn of the fifteenth century. Some documentary evidence underpins this phenomenon: in 1387 the Venetian authorities were concerned with counterfeit coinage entering their areas of interest (Messenia) from Navarrese-held territories, that is to say the northern part of the Peloponnese.1403 A little bit later the so-called despot of

1400  Appendix II.9.F, p. 1452. 1401  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, pp. 254–255. 1402  Athanasoulis and Baker, “Clarentza”, p. 273. 1403  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, doc. 32, p. 69, n. 7; doc. 33, p. 73, n. 14.

1488

appendix ii

Sclavonia,1404 that is to say Charles I of Tocco, who later attacked Clarentza in 1407, was also held responsible for counterfeiting. While it will remain difficult to attribute the counterfeits at Clarentza to any particular issuer, the documentary evidence as well as the attempts at eliminating the coins in question would point to a phenomenon which was extraneous to the principality, but which managed to impact on its core Elian territories. At the Athenian Agora («214», «238», «239») I have discerned two kinds of counterfeit tournois, those of good quality with recognisable prototypes (#836, #839, #847–#852, #855–#861), and those of crude style with meaningless legends (#876–#892).1405 Two («238») or three times («239») as many specimens were of the worse style. With regard to the better-quality specimens, their prototypes date similarly to those encountered at Corinth, that is to say the years just before and after 1300. Unlike in Corinth, the issues imitating those of Athens (leaving aside the distinctive group attributed to the Catalan Company: see the last discussion) prevail. At «238» there were 49 genuine and 16 counterfeit Athenian issues; at «239» nine and nine. While general activities at Corinth, and especially in the ‘Central Area’, ceased in 1312, life at the Athenian Agora continued unabated through the Catalan invasion in 1311. There are therefore no data, not even from the graves around the Hephaisteion («214») or the stratigraphical contexts of Appendix I.14, which can shed light on the dating of the two kinds of counterfeit tournois. We may assume that the better-quality counterfeits were produced from the later years of the thirteenth century until approximately the time of the Catalan conquest. The remainder of the counterfeits can then be distributed across the fourteenth and perhaps fifteenth centuries. The proposition that the Ottoman conquest of the town in 1460 brought on a spate of tournois counterfeiting1406 can presently not be verified, and it is possible that the majority of the counterfeiting had already taken place by that date. It is noteworthy that none of the large number of counterfeits I studied from the Athenian Agora were cancelled in the same way as the specimens from Corinth and Clarentza. This is obviously a reflection of the tolerant attitude towards these issues in Catalan times, and under the subsequent rulers of the town. Whether it demonstrates that also the majority of the better-quality counterfeits date to after 1311, or whether the previous Franco-Italian rulers were equally lenient towards counterfeits, remains uncertain.

1404  Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 406. 1405  See also the discussion in Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 302 and 336, nos 8 and 9. 1406  Tzamalis, Φραγκοκρατίας, pp. 121–122.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: COUNTERFEITS

1489

The large-scale nature of counterfeiting in Greece becomes apparent also from some of the smaller sites. We have relevant information for certain northern Peloponnesian sites («236. Argos»; «380. Trianta Zourtsas»: #874; «385. Zaraka»), for one site in the northeastern part of our territory («299. Kaninë»), and especially for eastern Mainland Greek sites («312. Lamia»; «315. Livadeia»; «340. Panakto»; «357. Thebes»). The latter cluster has already been discussed elsewhere and brought in connection with the counterfeiting observable at the Athenian Agora, to be interpreted no doubt in the light of the political fate of Attikoboiotia especially in the fourteenth century.1407 Only two Greek sites («237. Arta» and «351. Sparta») have yielded useful negative evidence regarding the phenomenon of counterfeiting, that is to say relatively good numbers of genuine tournois without any parallel counterfeit issues. There is perhaps a hint here that the main area affected by counterfeiting was the northern part of the principality and the eastern Mainland. One might point to the hoard from Ermitsa in the western Mainland («140»), with ca. 5% counterfeit issues, to contradict this. However, this is an exceptional hoard which is also in other ways able to accommodate sub-standard issues: note the 24 Artan coins which it contains.1408 In a similar vein, in the fifteenth century, as hoarders became more eclectic in the kinds of coins they considered (e.g. different penny coinages1409 and coppers1410), the percentages of counterfeits increase for «211. Chalkida» and «212. Corinth 10 November 1936». Consider additionally that some of the Campobasso coins present in Greece may have been local counterfeits: Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1481. What is required to further our understanding of tournois counterfeiting throughout the territory under consideration in this book is evidence from more sites, particularly from areas which are currently not properly covered. However, in order to apply the kind of statistical analyses which allow one to quantify and to date the extent of counterfeiting, and to describe associated phenomena of cancellations and discardings, only larger stratigraphical excavations can produce useful data. An alternative approach to the subject matter would be to compare specimens across hoards and sites in order to establish common typologies or indeed dies, which would then allow one to describe production and circulation in greater detail. Whether the results merit the considerable effort which such a venture would entail is uncertain. 1407  Baker, “Thessaly”, pp. 303 and 305. On the menace of counterfeit tournois or torneselli to Venetian Negroponte, see also Appendix II.4.F.2, p. 1332. 1408  Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1466–1476. 1409  Appendix II.5, pp. 1337–1342. 1410  Appendix II.12, pp. 1508–1509.

1490

appendix ii

An associated question is the nature of the tournois counterfeits which have been documented for Italian hoards and sites. One would need to assume that Greek tournois were usually checked for their quality and authenticity before being considered for export, and that the counterfeits encountered in Italy were therefore produced there.1411 A comparison of types and dies might also resolve this matter. 9.N Late Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Tournois of the Aegean In the Greek context, by the term ‘denier tournois’ we initially denote either imported French specimens,1412 or the kind of Greek-produced issues discussed in the present Appendix II.9. These were billon coins minted – with a few exceptions – on a standard in excess of 1g,1413 and about 10–30% silver. The obv. and rev. designs of cross patty and Tours castle were also largely standardised. The closure of the Clarentza mint some time before 13531414 ended the supply chain for this phase in the tournois coinage, although Greek tournois remained in circulation until the fifteenth century.1415 After the end of the indigenous tournois coinages of Greece, this denomination and the monies of account built on it were continued increasingly by the Venetian tornesello.1416 This development was marked by the reduction of the standard of the individual coins, and also by the abandonment of the characteristic castle design. From the turn of the fourteenth century, the tournois coinage of Greece had also gained in importance in the wider Aegean and Balkan area.1417 This Greek coinage was supplemented by local issues. After the demise of the Greek denier tournois in the middle of the century, these local issues continued to be produced, increasingly at lower standards just like the Venetian tornesello. Many Latin, Byzantine, and sub-Byzantine coinages of the Aegean are deemed by numismatists to have been tournois/tornesi, even in the absence of obvious markers such as the Tours castle. This interpretation was often made on the basis of the perceived standard of the coins in question, which might be said to link in with one of the prevailing tournois standards. It is obvious that once

1411  Baker, “Apulia”, p. 232. 1412  See Appendix II.3, pp. 1283–1293. 1413  See in this regard the information provided by Pegolotti: Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1379. 1414  Appendix II.9.A.13, pp. 1426–1427. 1415  Chapter 2, p. 134. 1416  Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 1417  Chapter 2, pp. 99–100.

COINAGES: GREEK AND RELATED TOURNOIS: LATE AEGEAN

1491

the initial design and standard of the tournois coinage had been abandoned, it actually becomes a matter of interpretation whether or not a coin is to be considered a tournois/tornese. In fact, this term is now applied so widely to diverse coinages of the later medieval Aegean and Balkans that its meaning has become watered down. I would propose to reserve it for thin and small pennystyle coins which command, or pretend to do so, a medium-range position in a given denominational system, between the fine silver and copper coinages. It is for this reason that I have for instance rejected the standard interpretation as tornese of the thick and squat copper coins of the last phase of minting in the Palaiologan empire (after 1372).1418 The history of the tournois and its standards is therefore convoluted and also controversial, although much of it lies outside of the confines of this book. Elsewhere in the present Appendix I have already gathered information on the various tornese issues encountered in small numbers in our area of study: late Byzantine tornesi from mints in Constantinople, Thessalonike and Lakonia (#161–#181);1419 a late châtel-type coin from the Knights of St. John (#378– #379);1420 and equally late tornesi of the Maona Company of Chios found in Attica and Boiotia (#385).1421 In this book I have not systematically documented the circulation of these and similar issues, such as the plentiful ‘tornesi’ of the Gattilusio issued in Ainos and perhaps elsewhere (#387)1422 in their natural environment in the eastern and northern Aegean. The general sparseness in Greece of such tornesi is all the more disappointing and reflects badly either on the coinages themselves, on the accounting systems which they represent, or in fact on Greece. Given the complete absence in Greece also of fine gold1423 and silver1424 coins of the same issuing authorities, and of Chios and Rhodes in particular, one cannot avoid the conclusion that it was Greece which was deficient in its ability to attract monetary specie, rather than the coinages in question.

1418  Appendix II.1.E.2, pp. 1269–1272. 1419  Appendix II.1.E, pp. 1268–1274. 1420  Appendix II.6.D, pp. 1346–1347. 1421  Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 1422  Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1272; II.6.F, pp. 1349–1350. 1423  Appendix II.4.D, p. 1306. 1424  See Appendix II.11 below.

1492 10

appendix ii

Tornesi of Naxos Excavation and single tornesi of Naxos: «331. Naxos». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #893–#896

Later medieval coins of the dukes of the Archipelago at Naxos are almost entirely known through the writings of Lambros1425 and Papadopoli,1426 on which more recent accounts are based.1427 Only a very limited number of specimens of Naxos has ever been recorded. In 1895 Papadopoli summarised the material previously presented by Lambros and contained in his own collection. Of the five coins he illustrated in line drawings, three remain available in the Papadopoli collection at the Museo Correr in Venice (one in the name of Duke Nicholas,1428 two of Duke John:1429 #896 and #893–#894 respectively). Apparently unbeknown to Papadopoli, there had already been an unpublished specimen of John in the old stock of the same Museo Correr (#893).1430 I was able to check all four of the coins in that museum and found no die links. Two coins in the name of Nicholas recently found at «331. Naxos» have so far not been further described or illustrated. An overall consensus has been reached that this is a low-quality billon penny coinage, minted in small quantities by Dukes Nicholas I Sanudo (1323–1341) and John I Sanudo (1341–1362). This scheme relied to a large degree on the perception that minting in Greece would have begun earlier rather than later within the fourteenth century, and that Nicholas I Sanudo, who was present at the battle of Almyros in 1311,1431 and participated in Prince John of Gravina’s Epirote campaign of 1324–1325,1432 was a worthy and logical initiator of such a coinage given his integration into the affairs of Achaïa and the Latin empire. I set out to verify this scheme,1433 particularly in the light of my belief that coinages are only ever conceived with a clear purpose in mind, and need to 1425  Lambros, “Unedierte Mittelaltermünzen”; Lambros, “Ducs de Naxos”. 1426  Papadopoli, “Zecca di Nasso”. 1427  See for instance Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, pp. 404–406; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 288–289; Baker, “Nasso”. 1428  Castellani, Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini, no. 16017, which is Papadopoli, “Zecca di Nasso”, p. 463, no. 1. 1429  Castellani, Raccolta Numismatica Papadopoli-Aldobrandini, nos 16018–16019 (= Papadopoli, “Zecca di Nasso”, p. 464, nos 1 and 3). 1430  Serie italiana, no. 1315. 1431  Thiriet, Romanie vénitienne, p. 159. 1432  According to the letters of the chronicler Marino Sanudo: Bon, Morée franque, p. 205, n. 4. 1433  Baker, “Cicladi medievali”.

COINAGES: TORNESI OF NAXOS

1493

find a place in a pre-existing system of values.1434 An obvious position of the described coins within a particular phase of the monetary history of the Cyclades1435 can only be found in the second half of the fourteenth century. The physical properties of these coins – small billon pieces of less than half a gramme – are in fact those of the Venetian tornesello, which totally dominated the islands after its inception in 1353.1436 It would certainly be preferable to view these coins as torneselli rather than to point to any superficial analogies with much earlier petty denomination coins of Achaïa.1437 The obvious problem with this interpretation is the attribution of the pieces reading Nicholas to Nicholas I Sanudo. My identification of the Naxian coins as tornesi on the Venetian standard rests on the following considerations: the example of the Byzantine tornese shows that the tornesello was copied even without obvious iconographical allusions to the prototype within fourteenth century Greece.1438 In fact, as long as one avoided the Venetian design, the “stampa de la moneda de la Signoria di Veniexia”, as it is specified in a later act,1439 the imitation of the denomination as such was not objectionable. Even though the dukes were usually Venetian citizens, the right to mint in Naxos would have been subject to the princes of Achaïa according to the constitutional settlement of 1240–1248.1440 Finally, upon examining the available specimens of the coins of Naxos, two matters become quite obvious. The coins in the name of John clearly divide into two varieties, those with broad central cross potents on the rev., and others with much thinner crosses and more delicately indented extremities. The former are very much in line with the usual tournois issues of Greece, the latter are much more akin to some of the later issues of the Aegean, for instance those of Chios.1441 The coins in the name of Nicholas are always of the latter, that is to say later, variety. Second, while the issues in the name of John bear the family name of Sanudo, this is not the case for those in the name of Nicholas. In summary, I would suggest that the tornese coinage of Naxos was begun some time after 1353 by Duke John, and continued either after 1364 by his son-in-law 1434  Such considerations have, for instance, informed my decision to interpret Manfred’s supposed pennies as billon trachea: Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. 1435  On this point see again Baker, “Cicladi medievali” and Chapter 4, pp. 479–483. 1436  Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 1437  Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 289. The type in question is Corinthian type 8 of William of Villehardouin, bearing the obv. frontal portrait of the prince: Appendix II.8.B.2, pp. 1367–1372. 1438  Appendix II.1.E, pp. 1268–1274. 1439  Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, p. 406, n. 39. 1440  Appendix II.9.H, p. 1463, n. 1332. 1441  See Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349.

1494

appendix ii

Nicholas II, second husband of his daughter Florence,1442 or more likely by his grandson and Florence’ son Nicholas III dalle Carceri (1371–1383). Finally, it should be noted that, in the transition from John to Nicholas’ issues, the obv. and rev. was switched over in the sense that the dukes’ names variously appear on the side bearing the cross or the head. 11

Western Large Silver Coinages

The creation of fine and large silver coinages in the Latin West, known in the vernaculars and by modern numismatists as groats, gros, grossi, etc.,1443 was a particular feature of the economic and political expansion and emancipation which occurred from the later twelfth century onwards.1444 Northern and central Italy was at the forefront of these developments, and the Venetian grosso was the single most important exponent of the Italian grosso currencies.1445 The coinages discussed under the present heading belong to the second phase of the European groats. These were born from monetary reforms in the second half of the thirteenth century in the kingdoms of France and Sicily (Naples), and emitted in significant quantities from the turn of the fourteenth century onwards by these and related political entities: French royal gros tournois, saluti and gigliati of Angevin Naples, gigliati of the counts of Provence and of the popes in exile, and pierreali of Aragonese Messina (all but the first of which would have been known to contemporaries as carlini), are addressed in separate headings below. The Venetian grosso and these more recent silver coinages of the French and South Italian traditions are the only groat currencies to have circulated in Greece and the surrounding areas. It is certainly worthy of note that none of the other prolific northern and central Italian grossi have been documented there, nor any other groats of central and western European origin. While Greece and the northern and eastern parts of the Aegean shared to some extent the circulation patterns for grossi/gros, it was only in the latter areas, that is to say outside of our primary territory of concern, that these were copied.1446 None 1442   Who aided the Venetians greatly in helping to crush the Cretan revolt: Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 35, no. 786 (1365). 1443  Which are synonymous: in the present discussion I use gros or grosso for specifically French or Italian coins, and groat as an umbrella term. 1444  Chapter 1, p. 62. 1445  Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1296–1302. 1446  The principal types that were copied were the Venetian grosso – notably in Serbia, Bulgaria, Chios and Byzantium (see Appendix II.1.F, p. 1275; II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305; II.6.E,

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

1495

of the resulting imitative coinages have even been documented in Greece. The most important examples of this phenomenon are: – In the years before 1310 the knights of St. John at Rhodes and the kingdom of Cyprus issued short-lived currencies based on the French gros tournois.1447 – Later, the Knights shifted to a silver currency based on the Neapolitan and Provençal gigliato.1448 This coinage has been traditionally dated after 1330 according to the chronology of the gigliati of Provence, although the latter has been revised (see below), and it is therefore likely that Rhodes started issuing gigliati in the 1320s. These gigliati were minted until the late fifteenth century with the distinctive obv. type featuring the successive grandmasters kneeling before the cross. – Neapolitan and Provençal gigliati were copied more overtly in Anatolia. These imitative issues, usually in the name of Robert of Anjou, have been known for some time,1449 and are usually considered to be illicit counterfeits of the mid-fourteenth century. In my analyses of the Ephesos, Kasos and Miletos hoards, which contain such issues in good quantities, I suggest that at least some of the coins bear the hallmarks of official issues. These must be attributed to some of the emirates which also emitted signed copies (see below). – These signed gigliati mentioning the cities of Manisa (Magnesia ad Sipylum), Palatia (Miletos), and Theologos (Ephesos), were produced in relatively small quantities, and are often stylistically close to the more overtly imitative issues which have just been discussed.1450 Although the legends are in Latin and the issues are more often than not anonymous beside identifying a mint location, the coins are usually ascribed to the Anatolian emirates of Saruhan, Menteşe and Aydın, which otherwise minted smaller silver and billon coins of the Islamic tradition. Ender suggested rather implausibly that the gigliati were minted by Latins in the stated locations, a proposition denied by Reis.1451 The latter dates all three issues early, to a short period p. 1348) –, the gros tournois and the gigliato. Specifically on the widespread imitation of the latter, see Grierson, “Gillat ou carlin de Naples-Provence”. 1447  Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 202–203 and 296–297; Mazarakis, “Coins of Rhodes”, pp. 193–211. 1448  See, from the large bibliography, Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 239–267; Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 297–302; Kasdagli, Clerkenwell; Mazarakis, “Coins of Rhodes”, pp. 211–219. Important is also the coin list and discussion contained in Beckenbauer, “Johanniterorden”. 1449  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 489–490. 1450  Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 478–490, with reference to the older bibliography of Karabacek, Lambros, Friedlaender. See further Ruß, “Kleinasiatische Imitationen neapolitanischer Gigliati”. 1451  Kürkman and Ender, Fourteenth century Aegean Anatolian begliks; Ender, Beylikleri paraları; Reis, “Zur Datierungen der lateinischen Prägungen der anatolischen beyliks”. See

1496

appendix ii

in the 1320s or early 1330s. Anatolian gigliati, insofar as we possess any information in this respect at all, have naturally been found in their area of origin. One issue of Magnesia is now at Edirne Museum.1452 – The Chiot Maona Company issued gigliati sometime after 1347.1453 The complex typology of these issues has been recently re-considered.1454 In the light of the hoards from Ephesos and Kasos mentioned below, and the overstrikes discussed by Mazarakis, the period in which production commenced would have been the 1350s or later. – A rare Lesbian issue of Francesco I Gattilusio (1355–1384) is only known from one specimen.1455 – Related to these issues, but nevertheless a case apart, are the new and heavy Byzantine silver coins of ca. 1372, also known occasionally as the stavraton,1456 a term which the Greek-language sources used for the gigliato. The Byzantine stavraton coin attempted to tie Byzantine coinage to the accounting systems of its neighbours: stavrata were not merely valued at half a Byzantine hyperpyron, but also at two gigliati, and at eight aspra, which could be Byzantine or Ottoman.1457 These imitative gros tournois and gigliati, together with their French and Italian prototypes, have been extensively hoarded in the wider Aegean area. The following are the most significant hoards outside of our primary region which provide important elements of comparison:1458 also K. MacKenzie in Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter, 168 (2001), pp. 7–9; L. Ilisch in A Survey of Numismatic Research 1996–2001, Madrid (2003), p. 645. 1452  Baker, “Edirne”, no. 180. 1453   Lambros, “Monnaies inédites de Chio”, pp. 257–259; Schlumberger, Numismatique, pp. 416–417; Lunardi, Monete delle colonie genovesi, pp. 189–190; Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις”, pp. 61 and 65; Mazarakis, “Chio”, pp. 847, 851–854, 891–893; Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου, pp. 158–159, 169–171. See also the other coins of the Maona at Chios discussed in Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349. 1454  See the last two items of Mazarakis in the last note and Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 365; Baker, “Chio”. 1455  Published by Giacosa, “Gigliato inedito di Francesco I Gattilusio” and unjustifiably reattributed to Francesco II (1384–1403) in Kofopoulos and Mazarakis, I Gattilusio, pp. 415– 417 (see with respect to dating and attribution: Oberländer-Târnoveanu, “Francesco Ier Gattilusio”, p. 226, n. 10; pp. 232–233, n. 24). Compare Appendix II.4.E.5 and II.6.F, pp. 1325 and 1349–1350, for the remainder of the coins of Lesbos. 1456  Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1276–1277. 1457  See Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1353. 1458  Reading through the relevant numismatic literature one finds sporadic mentions of additional hoards which are otherwise unpublished or no longer available: see for instance Mazarakis, “Chio”, pp. 853–854, n. 105. These hoards are used extensively for the discussions in Baker and Kluge, “Milet”, and Baker, “Wood’s 1871 Artemision hoard”.

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

1497

– The early part of a double-hoard from the island of Chios (Siderounta 18871459) contained gigliati of Rhodes, the papacy, and ‘Naples’ (a term which might encompass also Provençal and local imitative issues), beside Venetian grossi. The coins are apparently no longer available, which is all the more unfortunate since the hoard appears to date relatively early, certainly before 1350, and would have the potential of clarifying a number of chronologies of production and circulation. – A large hoard was excavated at the Artemision of Ephesos containing gigliati of Naples, Provence, Rhodes, Chios, the papacy, in addition to one Venetian grosso and official and unofficial issues of the Anatolian emirates.1460 The hoard is partially preserved at the British Museum. The hoard would have been concealed in ca. 1365 according to the evidence of the Rhodian pieces. – The early part of another possible double hoard, from Kasos in the southern Sporades (now part of the Dodecanese), concealed ca. 1370, contained French gros tournois, gigliati of Naples, Provence, Chios, Rhodes, and unofficial Anatolian imitations.1461 – A hoard of Rhodian, Neapolitan, Provençal, Chiot, and unofficial Anatolian gigliati was excavated by the German Archaeological Institute at Miletos in 1903.1462 Its date of concealment is approximately the same as that of the Kasos hoard. – «497. Istanbul Belgratkapı 1987», concealed probably in 1379, contained gigliati of Provence, Rhodes, and imitative Anatolian gigliati of Provençal type, beside stavrata and their eighths, and many other coinages listed in Appendix I and in the relevant bibliography. In addition to the mixed hoards from Anatolia and the islands which did not belong to the territory controlled directly by the Order of St. John, there is a group of hoards from the Dodecanese which contain only issues of the 1459  Gnecchi, “Scio”; Mazarakis, “Το εύρημα της Σιδερούντας”; Metcalf, Ashmolean, p. 351, no. 201; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 29; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 177. 1460  Grueber, “Coins found at Ephesos”; MEC, p. 225; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 27; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 178; Baker, “Dodecanese”. In this last item I illustrated some pieces from the hoard, and in Baker, “Wood’s 1871 Artemision hoard” a more thorough typological assessment and die study of the extant specimens is provided. 1461  This is the hoard acquired by Hasluck at Smyrna in 1912: Hasluck, “Hoard of medieval coins from the Sporades”; see further Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 353–354, no. 210; Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean”, p. 283; MEC, p. 225; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 222, n. 28; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 178. In Baker, “Kasos” I considered the typology of the specimens which are now in the collections in London and Cambridge. 1462  Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 177; Baker and Kluge, “Milet”. Another similar hoard from the early German excavations at Miletos is now preserved at the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul.

1498

appendix ii

latter.1463 There are also some gigliati found on Cyprus and further afield.1464 In order to understand the character of the Greek and Aegean hoards of French and South Italian gros tournois, saluti, gigliati, and pierreali, one must also bear in mind the hoarding patterns for these denominations in their indigenous contexts. Some South Italian gigliato hoards are recorded in Appendix I by virtue of their inclusion also of Greek deniers tournois («389», «390», «397», «398», «403»), and additional hoards have been comprehensively listed on other occasions.1465 Only one South Italian hoard of gros tournois has been recorded.1466 There are a number of hoards of pierreali from Sicily.1467 The overall picture from South Italy and Sicily is quite straightforward: the different series are progressively included in the hoards as older specimens drop out of circulation, and there is an overwhelming, if not total, dominance of the issues of the political entities in which hoarding took place.1468 In France there are merely two hoards which contain small quantities of Italian gigliati,1469 for the first of which what appears to be a pierreale is also reported. In the following discussions of the individual coinage issues I will point to the different idiosyncrasies which can be observed regarding their presence in Greece, as compared to the wider Aegean, and to their areas of origin. Only sporadic mention is made of western large silver coinages in the documentary sources pertaining to our area of interest. In the later 1270s there is some evidence, discussed below, that the gros tournois, but probably not the carlino, was transferred from the Regno to northern Epiros/southern Albania. The accounts for the Peloponnesian territories of Nicholas Acciauoli translate values given in hyperpyra, sterlings, and tournois into gigliati.1470 This is done 1463  Summarised in Metcalf, Ashmolean, pp. 300–301. 1464  The Cypriot finds are summarised in Baker, “Apulia”, p. 240 and Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 178. At the BnF there is a hoard which originates in Sidon or Tyre, present-day Lebanon, containing gigliati of Chios, Provence, Naples, Rhodes, beside Venetian grossi, French gros tournois, and two local coins: Yvon, “Deux trésors” and Yvon, “Monnaies occidentales”. 1465  M  EC, pp. 416–421; Baker, “Apulia”, p. 221; Baker, “Casálbore”, pp. 179–180; Baker, “Tipologia ed epigrafia”, p. 379. 1466  From Vibo Valentia, published by Arslan: MEC, p. 424, no. 111. For an exceptional single gros tournois find from Puglia, see Degasperri, “Salento”, p. 412–413. 1467  M  EC, pp. 417–422. 1468  During the minting period of parallel issues of carlini in the Angevin and Aragonese kingdoms, only one hoard each from either side of the Straights of Messina contained coins of the opposing political entity: MEC, no. 37 (Maranise, Catanzaro province), and no. 89 (Sicily). 1469  Duplessy, Trésors monétaires médiévaux, p. 129, no. 317, and p. 131, no. 325. 1470  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. 2 (1337), p. 53, lines 6–10; and doc. 3 (1338), pp. 57–58, lines 26–1. Compare also Appendix III.3.

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

1499

to facilitate communication. In 1361 Empress Mary of Bourbon is informed by her representative Nicholas of Boiano that certain payments had been wrongly made in “la melyo moneta de vostre raysuni”.1471 It is quite possible that these were carlini, although in the wider sense they may have been the gold coins which, according to the same document,1472 were otherwise so hard to come by. This would also explain the particular indignation about the actions of Mary’s treasurer. The appearance of gigliati and stavrata in sources pertaining to the eastern and northern Aegean, sometimes in parallel, has been extensively commented on.1473 Much in this body of sources confirms circulation patterns which are otherwise known from the numismatic record: e.g. the respective domination of the gigliato coin (from the 1330s) in Anatolia and the islands, and of the Byzantine stavraton coin at least in the cities of Thessalonike and Constantinople in the fifteenth century. Some points of interpretation remain unconvincing: I discuss elsewhere that the ‘nomismata stavrata’ in a 1346 Serbian act from the Athonite monastery of Chilander make reference in all likelihood to Serbian grossi rather than to gigliati.1474 Grierson’s belief that Provençal double gigliati were present in the Aegean in this period is also rather implausible. It is much more likely that Greek speakers referred to the first gigliati they encountered from Naples, Provence, Rhodes and elsewhere as stavrata, and that the term was then transferred to the new Byzantine silver coin of ca. 1372, even if it was twice as heavy. The sources pertaining to the Genoese colonies in the eastern Aegean, and to other territories,1475 still require evaluation as to the precise identities of the gigliato issues to which references are made, although this naturally lies beyond the scope of this book.

1471  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. 8 (1361), p. 145, lns 22–23. 1472  Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1310. 1473  Zachariadou, Trade and Crusade, pp. 142–143; 171; 214; Hendy, Studies, pp. 542–544; Grierson, “Premiers stavrata”; Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, pp. 156–157; Grierson, “Le dernier siècle du monnayage byzantin”, pp. 111–115; DOC V, pp. 29–31. Consider also Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde”, although the author’s thesis that the stavraton was never a Byzantine coin needs to be rejected. 1474  Appendix II.4.C, p. 1305. 1475  A fourteenth-century account book of Rhodian (?) origin refers in all likelihood to the two successive issues of the knights of St. John: Schreiner, Texte, doc. 2, pp. 65–79.

1500

appendix ii

11.A Gros Tournois of France Hoards containing gros tournois of France: «109. Eleusina 1862», «121. Delphi 1894Δ», «122. Thebes 1967».1476 Excavation and single gros tournois of France: «363. Thebes». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #897–#898 In 1266 King Louis IX created a multiple, fine silver denomination, the gros tournois. This was minted at a weight standard of 58 to the marc (4.22g), and a fineness of 0.958 (argent-le-roi),1477 and was officially worth 12 of the royal French deniers tournois.1478 The French gros tournois were arguably the first of the new Franco-Italian groat denominations to reach our area.1479 It had become available in Italy in short succession to its creation:1480 gros tournois were part of the famous Trapani shipwreck of 1270 and already inhibited from circulating in the Regno in 1272, followed by more legislation within the same decade. In 1278 Charles I of Anjou increased his efforts in the area of Epiros/Albania, seeking to fight back recent advances by Emperor Michael VIII and to claim all the locations previously held by Manfred of Hohenstaufen and his admiral Chinardo.1481 Hugh of Sully was appointed captain and vicar-general in the summer of 1279, but his troops were famously routed at Berat during 1280–1281. This expedition saw the documented transfer of gold florins,1482 Venetian grossi,1483 and also of French gros tournois, from Italy across the Ionian Sea. While it appears to be certain that gros tournois were available in the northwestern part of our territory, at least in the area between Corfu/Butrint and Berat, from the late 1270s onwards, no such specimens have so far come to light. Coins taken by a

1476  In addition to the finds listed here from Appendix I, the Argos 2005a hoard published in Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”, pp. 227–228, contained one gros tournois which could not be considered in any greater detail. 1477  Fournial, Histoire monétaire, pp. 84–85; Belaubre, Histoire numismatique, pp. 68–69. An entire conference has been dedicated to this coinage: Mayhew, Gros tournois. 1478  Discussed in Appendix II.3.B, pp. 1286–1289. 1479  Compare on what follows also Appendix III, pp. 1529 and 1555. 1480  See Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean”, pp. 282–287, for a very detailed exposition of the documentary and numismatic evidence. 1481  Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 15–26. See also the discussion of Manfred’s coinage in or for Romania: Appendix II.7, pp. 1353–1357. 1482  Appendix II.4.D, p. 1311. 1483  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 217, n. 73.

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

1501

representative of the Neapolitan court in 1292 from the canons of Corinth and Athens comprised over 3000 Venetian grossi and 480 gros tournois.1484 The generation of gros tournois which has been found in the Greek peninsula and adjoining territories was minted in the names of Kings Philip (III, IV, perhaps V), which creates obvious problems of attribution. According to the older classification system, listed in the comprehensive works of Ciani and Lafaurie, and summarised by Duplessy,1485 the break between Philip III (1270–1285) and IV (1285–1314) is principally marked by the addition of a second P in the obv. legend. The issues of Philip IV are varied, with differently executed or ornamented letters on the rev. (T, L, O). An extremely detailed typology has been developed more recently by van Hengel, on the basis of yet more letterforms.1486 As far as we are concerned, this has led most fundamentally to the spread of some of the substantive varieties bearing the PP in the obv. legend across the reigns of Philips III and IV (for an example, see #897). Only a very few gros tournois finds have been made in our area, others in adjoining territories.1487 The Greek finds are confined to the eastern Mainland.1488 We lack detailed typological information on any of the gros tournois contained in «109. Eleusina 1862», «121. Delphi 1894Δ», or «122. Thebes 1967». For this reason, general attributions to Philip III (1270–1285) and/or Philip IV (1285–1314), and to a much lesser degree to Philip V (1316–1322), have been proposed for these coins. The main reasons for presuming a rather early profile for the gros tournois found in Greece are the following: the overall datings of these hoards; the new classification system which gives more issues to Philip III; the single coin from «363. Thebes», which is attributed to Philip III; the gros tournois element in the aforementioned Kasos hoard, which was either an issue of Philip IV or an imitation thereof possibly also from this early period of minting in the name Philip (see #898);1489 the new coinages based on the gros tournois launched by the crusader states in Rhodes and Cyprus in the years before 1310;1490 and finally the historical context for the first appearance of these issues in this part of Greece. In fact Lenormant’s thesis put forward in his publication of the hoard from Eleusina, whereby gros tournois were part of Thibaut de Chepoix’ assignment in 1308–1309, rings as true today as it did a century and a half ago. Charles of Valois, son of King Philip III 1484  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, pp. 52–54, no. 40. 1485  Duplessy, Monnaies françaises royales, pp. 99, 106–108, 118, 133–136. 1486  Van Hengel, “Classification for gros tournois”. 1487  See Phillips, “The gros tournois in the Mediterranean”, esp. pp. 282–287. 1488  With the exception of the Argos hoard, referred to in n. 1476. 1489  See n. 1461. The coin is classified as Van Hengel, 519.02–03var. 1490  See n. 1447 above.

1502

appendix ii

and pretender to the imperial title, tried to make his claims felt in this period of instability, which was caused by the presence of the Catalan Company in the northern Aegean.1491 He sent Thibaut as an envoy to the Company, armed with huge amounts of money according to the eye-witness account of Muntaner. He bought his way into the political circles of Latin Greece, and even led the Catalan Company for a while trying in vain to turn it against the Byzantines. It seems, in summary, that the appearance and vogue for the gros tournois in Greece and the wider area in a relatively confined period might have been largely linked to this enterprise, and that, by contrast, the earlier campaign of Sully failed to leave a lasting mark on the monetary landscape of the region. 11.B

Saluti and Gigliati of Sicily (Naples) Hoards containing saluti and/or gigliati of Sicily (Naples): «111. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B», «112. Pikermi/Spata 1936», «120. Athenian Agora 1939», «121. Delphi 1894Δ», «122. Thebes 1967».1492 Excavation and single saluti and/or gigliati of Sicily (Naples): «238. Athenian Agora», «242. Athens», «262. Clarentza», «345. Peta». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #899–#907

In 1278–1279 King Charles I of Anjou first issued a fine and large silver coinage at the newly established mint of Naples.1493 This coin, as well as the reformed coin of 1302–1303, and indeed its Aragonese successor at the Messina mint, would largely have been known, after its first issuer, as the ‘carlino’. Terms such as ‘saluto’, ‘gigliato’, ‘pierreale’, and others, are known from some contemporary sources, but are mostly designed to allow numismatists to be more precise about the issues in question. The new saluto of 1278–1279, named after the Annunciation scene on the obv., was .929 fine and 3.34g heavy. After Charles’ death in 1285 the type was continued for his son Charles II, distinguished principally by the addition of ScD (secundus) in the obv. legend1494 (see #899). 1491  Longnon, L’empire, pp. 296–298. 1492  In addition to the finds listed here from Appendix I, the Argos 2005a hoard published in Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”, pp. 227–228, contained three Neapolitan gigliati. To judge from the two illustrated specimens, these are varieties which date a good two to three decades earlier than the actual concealment of the hoard in ca. 1340. 1493  M  EC, pp. 205–206, with references to earlier bibliography, principally Cagiati and Sambon. 1494  M  EC, pp. 218–219.

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

1503

In 1302–1303 he issued a new carlino of higher standard which maintained nevertheless the previous value of 60 to the ounce of account1495 (see #900 and #901). This coin bore the king in majesty on the obv. and the lilied cross on the rev., from which the term gigliato derives. It was .934 fine and 4.009g heavy. This coin was continued in 1309 by King Robert (see #902ff).1496 New issues of saluti and gigliati were therefore inaugurated at the Naples mint in 1278–1279, 1285, 1302–1303, and 1309, with changes of type or arrivals of new kings. Within these periods, the issues were very consistent and no further typological or stylistical sub-divisions are obvious. This situation changed with the kingship of Robert of Anjou (1309–1343), since gigliati were produced in his name in many different varieties and qualities, and certifiably long beyond the date of his death. The classic works of Cagiati and Sambon, amongst others, take such considerations into account. I have tried to establish a unified system of referencing and dating for gigliati in Robert’s name in the light of a large hoard from the Campania region.1497 Inspired by material which I viewed elsewhere,1498 and by my involvement with the publication of «403. Muro Leccese», I extended this typology into the fifteenth century for a presentation given at Bari in 2010.1499 The early Groups 1 and 2 (#902–#906), and their subdivisions a and b, are based on different legends and marks on the obv. Group 3, on larger flans, with larger lettering and a benevolently smiling king, was presumably the first posthumous issue. Following the Hungarian occupation of Naples (1348), which resulted in the short-lived and idiosyncratic Group 4 (#907), we move through ulterior developments of Group 3: Group 3bis (perhaps until the 1380s), and Group 3ter into the fifteenth century, are progressively inferior versions of Group 3.1500 Recent attempts to locate the great mass of known robertini from the late fourteenth century onwards are entirely unconvincing, principally because they fail to take into account the fundamental facts that have and can be established by the proper analysis of types and hoards.1501

1495  M  EC, pp. 219–220; Baker, “Casálbore”, p. 157. 1496  M  EC, pp. 224–225. 1497  Baker, “Casálbore”. Comments on my proposed typologies are contained in Testa, “Le type du gillat napolitain”; Testa, “I gigliati napoletani”. 1498  Principally hoards kept at Reggio Calabria, which will be the subject of future collaborative publications with Daniele Castrizio. 1499  Baker, “Tipologia ed epigrafia”. 1500  A few notes on the typology of these Neapolitan pieces are also contained in Testa “Trois monnaies medievales”. 1501  Perfetto, “Ladislao di Durazzo” and “Giovanna II d’Angiò”.

1504

appendix ii

Greek finds of saluti and gigliati are relatively sparse and we do not always possess all the relevant typological information.1502 Given the long history of gigliato production at late medieval Naples, the early profile of the Greek finds is particularly noteworthy. «111. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B» contains a single Group 1a coin of Robert dating presumably 1309–1317. «112. Pikermi/ Spata 1936» had one coin of Charles II beside two of Robert, the latter of uncertain Group. «120. Athenian Agora 1939» again displays a mix of coins of the two kings and closes the series with Group 1b (dating from 1317 to somewhere between 1321 and 1323: #905). «121. Delphi 1894Δ» and «122. Thebes 1967» contain earlier saluti and close their gigliato series respectively with Charles II and Robert’s Group 1b. The stray finds of Greece are all equally early. The eastern Aegean finds of Neapolitan fine silver coins are markedly different: there are no saluti there, but the gigliati of Robert are well spread, covering also Groups 3 and 3bis (Miletos and Kasos). Group 4, which can be attributed to the Hungarian presence in Naples and is within Italy largely confined to the Casalbore hoard, is quite common: there are specimens at Ephesos, Miletos and in the two recorded Cypriot hoards. Perhaps they were specifically selected for export? It seems, in summary, that Neapolitan fine silver coins started reaching Greece earlier than other parts of the Aegean, certainly by the 1290s, but that Greece experienced an arrested development in this movement of specie sometime in the second or third decade of the fourteenth century, whereas the supply to Anatolia and the islands continued unabated, certainly beyond mid-century. In fact, the imports into Anatolia of Italian gigliati might have increased in the 1350s and 1360s, after a relative lull in the 1340s. Unlike in Italy itself, older specie was not culled in Anatolia, which accounts for the good representation of the earliest Groups 1 and 2 in the hoards there. 11.C

Gigliati of the Counts of Provence Hoards containing gigliati of the counts of Provence: «112. Pikermi/Spata 1936» (?), «120. Athenian Agora 1939», «122. Thebes 1967». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #908

1502  The subject has been treated extensively in Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”. An earlier compilation of finds was made by Metcalf, “Monete del Regno di Sicilia”. Consider also the Argos hoard, mentioned above (p. 1500, n. 1476) which could not be included in Appendix I and for which no further typological information is available.

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

1505

The first count of Provence to issue gigliati of the Neapolitan type was King Robert (1309–1343). Provençal gigliati have received less scholarly attention than their Neapolitan counterparts, which is no doubt in some measure a reflection of the limited archaeological data which have emerged from France and Italy, and the seemingly static typology. The eastern Aegean evidence is all the more interesting and important in this respect. Much of the bibliography regarding Provençal gigliati – and this includes Rolland’s standard reference work1503 – assumes that the series began as late as 1330. This has now been revised by Bompaire to as early as 1315,1504 based on documentary sources and the fact that the gigliati of Provence would have predated the papal ones of late 1317 (see the next discussion). This early production would have taken place at the Saint Remy mint. None of our Greek hoards which contain such issues are therefore knowingly dated by them. All of these hoards seem to contain, insofar as we possess any information in this regard (currently limited to my autopsy at the Athenian Agora and one of Kravartogiannos’ articles), only specimens of the standard and early type, with the fine, spindly figure of the king and the small and neat shape of the lettering and rev. lilied cross, which are illustrated for instance by Poey d’Avant1505 and Rolland.1506 Provençal gigliati in Robert’s name are even rarer in Greece than their Neapolitan counterparts. Testa has contributed significantly to our knowledge by publishing absolute figures for «122. Thebes 1967», revealing a 1:3 relationship of the two issues. We currently do not know whether the said Provençal type comes to a similarly early close as the Group 1b variety of Naples from the same hoard (early 1320s: see above). What we do know is that Provence continued producing gigliati in Robert’s name into the second half of the fourteenth century,1507 and that the types would eventually move away from the early variety, but that these were absent from Greece. Much as in the case of Neapolitan gigliati, the Provençal gigliati available in Anatolia and its islands show a greater typological variety and longevity than their Greek counterparts. The specimens in the Kasos hoard are quite diverse. Some seem to parallel the posthumous Neapolitan Group 3bis, others even have Neapolitan rev. legends. Some slightly earlier coins in the name of Robert appear to be typological parallels to the issues in the name of Louis and

1503  Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence. 1504  Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 364, n. 68. 1505  M  onnaies féodales de France, 2, no. 3982. 1506  M  onnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 215 and pl. II.51 (two specimens). 1507  Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, pp. 140–141, no. 51; p. 148; p. 165; p. 176.

1506

appendix ii

Joanna (1349–1362), which have been unjustifiably reattributed from Provence to Naples.1508 The Ephesos hoard is in fact the main repository of these particular issues.1509 11.D

Gigliati of the Popes at Avignon Hoards containing gigliati of the popes at Avignon: «120. Athenian Agora 1939», «121. Delphi 1894Δ», «122. Thebes 1967». Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #909

Another gigliato issue which appears in the Greek record of coin finds is in the name of Pope John XXII (1316–1334) for the Comtat Venaissin, which was minted at Pont-de-Sorgues. This well-known issue is naturally listed in all the relevant catalogues of French feudal and papal coins.1510 There are no obvious typological divisions within this tight issue (beside a slight variation in the legend: see Bompaire’s comments), nor are there any particularly compelling hoards – in France or elsewhere – which can help us to situate its chronological parameters. Nevertheless, the issue is dated through documentary sources precisely to the period December 1317 to May 1321.1511 The papal issue was most closely related to the gigliato of the counts of Provence, together with which it circulated. This is certainly the case for the three cited Greek hoards, and for the hoards of Siderounta and Ephesos in the eastern Aegean. It is not easy to gauge from this material – which is either too small or inadequately known – the relative order of magnitude of these issues. We may suppose similar rates of production at the mints of Saint Remy and Pont-de-Sorgues for the early respective types, which might have been minted in a similar timeframe. Only in the Ephesos hoard, which also contains later issues of the counts, do we find significantly more Provençal than papal gigliati.

1508  Rolland, Monnaies des comtes de Provence, p. 150, no. 74. 1509  Baker, “Dodecanese”, p. 375. 1510  Poey d’Avant, Monnaies féodales de France, 2, p. 348; Berman, Papal Coins, pp. 53–54. 1511  Bompaire, “Monnaie de Pont-de-Sorgues”, pp. 142–143 and 162–163.

COINAGES: WESTERN LARGE SILVER

11.E

1507

Pierreali of Sicily Hoards containing pierreali of Sicily: «109. Eleusina 1862», «111. Athens Roman Agora (Lytsika) 1891B», «112. Pikermi/Spata 1936», «121. Delphi 1894Δ», «122. Thebes 1967», «167. Kaparelli».1512 Coin illustrations relating to the present discussion: #910–#913

Many of the gigliato hoards of Greece contain also issues of Aragonese Sicily. These carlini, which are also known as pierreali in recognition of the fact that the first issues were in the name of Peter of Aragon, were minted at the Messina mint from 1282 onwards, and remained on the initial carlino standard also after the introduction of the heavier gigliato in Naples (1302/1303).1513 There would therefore have been a purely monetary reason – beside the obvious political one – for pierreali and gigliati to have had different patterns of circulation. In fact, with only a very few exceptions that have already been cited, the two denominations were not hoarded together in Italy or France. Pierreali are also absent from the eastern Aegean, as were the saluti of the Naples mint which have already been discussed. The typologies of the pierreali of the three rulers which interest us, Peter of Aragon (with his wife Constance) (1282–1285),1514 James (1285–1296),1515 and Frederick III (II) (1296–1337),1516 are complex but well established. The problems which we face, beside the inadequacies of some of the data regarding the Greek finds, are the longevity of Frederick’s reign, the uncertain chronology of his three types, and the fact that a number of our hoards are actually dated by his issues. The earliest hoard to contain pierreali is «109. Eleusina 1862», which is quite well dated by the other coinages it contains. I have already stated that the information given by Lenormant as to the identity of the individual pierreali is not entirely trustworthy. There follows a group of four hoards which are all certainly or potentially dated by Frederick’s issues. Finally, there are two later outliers: the unpublished Argos hoard (see above), containing an impressive number of pierreali (35), which is to the best of our knowledge dated by a grosso of B. Gradenigo (1339–1342); and «167. Kaparelli» from the 1350s or 1512  Note also the Argos 2005a hoard of diverse coinages: Kossyva, “‘Θησαυρός’ Φραγκικών νομισμάτων” and Kossyva, “Άργος”. 1513  M  EC, p. 260ff. 1514  M  EC, p. 262. 1515  M  EC, p. 264. 1516  M  EC, pp. 266–267.

1508

appendix ii

1360s. Galani-Krikou and I have discussed the profile of the pierreale issues in Greece on another occasion.1517 The picture which is emerging, despite the significant lacunae in the available data, would suggest, in contrast to Metcalf’s earlier assessment, that Sicilian pierreali reached Greece in a steady flow over a decade or two at the very least, and that these issues were used and circulated in this specific part of Greece, rather than being immediately subjected to cullings and hoarding upon their arrival. The Argos hoard itself is rather intriguing: it has the typological profile of an eastern Mainland hoard, and it may well be dated by an incursion of the Aydınoğlu Umur bey into the Argolis.1518 Perhaps the coins were transferred from one area to the other on this occasion, a short while before being concealed? 12

Fifteenth-Century Latin Copper Coinages

The decline of the Venetian tornesello during the dogeship of Tomaso Mocenigo (1414–1423) was one of the reasons for setting the lower chronological limit for this book at 1430.1519 I discuss elsewhere in this appendix coinages dating, or possibly dating, to the period 1430–1500 which make an appearance in Greece: rare examples of torneselli of Mocenigo’s successors; a few Ottoman specimens;1520 pennies of Alfonso the Magnanimous (1442–1458);1521 and tornesi of Campobasso minted during 1459–1462/3.1522 Some central and southern Italian,1523 and eastern Aegean,1524 issues date less securely and may have been produced either before or after the 1430 watershed, or may only have entered Greece after that date. One of the features of European coinage in its progression from later medieval to Renaissance times was the gradual introduction of pure copper coins.1525 It has been argued that this was a development which emanated from the Balkans, spreading in the fifteenth century to Italy – notably the Venice and Naples mints – from the Dalmatian cities, some of which were

1517  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, pp. 469–470. 1518  Compare Chapter 2, pp. 146–147. 1519  See the Preface, p. xx. On this coinage, see Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 1520  Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1353. 1521  Appendix II.5.B, p. 1338. 1522  Appendix II.9.K, pp. 1477–1481. 1523  Appendix II.5.C–D, pp. 1340–1342. 1524  Appendix II.6.D–E, pp. 1346–1347. 1525  Chapter 1, p. 65.

COINAGES: LATE LATIN COPPER

1509

Venetian colonies in the crucial period.1526 In fact, Cattaro (Kotor) and Ragusa (Dubrovnik) had been minting copper coinages since the thirteenth century.1527 Our record of finds from Greece of such copper coins in the Latin tradition is rather more meagre: one specimen from Venetian Cattaro, dated 1451–1453, was contained in «211. Chalkida». The Neapolitan cavallo coinage, which was first minted in 1472,1528 is represented at «212. Corinth 10 November 1936» and «238. Athenian Agora» (issued between 1495 and 1501). It is possible that the Ragusan coins listed in «176. Achaïa» were also copper issues, in which case they would date most likely to the fourteenth century.

1526  Travini, “Monete di rame”. 1527  Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 191–194 and pp. 199–201. 1528  M  EC, p. 370–372.

appendix iii

Monies of Account Whether in the Latin or Byzantine tradition, the monetary values which are to be found in the narrative and documentary sources only ever had an indirect relationship with the prevailing currency. In the Latin context this is a problem inherently tied up with the debasements of silver currencies since Carolingian times, and exacerbated by rapid developments in these currencies from the turn of the thirteenth century.1 Different kinds of pounds, each sub-divided into 20 shillings or 240 pennies/groats, came into being, which could frequently themselves be expressed in yet another denomination (for example pounds of pennies ‘in’ groats). Alternative systems of accounting in the west were built around weights and finenesses of metals (marks), and from the thirteenth century the new gold coins. In Byzantium the relationship between the standard defined in gold (the solidus/nomisma coin), and its weight equivalent the exagion (the saggio of the Latin sources), and the multiple weight and account units ounces and pounds and the many denominations of different metals and weights had been a perennial problem.2 These difficulties were compounded from the tenth/eleventh century onwards by the existence of multiple gold coins of different weights and finenesses.3 With the Alexian reform of ca. 1092, the new hyperpyron coin of specific weight and fineness became the main system of account for the empire, but the disintegration of Byzantium from the later twelfth century once again multiplied the standards. The Fourth Crusade and the Latin conquests added further to this diversification by impacting on the local monetary conditions and by introducing standards from other territories, that is to say the different pounds which have just been mentioned. Some hybrid constellations, notably hyperpyra of account based partially or wholly on non-Byzantine silver denominations, also came into being. In the course of the medieval period the complexities of the Greek accounting systems increased further. The most important factors in this respect were: indigenous Greek minting at different standards; the introduction of western 1  Day, “Monnaies de compte”. The monetary developments are described in Chapter 1, pp. 57–72. 2  On the Byzantine system of weights, see Schilbach, Metrologie. The Byzantine monetary system is discussed extensively in the MIB and DOC series, but remains in many respects controversial, especially for the sixth and seventh centuries. See also Morrisson, “Byzantine Money”. On weight-based monies of account, see esp. pp. 1581–1585. 3  For Byzantine money in this period, see Chapter 1, pp. 8–24.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004434646_009

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRON OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1511

silver and eventually gold; colonialism from southern Italy, which had its own systems going back to the local Arab tradition; the diversification of Venetian denominations; the significant mutations which affected Byzantine money in the course of the fourteenth century; and the expansion of the Serbian and Ottoman systems.4 Since this book is an attempt to write a monetary rather than a fiscal/financial or accounting history of medieval Greece, the information developed here is primarily designed to support the main chapters. 1

Hyperpyron of Constantinople

The main accounting systems of the empire and the imperial capital in the period of concern revolve around the hyperpyron of different descriptions, for instance the gold hyperpyron, the hyperpyron of Constantinople, the heavy gold hyperpyron, or again the hyperpyron “of the right weight”. Like all other hyperpyra which will be discussed in this appendix, these are defined as a combination of a specific weight and alloy, in the period of Pegolotti for instance the alloy was 11/24 gold, with silver and copper also being specified.5 The dichotomy, mentioned in my introduction, between coin and system of account is underlined by Pegolotti’s long list of coins, which contains many hyperpyra, only some corresponding approximately to the stated standard.6 Up to a certain point, the hyperpyron was the same throughout the metropolitan area,7 although the fact that on one occasion even in this period Pegolotti remarks upon a very slight difference underlines the fluidity of all accounting systems.8 The hyperpyron of Thessalonike or Macedonia, by contrast, is treated separately in this appendix, although these hyperpyra would initially have evolved in the same way and continued to be equated occasionally.9 A sub-division

4  Specifically on the meeting of Byzantine and Latin monetary standards, see Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”; Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 643–658; Balard, “Monete bizantine e monete occidentale a Bisanzio”. 5  Pegolotti, p. 40: “… sono di lega di carati 11 d’oro fine per oncia, e lo rimanente della lega infino in 24 carati sì ne sono li 6 carati d’argento fine e li 7 di rame per ogni oncia”. In the same passage Pegolotti explains that this money is exchanged in weight, “in tutti pagamenti di mercatantia si spendono e si dànno in pagamento a peso di bilance …”. On gold weight as a system of account, see below in this appendix, pp. 1581–1585. 6  See Grierson, “Pegolotti”. The hyperpyra are listed in Pegolotti, pp. 288–289. 7  Pegolotti, pp. 32 and 40. 8  Pegolotti, p. 32: “perperi 100 al peso di Pera” are equated with “perperi 99 e carati 8”. 9  See below in this appendix, pp. 1525 and 1570–1573.

1512

appendix iii

into 24 carats/kokkia of account appears to be peculiar to the hyperpyron of Constantinople (and Pera), so much so that it is sometimes referred to as the “hyperpyron of carats”.10 The Levantine bezant, which appears very rarely in sources pertaining to Greece, was another currency which might additionally be divided into carats,11 as was the hyperpyron of Chios.12 1.1 Early Evolution after 1204 Like many other hyperpyra, the metropolitan hyperpyron is to be found explicitly in only a certain group of sources, much more often it is implied through context. In the years following 1204 the old hyperpyron13 of the pre-conquest Venetian sources makes way for the heavy gold hyperpyron.14 This is to be found in Constantinople in a number of private acts.15 In public acts of the republic this same money is referred to as the hyperpyron of the right weight.16 In the praktikon of Lampsakos, in the territory of the Latin empire, the stipulated payments are also provided in “yperperos auri pensantes”, divided into

10  Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 2, p. 283, no. 277: “… faciant omnia servitia monete carigii, sicut soliti erant facere tempore Graecorum et nunc faciant …”. 11  Pasquale Longo, p. 48, no. 62 (a loan in Coron of 1291): “… bixancios centum et viginti duos et caratos octo”. In 1240 in Negropone we find the following equivalent: Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti, pp. 104–105, no. 91: “yperpera quadraginta duo a pondus Aconis que fuerunt pecie auri quadraginta”. Such hyperpyra of Acre defy easy explanation (see also the discussion below, p. 1524). In 1279 a loan made in Acre of 1300 Saracen bezants is repaid in Puglia as 1250 pounds tournois: Registri 21, p. 126, no. 160. Consider also the information given in Pegolotti (p. 74, where Greek hyperpyra and bezants are given an exchange rate in Alexandria, six hyperpyra of Clarentza being “bizanti 6 e carati ½”), and further the Cretan notary Pietro Pizolo, 1, p. 18, no. 25. 12  See below, p. 1569. 13  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, allegato 1, pp. 32–34; Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 198. On what follows, see also Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, appendice III, p. 105ff. 14  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, allegato 2, pp. 35–38. 15  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, p. 18, no. 478 (1206); pp. 19–20, no. 479 (1206); p. 21, no. 481 (1206); Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti, p. 74, no. 67 (1206); Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 31–32, no. 491 (1207); pp. 42–43, no. 502 (1208); pp. 54–55, no. 515 (1209); pp. 56–57, no. 517 (1210); pp. 57–58, no. 518 (1210); pp. 58–60, no. 519 (1210); pp. 67–68, no. 527 (1210); pp. 70–71, no. 530 (1210); pp. 83–84, no. 541 (1212); pp. 109–110, no. 566 (1217); pp. 111–112, no. 568 (1217); p. 115, no. 572 (1217); pp. 195–196, no. 658 (1231); pp. 200–201, no. 662 (1232); pp. 225–226, no. 691 (1234). 16  Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 198.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRON OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1513

kokkia.17 In provincial Romania the same system can be found in the notarial sources, with somewhat more variable terminology.18 The Constantinopolitan system continued to be used by Venice in local southern Greek administrative matters.19 During the large political and administrative re-structuring process of Greece in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, which involved the distribution of fiefs and the regularisation of feudal bonds, gold hyperpyra were the main standard.20 Claims to vast territories, valued substantially in this system, were exchanged in the treaty of Adrianople of August 1204.21 As Ravano dalle Carceri became vassal of Venice during the 1209–1210 settlement for Negroponte he was required to pay the usual cloths to St. Mark’s, but also 2,100 gold hyperpyra yearly.22 In Crete, through the 1212 treaty between the duke and Marco Sanudo, the latter was allowed to levy gold 17  Jacoby, “Venetian presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople”, p. 210 (B), and further pp. 199 (2), (18); 200 (19), (30), (33). 18  Negroponte: Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 78–79, no. 537 (1211): in the case of a loan given in Negroponte the hyperpyron is specified as of the weight of Constantinople; in 1219 and 1245 the more conventional heavy gold hyperpyra are encountered: p. 124, no. 582, and pp. 299–300, no. 774 (1245). Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti, pp. 105–108, no. 92: refers to hyperpyra of the correct weight of Constantinople; and again on p. 121 (1261). Coron: Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 94–95, no. 551 (1213): hyperpyra which are of good gold. Crete: The metropolitan hyperpyron was more short-lived on the island than elsewhere: see the following encounters with “perperos auri pensantes”: pp. 55–56, (1209); p. 132, no. 592 (1220); pp. 133–134, no. 594 (1221); p. 146, no. 606 (1223). Colleganze in Durazzo between June 1207 and July 1209 combine local and metropolitan hyperpyra: see Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 132, and below in this appendix, p. 1554. 19  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 27, nos VII–VIII: in 1224 the wages of civil servants are stipulated in gold hyperpyra. Consider also the following cases: p. 28, no. XV (1225), it is recorded that 7 hyperpyra and 14 carats have been paid in Crete for the transport of cloth; p. 29, no. XIX (1228): in the Peloponnese the hyperpyron is valued at 38 or 35 soldi, which is probably the metropolitan rate (compare Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 186); p. 29, no. XX (1228): a Venetian was robbed in Corfu of one hyperpyron worth 25 carats: this demonstrates once more the aforementioned dichotomy between the actual hyperpyron (no doubt we are here dealing with a single coin) and the value of that name. We find a very similar scenario one hundred years later: Predelli, Commemoriali, book 2, no. 382 (1323). See also, for Genoese acts expressing a similar dichotomy, Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 647–648 (1260s-1280s). 20  Whereas in this early phase some of the sources dealing with the distribution of booty and the payment of debts incurred through the crusade itself relate sums in terms of silver marks: see below in this appendix, p. 1584. On these historical processes, see Chapter 3, pp. 225–229. 21  Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane p. 21; Saint-Guillain, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète”. 22  Longnon, L’empire, p. 120.

1514

appendix iii

hyperpyra from the Greek population.23 According to papal documentation of 1207, Achaïa was responsible for providing certain lower ranking church officials with salaries in gold hyperpyra.24 One of the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries of the principality, the archbishop of Patra, gave part of his treasure to the Cistercian Abbey in Savoy explicitly in gold hyperpyra (1231).25 The practice of embellishing the hyperpyron with attributes such as golden can also be found in completely different kinds of sources and geographical regions, for instance the 1247 typikon of Maximos of Boreine near Philadelphia.26 1.2 Values of Metropolitan Hyperpyra The differentiations between hyperpyra by adding qualifications to the name were therefore not confined to one geographical area or set of sources. Whether or not these names imply any slight changes in value, or in the underlying specie, is difficult to fathom. In the Venetian documentation27 the pennies of Verona and Venice are the only other currency which one encounters beside hyperpyra.28 Since the exchange rates vary widely, probably according to a number of undisclosed factors, sometimes hidden interest,29 we are left in the dark about any absolute changes to hyperpyron values. It is at any rate inconceivable, contrary to what has at times been stated, that each specific hyperpyron name corresponded to a different value because it was linked to a precise kind of western penny, Veronese or Venetian, and consequently that any changes in the properties of these same pennies might have affected directly the values of the hyperpyra.30 Nevertheless, that there might have been some problems related to the latter and to the link coins associated with the hyperpyron standard is suggested by this change in nomenclature around the year 1204. Stahl has pointed this out and suggested that there might have been a discrepancy between the hyperpyron specie in circulation before and after the conquest.31 With respect to the precise terms that are used, might it have been the case that the biggest change was initially after 1204 an increasing weight loss of these older specimens, rather than the reliance on completely 23   Saint-Guillain, “Les conquérants de l’archipel”, p. 199. 24  Nanetti, “Korone e Methone”, p. 278. 25  Μoutzali, “Αγία Ειρήνη Ριγανοκάμπου Πατρών”, p. 134. 26  B MFD, no. 35. 27  Some of which already cited; see additionally Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 32–38. 28  On these coins, see Appendix II.5, p. 1335 and Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1293–1296. On the Venetian system of account, see also below in this appendix, pp. 1573–1581. 29  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 12. 30  Appendix II.4.A, especially p. 1295, n. 554. 31  Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 199.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRON OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1515

new ones? Thereafter, it is additionally imaginable that the successive hyperpyron issues of Nicaea and Latin Constantinople, increasingly debased, influenced the gold hyperpyron accounting system.32 In the same measure one may consider that at least some of the variation in the nomenclature was the result of particular accounting preferences/practices, and that maybe as a result the overall standard of the metropolitan hyperpyron remained more consistent than the multitude of names may suggest.33 1.3 Gold Hyperpyra in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Greece In how far this standard remained attractive in the area under focus in this book cannot be traced particularly well in the documentation. The evidence is on the whole negative, although this may be in the nature of the sources: already from the second half of the century the notaries of Greece and Crete ceased to refer to it.34 As we shall see in the next discussions, from this period the local hyperpyra were heavily dominant in Greece and Crete. It might even be suggested that the unattractiveness of the hyperpyron led to the usage in certain parts of the primary area of the electrum trachy as a system of account.35 But gold hyperpyra continued to play an international role, especially in relations with Italy,36 and appear to be present also in the primary area: a 1290 valuation of a money fief in Euboia in gold hyperpyra might be testimony to certain longevity in the feudal context,37 as is the even later and more unusual purchase of Boiotian strongholds by Catalan Marshall Roger of Lluria, which King and Duke Frederick III confirmed in 1367 (10,000 gold hyperpyra “secundum cursum monete parcium Romanie”).38 The fiscal documents from Pelion in Thessaly in the 1270s produced the first Greek-language reference to the Venetian grosso,39 but are otherwise dominated by hyperpyra, which are

32  Appendix II.1.D.3 and 4, pp. 1258–1264. 33  Note for instance that the contemporary Genoese sources usually do not differentiate between hyperpyron issues: Stahl, “Genova e Venezia”, p. 323. 34  In Crete from the 1270s to the early 1300, there is no sign of gold hyperpyra in the acts of Benvenuto de Brixano; Leonardo Marcello; Pietro Pizolo; Pietro Scardon. Also at Coron in the same period one may deduce that all hyperpyra mentioned in the acts of Pasquale Longo are local. On this matter, see also Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 218. 35  See the next heading. 36  Appendix II.1.D.2, pp. 1255–1258. 37  Leduc, “13th-century Euboea”, p. 168. Compare also the much cited valuation of Latin Greek fiefs in 1269 by titular Emperor Baldwin II at 1,000 hyperpyra: Chapter 3, p. 238. 38  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, pp. 379–380, no. CCLXCI (1367); Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I”, p. 217. 39  Appendix II.4.B, p. 1301.

1516

appendix iii

on one occasion combined with kokkia.40 This, and the general level of the prices,41 suggests that all these hyperpyra might have been metropolitan. The republic of Venice occasionally demanded reparations from the Byzantine Empire, which it had to calculate from local monies of account into hyperpyra of Constantinople. In some such documents the conversions had already occurred before the information reaches the modern reader,42 but in others we gain very interesting information about the geographical spread of gold hyperpyra.43 It is of particular interest that in the Byzantine parts of the southern Peloponnese no conversion was needed since these hyperpyra were in local usage. This, and other pieces of indirect evidence, might allow one to infer that in the early fourteenth century Lakonia and Constantinople were still fiscally integrated and using the same accounting system: there is for instance the episode during which the Catalan Company received payments in the Peloponnese on behalf of the emperor; there are some accounting notes from the peninsula combining hyperpyra, kokkia, and the manus of account,44 and also the later Peloponnesian tornese issue of Manuel II45 might be considered in this respect. Another seemingly mixed area might have been the northern Sporadic island of Skiathos, officially part of the empire throughout most of our period (it was probably Ottoman ca. 1393–1402 and again after 1414), although close enough to the Latin world to use tournois extensively: here an accounting note combines the latter with hyperpyra divided into kokkia.46 By contrast, in Greek areas ruled by Latins, later notarial sources only mention gold hyperpyra whenever there is a clear metropolitan dimension: this is the case of a will drawn up in Coron in 1342.47 1.4 Gold Hyperpyra and Related Currencies in Late Byzantium48 In the fourteenth century, also in the Balkans, to the north of Greece, the situation was becoming increasingly complex. Only in the vicinity of Constantinople, 40  Miklosich and Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca, 4, doc. 28 (1271), p. 398, lns 9–10 and ff. 41  Cheynet et al., “Prix et salaires”, p. 348. 42  This is the case in Morgan, “Venetian Claims Commission”. See further Chapter 3, p. 299. 43  Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, no. 88 (1321). On this and on what follows, see also Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, pp. 410–412. 44  On this ‘hand’, see the third heading below, pp. 1525–1527. 45  Appendix II.1.E.3, pp. 1272–1273. 46  Schreiner, Texte, pp. 467–468, appendix VIII, text a; compare also Schreiner, Texte, pp. 352–353 on the term kokkion. 47  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 1.127, p. 119. 48  On the hyperpyron of account of Constantinople in the fourteenth century, and for some of the information discussed here, see recently Baker et al., “The Reformed Byzantine Silver-Based Currencies (ca. 1372–1379)”.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRON OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1517

and there only initially, did the gold hyperpyron remain entirely dominant, for instance in private and public Venetian acts.49 In all other areas, metropolitan hyperpyra were combined with local ones, for instance on the Black Sea coast,50 in Macedonia and Lemnos,51 and further to the west.52 Along the Anatolian coast and in the eastern Aegean islands, lost to a large extent to the empire in the years after 1300, the dominant hyperpyra were increasingly those of Chios and Crete.53 As the middle ages were coming to an end, the monetary situation in Constantinople and Pera was also becoming less clear cut, as we shall see next. For the period from the twelfth to the fifteenth century the relative value of the metropolitan hyperpyron of account is only sporadically documented, and what documentation there is available presents many problems: our initial comparisons are with the northern Italian pennies, which, as we have stated, reveal themselves as particularly fickle measures for the standard of the

49  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, pp. 146 (1308); Predelli, Commemoriali, book 2, no. 382 (1323); Antonio Bresciano, passim (mid-14th c.). 50  For the mid-fourteenth century the hyperpyron of the weight of Mesemvria, composed of silver ducats of Mesemvria/Bulgaria, as opposed to the hyperpyron of the weight of Romania, is known from two principal sources, Genoese notaries and the account book of the Green Count: see Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 130–131; Iliescu, “Mesembrie”; Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek, pp. 89–93. This denomination is revealed, at 2 hyperpyra and 3 carats to the gold florin, to be slightly less valuable than the contemporary Byzantine hyperpyron of account. It is clear that this hyperpyron would have been linked to grossi of Ivan Aleksandăr with Michail IV Asen (1331–1355), minted also posthumously (see Chapter 1, p. 53), precisely at 1:8 according to these sources, that is to say 17–18 of these grossi to the florin.    Marginally to the north, at Varna, local hyperpyra worth 16 2/3 carats, or 6 grossi and 5 aspers, or 8 big aspra and 1 grosso, is known from a 1352 document: Gjuzelev, “‘Varnenskijat perper’”; Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek, pp. 65– 68. This information shows that the value of this hyperpyron can be related to its metropolitan counterpart, although it is otherwise clearly based on Venetian (the grossi) and indigenous silver coins.    Further north yet, in an act drawn up in 1361 at Chilia on the mouth of the Danube, so-called gold hyperpyra at the weight of Venice are payable in Pera: see Iliescu, “Perperi auri ad sagium venetorum”, and below for a probable interpretation. 51  See below in this appendix, pp. 1570–1573. 52  See below, pp. 1554–1564 on the local hyperpyron. In the Ragusan sources the metropolitan hyperpyron is frequently encountered, more often than not in private acts which have a Constantinopolitan dimension. Nevertheless, a wider familiarity with the Byzantine accounting system there can be inferred from this information: compare Krekić, Dubrovnik, nos 14 and 15 (1281); nos 75 and 79 (1304); no. 148 (1330) and no. 176 (1337); no. 212 (1344); 220 (1348); 406 (1390); 469 (1396). 53  See below, pp. 1564–1570.

1518

appendix iii

hyperpyron. Equally problematic are the internal relations of the Byzantine denominations.54 The next important currency to offer terms of comparison, the grosso, makes its first appearances in the second half of the century in areas which have already moved away from the metropolitan standard, Macedonia,55 Thessaly and the remainder of Greece, and Crete (see below in many of these respects). Unlike in Macedonia or Crete, the Constantinopolitan hyperpyron was in the fourteenth century not always valued at 12 grossi.56 In the Zibaldone57 it was revealed that an older gold hyperpyron was worth 32 soldi ‘a’ grossi or nearly 15 grossi, a more recent Palaiologan one 28 soldi and four denari ‘a’ grossi or 13 grossi.58 The value of the metropolitan hyperpyron is given in Pegolotti as 12.5–13,59 in the Venetian claims of 1321 as 14,60 while Rhabdas’ figure of 1341, depending on one’s interpretation of the term argyrion, appears close.61 In the acts of notary Antonio Bresciano of 1350 the rate of the hyperpyron has dropped to 28 soldi ‘a’ grossi, still closer to 13 than to 12 grossi,62 but more than a decade later in the documentation relating to the Green Count’s expedition two gold hyperpyra were valued one ducat (i.e. 12 grossi to the hyperpyron),63 and also some Venetian sources from the 1350s and 1360s give the rate of the hyperpyron as the same.64 Again, as with the pennies, it is very difficult to control the diverse figures of exchange, most resulting from western and commercial sources. These impressions might reveal an initial loss in value of the gold hyperpyron, in line with the tribulations which the coin of this name was undergoing.65 The role of the Byzantine basilikon, an inferior version of the Venetian grosso, in shaping the hyperpyron of account in the first half 54  On the values of tetartera and trachea, compare for instance Appendix II.1.A, p. 1198; Appendix II.1.B, pp. 1208–1209 (in relation to tournois in Constantinople according to Pegolotti). 55  Note that the sources assembled by Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, allegato 4 (“… iperperi pagati dai Bizantini in ducati …”) are all Athonite. 56  See the documentation assembled in Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 40ff. 57  Zibaldone da Canal, p. 67. 58  See below, p. 1574 on the ‘a’ grossi system of account. 59  Appendix II.4.B, p. 1302. 60  Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, no. 88. 61  Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 174. 62  Antonio Bresciano, nos 3, 13, 15, 16, 61. 63  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 124; Balard, “Circulation monétaire à Péra”, p. 368. 64  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 45–46. 65  Appendix II.1.D.3, p. 1258.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRON OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1519

of the fourteenth century is difficult to reconstruct.66 At an official value of 12 basilika,67 any hyperpyron based on these might have sat rather uncomfortably beside values of 13–15 Venetian grossi during the years ca. 1310–1340. The basilika themselves might have helped bring down the value of the hyperpyron to the eventual 12 grossi. There are some more sporadic indications that even the Frankish Greek tournois may have played a role in the metropolitan monetary system in these years.68 There was then a gradual divorce of the hyperpyron system of account from the same gold coins towards mid-century, and perhaps an emancipation from some of the other flawed silver currencies that have been mentioned. The gold hyperpyron was therefore pegged to the grosso, and it was this currency, and changes in the bimetallic ratio in favour of silver,69 which appear to have stabilised its rate.70 In Macedonia, as in the Ragusan sources, local hyperpyra were in the 1330s and 1340s occasionally called ‘Venetian’, because they were based on grossi and to distinguish them from hyperpyra based on Serbian coins.71 In a similar vein, in 1367 the Constantinopolitan gold hyperpyron was called ‘silver’, no doubt another indication of its grosso base.72 After a certain point, references also to the Venetian grosso cease, and the situation becomes less clear cut: the introduction of the Byzantine silver halfhyperpyron (stavraton) during the reign of John V represented a further devaluation of the previous grosso-based hyperpyron (resulting in hyperpyra of ca. 16g fine silver instead of ca. 25–26g).73 Different hyperpyra of account were emerging in the same period: this is suggested by evolving hyperpyronsommo rates for the Black Sea in Genoese sources of the 1370s.74 In Genoese sources for Pera from 1388 onwards we can find ‘silver’ hyperpyra which were substantially less valuable than ‘gold’ hyperpyra, at 12 and 16 Genoese soldi

66  Appendix II.1.F, p. 1275. 67  D  OC V, p. 21. 68  Appendix II.1.E, pp. 1268–1269. 69  Spufford, Money and its use, p. 272. 70  We gain the same impression from the equivalents of the hyperpyron to the Genoese system of account, for which we have figures from the restoration under Michael VIII to the early fifteenth century: Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 650–656. 71  See below, pp. 1559 and 1572. 72  Morrisson, “Noms des monnaies”, pp. 155–157. The “Perperi auri ad sagium venetorum” of a Genoese act of 1361 drawn up in Chilia on the Danube Delta, to be paid back in Pera, may also refer to hyperpyra constituted of grossi: see above. 73  Appendix II.1.F, p. 1276. 74  Ponomarev, “Monetary Markets of Byzantium and the Golden Horde”, esp. p. 605.

1520

appendix iii

respectively, about half and two thirds of a ducat.75 In the later mathematical treatise of 1436 in Vienna, contained in the same folios as the treatise published by Hunger and Vogel,76 there is another kind of dichotomy, between small hyperpyra and regular hyperpyra.77 Regarding the value of the hyperpyron in this period, in the extant sources we see the latter mostly converted into ducats. In the early period, before the hyperpyron was apparently pegged to grossi, the sources reveal hyperpyra worth more than half a ducat (i.e. 12 grossi), or, to turn it around, ducats worth less than two hyperpyra or 48 carats of account.78 The Codice Morosini of the fifteenth century puts the value of the gold hyperpyron in the time of Doge Morosini (1382) at half a ducat.79 In the period from the 1380s to the midfifteenth century the ducat moved from values of 54 or 60 carats, to 72 (or three hyperpyra), and sometimes more.80 It is also of some note that certain treatises from the earlier fifteenth century onwards do not use hyperpyra at all in the exercises.81 From the existing sources, it is difficult to describe all the final developments of the hyperpyron in terms of value, and especially in terms of link coins. It is also not possible to fully get to grips with the existence of different parallel hyperpyra. To explain the latter simply by taking the epithets ‘gold’ and ‘silver’ at face value is certainly too simplistic: one can well imagine, for instance, the gold hyperpyra of the 1370s and 1380s representing the older value of 12 Venetian silver grossi, the silver hyperpyron of the same period its freshly debased version, based perhaps on stavrata, but maybe also on other denominations (see below). In addition to the developments in Byzantine hyperpyra/ specie, it is likely that the standards of Pera and Constantinople diverged more than in previous times, in view of the imperial permission to the colony to use its own weights (1317),82 and Genoese Peran emissions in the following 75  On these developments, see Balard, “Circulation monétaire à Péra”, pp. 369–370; Spufford, Handbook, p. 112. See again the data in Balard, Romanie génoise, pp. 650–656. 76  Hunger and Vogel, Rechenbuch. 77  Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, pp. 174 and 178–179. See also Morrisson and Bendall, “Monnaies de la fin de l’empire”, p. 484. 78  Pegolotti, pp. 48 and 50–51; Predelli, Commemoriali, book 2, no. 382. 79  P. 168, no. 3. 80  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 48–58. Compare again a similar collapse of the hyperpyron against the Genoese accounting system: Balard, Romanie génoise, p. 658. 81  Noted in Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, pp. 174–175. 82  Balard, Romanie génoise, p. 649. Compare also a Ragusan act, approximately contemporary to Pegolotti, which documents the payment from one Genoese to another in hyperpyra of Romania and carats of Pera: Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 189, no. 148 (1330).

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRON OF CONSTANTINOPLE

1521

century.83 With respect to the overall slip of the value of the Byzantine hyperpyron, this was no doubt the result of multiple factors: the gradual disappearance of reliable old grossi, the introduction of hard actual ducat coins, and of much softer Byzantine tornesi of the second generation.84 The latter, in combination variously with the one-eighth stavrata and Ottoman silver (both perhaps referred to as aspra85), were also monies of account related to the hyperpyron of Constantinople. The possible rates revealed by Badoer are 1 hyperpyron = 16 aspra = 196 tornesi, or 12 tornesi to the aspron.86 Some Venetian documents of this period reveal somewhat stronger aspra, at 35 to the ducat, while otherwise the rate to the ducat/florin can fluctuate between 35/40 and even 50.87 This suggests perhaps different Byzantine and Ottoman link coins.88 The aspron formed a money of account in its own right, particularly in urban Byzantine contexts.89 Even its multiple, the florin (often 50 in this context), may have been an accounting money: in the small accounting note which has just been mentioned only one of the florins is explicitly owed “in gold”, implying that others were not.90 But the metropolitan systems of hyperpyra and carats were also in place until the end of the empire.91 Whichever of the divergent Byzantine or Peran hyperpyra one may have been referring to, linked or not to any of the extant or older gold, silver, or billon coins, all of these, and goods and 83  See Appendix II.4.D, p. 1306, and Morrisson, “Badoer”, passim, on these coins and their values. 84  Appendix II.1.E.2, pp. 1269–1272. 85  Appendix II.1.F, pp. 1276–1277; Appendix II.6.G, pp. 1350–1353. See also the discussion in Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 135–136, regarding the identity of some particularly early aspra which were used by the Green Count’s retinue in Pera. 86  Morrisson, “Badoer”, pp. 221 and 225. See also Appendix II.1.E.2, p. 1270 and Bertelè, “Monete del Rechenbuch”: a few other rates of tornesi to the aspron are known. 87  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 93, no. 1385 (1410). Compare also Liata, Κυκλοφορία νομισμάτων, p. 275; Fleet, Early Ottoman State, p. 14. 88  See also Fleet, “Turkish economy”, p. 247, for rates of 33 akče to the ducat in the late fourteenth century, that is to say the Ottoman aspron was evidently more valuable. 89  Notably in the document published and discussed in Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten”. Compare also the Greek language accounting note, dated by its editor perhaps to the fourteenth century, but which cannot be confidently located: Schreiner, Texte, pp. 135– 144, text 7. The main monies are aspra and florins (relationship 50:1). There are also hyperpyra worth an enigmatic 1/20th of a florin, and on one occasion we find soldia. Given these relations, the hyperpyron has approximately the value of a Venetian grosso. There were also soldia in Hunger and Vogel’s document: Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 512. See further Appendix II.4.E, p. 1319. On the aspron in Epiros and Thessaly, see also here below pp. 1563–1564. 90  Compare Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1314. 91  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 220.

1522

appendix iii

services expressed through them, were during this period continuously losing ground against the main international currencies. 2

Byzantine Electrum Trachy

The denomination referred to in this book as the electrum trachy, which comprises electrum and silver specimens from before and after the Latin conquest, held a prominent position in certain disparate contexts in the later twelfth and early thirteenth century.92 Hoards indicate that, despite of metrological differences, all such coins were considered conceptually similar by their users.93 It is evident that a money of account was based on this currency, under different names and with different additional epithets relating to emission and quality.94 The fact that this was an accounting system rather than a random collection of mentions can be deduced from the range of different sources: public and private, Greek and Latin. In addition to Cyprus and Anatolia, their concentration in the Epirote and Ionian area is noteworthy, as is the range of dates from the turn of the century to the 1260s. As suggested in the last discussion, the appearance of this system must also be partially conditioned by the shortcomings of the gold hyperpyron of account. How these two monies might have related to one another, and in what context, since the original 3:1 of the Alexian reform, is difficult to ascertain. It may well have been in the region of 10:1 for much of the period of concern to us.95 The 1303 Rechenbuch gives rates of exchange,96 although the passage in question clarifies very little given the offered range (7 or 9:1), the possible difficulties with the term argyrion,97 and the fates of these two respective denominations during the early period of Emperor Andronikos II. 3

Hyperpyra of South Greece and Associated Units: Grosso, Sterling, Manus, Tournois, Soldo

The hyperpyra of Greece were usually defined according to the localities in which they were current, for instance Thebes, Negroponte, Clarentza, Patra, 92  Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1252. See further Chapter 1, pp. 11 and 15. 93  Chapter 2, p. 138. 94  Known examples are cited in Appendix II.1.C, pp. 1246–1248. 95  Laiou, “Epiros”, p. 209. 96  Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 174. 97  See also the last discussion, p. 1518.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1523

Coron-Modon, and so forth. The hyperpyra of different towns were sometimes identical, or at any rate this is the impression one gets from the patchy evidence, and in general terms there seem to have been two overriding systems, for the Peloponnese and the eastern Mainland. Most relevant sources express values in simple hyperpyra, implying the local rate. Occasionally these hyperpyra are further defined. The true nature of these hyperpyra is revealed in the wording of some of these sources: usage of terms such as “hyperpyra ad pondus Coroni” or “iusti ponderis Coroni et Methoni”98 illustrates that we are dealing here with a value expressed in terms of a weight, and presumably a fineness. Other wordings, such as “hyperpyra bone monete currens in …”, “in monetibus usualibus Coroni”, or simply “in denariis”/“in monetis” or “in peccunia numerate” are a reflection of the fact that these hyperpyra were constituted from current coins. These are then the two ways in which one could arrive at these hyperpyra: either by conversion into a weight and alloy standard, or by counting available coins in tale. The latter approach is, as we will see, sometimes made more explicit by giving actual relations. As Walter II of Brienne, claimant to the duchy of Athens, states in his will of 1347: “Quant aux yparprées, la valeur en est fixée à vint esterlins, comptes pour une yparprées et quatre tournois pour un esterlin”.99 Interestingly, he is here referring to the Peloponnesian rather than the Mainland standard (see below). Development of Local Greek Hyperpyra in the Early Years of the Thirteenth Century Whereas the gold hyperpyron of account under different guises can be found in some of the southern Greek locations after 1204 (see the first discussion of this appendix), there is in this period a gradual introduction of other hyperpyra. These are either implied by omitting the usual epithets of the metropolitan hyperpyron, or a local condition is stated explicitly (with respect to local currencies or weight standards, as we have seen), or the hyperpyra are set in a particular relationship to western currencies.100 Southern Greece is usually a decade or so slower than both Sclavonia and Crete in embedding the local hyperpyron in the sources.101 It was only in the 1240s that private Venetian acts 3.1

98  The citations can be accessed through Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, 2, s.v. Corone – iperperum; Modone – iperperum; iperperum. 99  This document has been frequently cited, see for instance Malloy et al., Coins of the Crusader States, p. 345. A second will of 1354 is discussed in some detail in Vallone, “L’ultimo testamento del duca d’Atene”. 100  On what follows, see Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 108ff, and Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 218–220. 101  See the discussion below on these other areas.

1524

appendix iii

for instance for Negroponte – the best documented locality of our region – began moving away from the gold hyperpyron,102 although at a much earlier stage one already encounters the odd undefined hyperpyron, usually in simple and low-key contexts such as wills.103 A small-scale loan of 1225 on the island makes an unusual and significant stipulation (“… yperperos auri iusti ponderis Nigropontis et bonos et leales, renunciantes in utroque exceptiones non acceptorum et ponderatorum yperperorum tempore contractus”104), which would seem to imply a loan in good gold hyperpyron coins and the rejection of lesser ones, but counted according to a local fashion. In a Venetian public document of 1228 which has already been mentioned, what may well have been a gold hyperpyron coin but evaluated in a local manner might have taken from a Venetian citizen in Corfu, together with 1,500 sterlings.105 Early Link Coins and Relative Values of the Different Hyperpyra 3.2 In Sclavonia, Crete, or Macedonia, the Venetian grosso was often integrated with the local hyperpyron.106 This was never consistently the case in southern Greece. Nevertheless, there the grosso formed a major accounting system in its own right, and in some precise contexts and moments in time we find instances where the grosso is also an integral part of the hyperpyron: in Negroponte it is a down-payment towards a colleganza worth “yperperis viginti octo” in the town.107 In 1274 the documentation relating to the local Achaïan representative of King Charles I of Anjou is expressed in hyperpyra and grossi, at the expense of sterlings, revealing a rate of 13 grossi to the Mainland hyperpyra.108 Venetian 102  See for instance Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 283– 284, no. 756; pp. 309–310, no. 783; Balard, Les Génois en Romanie entre 1204 et 1261, p. 480, n. 1. See also the enigmatic hyperpyra which feature in an act in the city for 1240, which may yet prove to be local rather than of Acre (above, p. 1512), particularly in view of the fact that these hyperpyra are worth slightly less than another hyperpyron, perhaps the metropolitan one. 103  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 102–103, no. 559 (1215). 104  Jacoby, “Greek peasantry”, p. 252. 105  Thiriet, Délibérations, 1, p. 29, no. XX, see also above p. 1513. 106  See below, pp. 1554–1573. 107  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, p. 309, no. 783 (1247). 108  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 220, n. 82 and p. 221, n. 83; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 153. At the point of repayment in Italy, six soldi of grossi are given the value of one ounce of the Regno, that is to say 8.3 grossi to the grain of account (Filangieri 11, pp. 150–151, no. 57; Magdalino, Thessaly, p. 162), which is a favourable rate. In the same year compensation is provided for losses incurred by a number of Venetians off the coast of Puglia at the hand of Dalmatian pirates, at the same grain to grosso rate: Registri 12, p. 106, no. 407 (1274); p. 135, no. 518 (1275); p. 135, no. 519 (1274); p. 135, no. 520 (1274); p. 135, no. 521 (1274). See also below, p. 1529, on the artificial exchange rates between grossi and the currency

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1525

customs officials were advised at some point between the 1260s and 1280s that the hyperpyron of Negroponte was worth 12 grossi (see below). While the second half of the thirteenth century was clearly the period in which the local Greek hyperpyra were coming into their own, the level of documentation is unfortunately such that the nuances in nomenclature, values, and link coins often escape us. At Thebes, in close proximity to Negroponte, in 1255 the hyperpyron is defined through sterlings, as is occasionally the case in Crete.109 The Venetian document which has just been mentioned, setting out exchange rates for the officials of the Ternaria, responsible for the provision to the republic of oil and other goods,110 defines for the first time a hyperpyron of Clarentza and Coron-Modon, and all other areas in which sterlings were current, giving a rate of 20 of the latter. It also reveals that the hyperpyron of Sclavonia was worth 12 grossi.111 By contrast, the hyperpyron of Constantinople and Thessalonike is not linked to a specific coin current in the region, and is simply given a value in the domestic Venetian system. This implies that these hyperpyra were at the time of writing linked to the actual gold hyperpyron currency. The equations to the piccolo system in this document are very useful since they allow us to deduce absolute value relationships for the different hyperpyra: if we take the hyperpyron of Negroponte and Sclavonia as the standard medium standard at 30s, then that of the Peloponnese is worth 87% of the former at 26s, and the hyperpyron of Constantinople/Thessalonike 110% (33s). Hyperpyra and their Divisions to ca. 1300: Sterling, Manus, Tournois, Grosso For the period 1289–1293 at Coron we have already seen that, by deduction, the hyperpyra recorded by notary Longo were usually local. This hyperpyron is clearly associated with grossi on one occasion (at 1:10),112 sterlings on only

3.3

of the Regno applied by Angevin authorities particularly in the Epirote/Albanian context. For numismatic evidence of the grosso-hyperpyron rate (perhaps 10:1?), see Chapter 2, p. 133. 109  Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 220, n. 82; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 161, with more examples of marks of sterlings in the context of Constantinople and Corfu: see below p. 1583. 110  The document was first published in Lane and Mueller, Money and banking, pp. 626– 627, and was to be further discussed by Jacoby in a future contribution: Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 163, n. 98. See further Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 218, and Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 172. 111  See below, p. 1557. 112  Pasquale Longo, no. 83. See further Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 109.

1526

appendix iii

a few, without indication of the exchange rate,113 but much more often with the term manus.114 There are usually 20 of these to the hyperpyron, on one occasion only 18,115 and the manus is further defined as being in tournois. We have noted elsewhere that the Venetian piccolo system of account features in this same body of sources.116 Very rarely are we told how the local hyperpyra relate to piccoli: once we are given the exchange as 1:273.117 This is substantially less than the metropolitan hyperpyra of the first half of the century discussed in the beginning of this appendix, although it is impossible to postulate the precise relative order of magnitude of the two hyperpyra on the basis of these disparate data. It is also less than the 26 soldi which the Peloponnesian hyperpyron was worth in the period 1260s–1280s. The manus as an accounting term is also known from the Zibaldone da Canal,118 in its Greek form in a Peloponnesian accounting note which combines ‘cheria’ with kokkia, and in diverse Venetian sources, but it is also interestingly absent from some of the mid-fourteenth century feudal sources which relate to the Angevin crown. The ‘mano da quattro’ was evidently a way of rationalising larger numbers into units of four.119 In the Greek context, which is also the first in which it appears, we might consider it as an alternative to the sterling, both being consistently valued at four tournois. The fact that the sterling currency gradually disappeared as specie in southern Greece in the course of the thirteenth century, to be replaced by a system of account, is reflected in Pegolotti’s later statement that “gli sterlini non vi si vendono nè vi si veggiono”.120 Earlier, the inter-play of actual and ghost monies of the same name might have caused problems. It is also clear from some of the direct and indirect evidence that in the period in which tournois and sterlings co-existed in Greece as coins and as systems of account the relationship of both of these to the hyperpyron was not always consistent. For this reason it may have been construed by some users that the sterling to tournois relationship was not always 1:4. This must be the main explanation for the introduction of the manus with the fixed meaning as a unit of four, and as a less ambiguous definer of a

113  Pasquale Longo, nos 44, 75, 104. 114  Dowries: Pasquale Longo, nos 3, 20, 27, 34, 38, 45, 86, 98, 103, 113. Loans: Pasquale Longo, nos 28, 39, 55, 77, 104. 115  In a will: Pasquale Longo, no. 71. 116  Appendix II.4.A, p. 1295. 117  Pasquale Longo, no. 39. 118  See generally on this subject: Baker, “Manuel II Palaiologos”, pp. 411–412. 119  Travaini, “Mano da quattro”. 120  Pegolotti, p. 116.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1527

given hyperpyron. It seems to have evolved in distinctively Venetian contexts in Greece, both public and private. For the second half of the thirteenth century, different Peloponnesian hyperpyra, for instance “of Morea”,121 or “ad pondus Corone”,122 are known from diverse sources. Around the year 1300 we can see the sterlings and tournois established in the Venetian colonies in Greece, beside the Venetian piccolo and despite the creation of the manus, as a measure of value in which to express the lowest level of local public revenue and expenditure.123 In general, one may conclude for the period before 1300 that enough evidence is available which suggests that the eastern Mainland shared with other parts of the southern Balkans a tendency towards hyperpyra reckoned in grossi. Note that there is also a cluster of hoards from the Mainland which suggests that the grosso might have stood at the heart of the accounting system.124 In the Peloponnese there might have been a slightly quicker transition to hyperpyra based on sterlings and tournois, but this had its own difficulties, the introduction of the manus providing a solution to one particular problem, the potential conflict between sterlings as a ghost and actual sterling pennies. Greek Hyperpyra, Gros and Deniers Tournois, in the Angevin System of Ounces, Tarì, Grains The sources relating to the new Angevin domination of the peninsula add another dimension to the handling of the local currency: there are many instances where the local systems of hyperpyra and sterlings are avoided, and tournois are accounted quite differently, either in regional ounces of weight as in 1273,125 or much more frequently in the same period in units of 240 and 12 according to the pound and shilling system: this is the case for instance in the 1269 negotiations with Venice about their respective interests in the Peloponnese;126 in 1270 when Charles I of Anjou sends feudal armies from the Regno to the peninsula;127 when recording in 1273 the losses of an individual

3.4

121  Gerland, Neue Quellen, p. 16: on the occasion that the barony of Patra was sold for 16,000 hyperpyra, according to the Chronicle of Morea (A). See also Chapter 3, p. 239. 122  Thiriet, Délibérations , p. 74, no. CCXI (1297). 123  Thiriet, Délibérations, p. 40, no. LI (1281); pp. 57–58, no. CXXXII (1289); p. 81, no. 8 (1301); Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, nos 382, 389 (1308). Compare also the discussion below, p. 1565, regarding the Cretan hyperpyron, which also incorporated sterlings during its earlier developments. 124  Chapter 2, pp. 132–133. 125  Registri 10, p. 10, no. 39; Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 219. See here below on Clarentzan pounds and ounces. See also Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1383. 126  Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 291, n. 40. 127   Dourou-Iliopoulou, Ανδηγαυική κυριαρχία, p. 56, n. 31.

1528

appendix iii

to Genoese pirates;128 or when a yearly value is given to the properties which the widow of William II of Villehardouin received from Charles I of Anjou after 1278,129 amongst other countless examples. This way of accounting tournois was also the one applied very frequently in the Regno itself, following the French model, as the tournois was becoming an increasingly important currency in southern Italy.130 Before the period of Angevin domination in Greece, tournois may also occasionally have been counted in pounds and shillings, although the sources are not plentiful in this respect. Robert of Clari gives a value of 300 pounds for the average post-conquest fief.131 This currency and its system of accounting were also rolled out to the Angevin Regnum Albaniae from the early 1270s, which may have been significant for the development of the local hyperpyron:132 for instance, in 1274 when the Angevin castellan of Durazzo was advised to distribute salaries.133 After the initial Angevin period the method of counting tournois in units of 240 and 12 disappears from the sources, although it may well have continued and would have been easily understandable to contemporaries. It is all the more unusual to find the Venetian senate give the Regimen of Negroponte the right in 1429 to employ soldiers and their captains for 14 and 25 pounds tournois (i.e. torneselli) per month.134 In some of the same documents the tournois system used in Romania is related back to the Sicilian gold ounce of account, usually at 50s or 600 tournois to the latter. The gold ounce of account of the Regno combines the ounce 128  Registri 10, p. 45, no. 155. 129  Sampsonis, “L’administration de la Morée”, p. 151, n. 137. 130  On these developments, see the Chapter 2, pp. 99–100. Regarding this form of accounting within the Regno, known from countless acts, see for instance Registri 2, p. 205, no. 779 (1269); Registri 4, pp. 156–157, no. 1050 (1270); Registri 10, p. 133, no. 537 (1273); pp. 135–136, no. 544 (1273); pp. 142–143, no. 558 (1273); p. 276, no. 52 (1273–1274); Registri 11, p. 102, no. 13 (1274); p. 153, no. 315 (1273); p. 154, no. 322 (1273–1274); p. 157, no. 328 (1274); p. 158, no. 334 (1274); p. 171, no. 397 (1273–1274); p. 253, no. 243 (1274); Registri 13, p. 183, no. 27 (1275); pp. 189–190, no. 65 (1276); Registri 14, p. 87, no. 142 (1276?); Registri 15, p. 44, no. 183 (1277); p. 61, nos 4–5 (1277); p. 71, no. 38 (1270); p. 76, no. 58 (1270); pp. 81–82, no. 74 (1270); p. 90, no. 100 (1271); pp. 103–104, no. 144 (1276); Registri 16, p. 131ff, no. 440 (1276); Registri 18, p. 298, no. 613 (1278); Registri 19, p. 240, no. 431 (1278); Registri 20, pp. 12–13, no. 22 (1277); p. 68, no. 91 (1278); Registri 21, p. 188, no. 341 (1279); Registri 23, pp. 123– 124, no. 163 (1280); Hopf, “Geschichte Griechenlands”, p. 317, n. 25 (1281); Registri 26, p. 188, no. 590 (1283); Registri 27, p. 224, no. 45 (1286); Registri 28, p. 110, no. 45 (1286); p. 125, no. 11 (1271); Registri 44, 1, pp. 136–137, no. 359 (1293); p. 345, no. 116 (1270); p. 346, nos 120ff (1271); Registri 44, 2, p. 535, nos 14ff (1292); Registri 47, p. 189, no. 536 (1294); p. 284, no. 169 (1294); pp. 331–338, no. 26 (1294). 131  Chapter 3, p. 238. 132  On the hyperpyron of the area, see below, pp. 1554–1564. 133  Registri 11, p. 215, no. 130. 134  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, no. 2124.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1529

weight of 26.7g135 with a certain alloy “oro di terì”, which is “carati 16 e 2/3”.136 In contemporary words, “In Pullia e per tuto il regno se spende oro de tarì e spendesse a pesso d’onça e l’onça de Pullia sé partida per tarì XXX e lo tarì pesa 20 grane  …” (i.e. 1 ounce = 30 tarì or 600 grains).137 This results in an equivalence of grains of account and tournois, and reflects Franco-Neapolitan equivalents whereby 12 deniers tournois = 1 gros tournois, and therefore 1 gold ounce of account of the Regno = 50 gros tournois, or 12 grains of account to the gros tournois.138 An invaluable piece of information from these years (1275) reveals the Achaïan hyperpyron as 80 grains. This implies presumably a denier tournois-based hyperpyron at the commonly known Peloponnesian rate of 1:80.139 Even the French and papal provisino, which will have reached Greece via the Regno,140 could potentially partake in this system at 0.5 of a grain or tournois, or 160 to the same hyperpyron.141 Nevertheless, both the gros and denier tournois currencies were gradually losing in value: from the 1280s the specifically Clarentzan tournois, which is rarely explicitly mentioned, usually stood at merely 0.8 of a grain.142 After a certain point there was a tendency for the value of the gros tournois to drop to 11 grains,143 or even lower,144 and then even to be weighed, one mark in weight being valued 32 to 32.5 tarì of account.145 The same body of sources reveals on some rare occasions weighed sterlings, one mark of sterlings being 31 tarì,146 and also Venetian grossi at different values.147 Some of these currencies were kept artificially low for purchase by the state or for transfer especially to Albania. For minor expenses 135  M  EC 14.III, p. 468. 136  Pegolotti, p. 288. 137  Zibaldone da Canal, p. 23. On the ounce of account in Greece, see below, pp. 1530 and 1537–1538. 138  Registri 10, pp. 184–189, no. 702 (1273); Registri 12, pp. 115–116, no. 442 (1275); Registri 19, p. 206, no. 33 (1278); p. 278, nos 588ff (1278); Registri 20, pp. 35–36, no. 24 (1278); p. 40, no. 41 (1278); pp. 68–69, nos 91 to 94 (1278); Registri 21, p. 126, no. 160 (1279); Spufford, Handbook, p. 62 (1277–1284). At slightly earlier dates, deniers tournois, presumably French, were worth somewhat more: Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238. 139  Registri 12, p. 115, no. 442. 140  Appendix II.5.A, p. 1336. 141  Registri 20, p. 68, no. 91 (1278). 142  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238. 143  Registri 18, pp. 46–47, no. 96 (1278); p. 365, no. 734 (1278); Registri 20, pp. 52–61, no. 67 (1278); p. 163, no. 425 (1278). 144  Registri 20, p. 69, no. 94 (1278); p. 196, no. 523 (1279). 145  Registri 20, p. 185, no. 497 (1279). 146  Appendix II.2, p. 1282. 147  See Appendix II.4.B, pp. 1300–1302 and the discussion under the next heading, pp. 1531–1532.

1530

appendix iii

within the civil service in Romania “turonenses parvos” are also given in tale.148 The gold ounce and its fractions was a relevant money of account to those parts of medieval Greece which saw Sicilian/Neapolitan colonialism:149 the different monies sent from Italy to Greece, and then handled within the local Angevin administration, were conveniently and favourably accounted in it on occasion. For its Italian feudatories, the benefits which could be gained from Greek holdings were translated from the Greek to the Sicilian system of account.150 Whole territories might be exchanged with reference to the ounce, for instance Epiros/Albania and Achaïa in 1332.151 Nevertheless in the Angevin acts there was no consistent application of the ounce system of account to Greek matters. The reason for this was presumably, unlike in the Venetian case, the devolved and limited character of the local administration, and the lack of integration of the domestic and colonial monetary policies.152 All coinages used within the Angevin colonial system had local Greek systems of account, and there might also not have been a sufficiently large community of southern Italians in Greece in which the ounce system might have flourished, or at least we lack the documentation which it might have left. The ounce of account can be rarely found in private Greek contexts,153 more often than not with Siculo-Aragonese connections:154 Muntaner used it to describe salaries in relation to the conquest of Boiotia,155 and somewhat earlier the same author’s losses off Euboia at the hands of the Venetians are assessed in this currency.156 148  Registri 11, p. 252, no. 239 (1274); Registri 21, p. 191, no. 346 (1278–1279). 149  Compare, for example, Chapter 3, pp. 238 and 362, and some of the discussions in the present appendix. 150  See also Chapter 3, p. 238: a fief was given the theoretical value of 20 gold ounces. 151  Appendix II.9.A.11 p. 1418, n. 1178. 152  See Chapter 3, pp. 335–342 and this Appendix III.6, pp. 1573–1581. 153  See for instance Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 169, no. 9 (1268): two gold ounces “tarenorum bonorum Sicilie” are the debt of a Greek woman of Clarentza to a subject of the Regno. The woman in question, not having this sum, is sent to work for it in Ragusa. 154  See below in this appendix, pp. 1536–1540, on accounting in Catalan territories of Greece. 155  Appendix II.9.B, p. 1438. 156  Muntaner, chapter 235, p. 421, records the episode: “E axi barrejaren me la galea e tot quant hi hauia, que era una gran cosa …”. Actual figures can be gathered from the Venetian documentation: Thiriet, Régestes, 1, no. 361: an entry of 1350 refers to an event of 1308, when Muntaner was deprived of goods in the straights of Negroponte (valued in this act at 100,000 florins). Compare also Predelli, Commemoriali, book 4, no. 361 (1350). The event had been addressed by the administration of Frederick III at the time. See the contemporary recording in Predelli, Commemoriali, book 1, pp. 79–80 (1308) with the sum of 25,000 gold ounces, lost in specie, jewels and other objects. If these sums are intended to be the same, they reveal a rate of 4 florins to the ounce. This compares well to the figures of Spufford, Handbook, p. 63.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1531

Value Relations of the Greek Currencies, Sterlings, Grossi, Tournois, Petty Denomination Issues In southern Greece during most of the thirteenth century the relationship between grossi, sterlings, and tournois, was evidently not always consistent. Depending on the context, the grosso may have been worth 6–7 of the finer French tournois.157 The uncertainty is also suggested by some of the numismatic data.158 In line with some of the Angevin sources just cited, a grosso valued at six tournois would have resulted in 1.5 sterlings.159 These uncertain or uneven relationships might have undermined the complete and simultaneous integration of all the denominations, especially of grossi and sterlings, into the same local hyperpyron systems. For the transitional period from early to mid-century one cannot discount the possibility either that actual hyperpyron coins were integrated into the local hyperpyra of account, and again this is suggested by the coin finds.160 In Angevin, Venetian,161 and other sources the tournois was coming to the fore as a system of account in its own right. This cannot always have been simple either. Unlike hyperpyra, tournois were never geographically defined in any of the sources. We have some contemporary appreciations of the different standards of French royal and feudal tournois, but similar information is very rare for the Greek context, as we have just seen. The Greek minting of tournois will only have complicated the matter of standards and conversions, with early Clarentzan tournois given the value of French feudal specimens, which later Greek issues no longer merited on metrological grounds. How the tournois of account was regulated, and how it stood to the actual specie of that name, is now impossible to reconstruct. We certainly cannot assume that for instance the tournois with which fines were stipulated for Venetian Coron before the inception of the tornesello,162 or which were received by an Angevin administrator, or which feature later in the merchants handbooks for different Peloponnesian or Mainland locations (see below), all represented the same value. That the other main domestic Greek coinage of the period, petty denomination issues, would ever have taken a consistent and significant position in the accounting system can be dismissed, with reference to the other coinages which were available, to the intrinsic values of the coins in question, to 3.5

157  Compare Chapter 2, pp. 128 and 132. 158  Chapter 2, pp. 89–90. 159  Chapter 2, p. 128. See also Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”, p. 357. 160  Chapter 2, pp. 91–92. 161  Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1382–1383. 162  See Chapter 3, p. 389.

1532

appendix iii

the record of hoards, and to the lack of any overt indications to this effect in the written sources.163 Nevertheless, Pegolotti informs us that in the imperial capital one tournois could be made up from four ‘stanmini’, a not dissimilar currency to the Greek petty denomination issues. One needs to concede therefore that there might have been occasions when a conversion of sorts could be achieved.164 3.6 Greek Hyperpyra, Their Link Coins and Weights, in the Early 1300s For the years after 1300 the sources which help us define the southern Greek hyperpyra are more abundant and detailed, particularly the two merchants manuals of Pegolotti and the so-called Zibaldone da Canal with information for the early decades of the fourteenth century.165 This information, and that contained in parallel sources, paint a complex but ultimately contradictory picture of the relations of monies. These problems are obviously due to a number of factors, notably the location and time in which the information was gathered, and whether a particular exchange is primary or deduced in a triangulated fashion from other relationships. This appears to be the case for Pegolotti’s exposition of the monetary system in Clarentza and all of Morea:166 the hyperpyron is valued at 20 sterlings, the sterling at four tournois,167 and there are three sterlings to the Venetian grosso. This results in an hyperpyron of merely seven grossi, as specified by Pegolotti in the same passage. Nevertheless, the 3:1 sterling to grosso rate is unusual and metrologically completely unjustified. Usually all Peloponnesian hyperpyra were of the same value, but Pegolotti gives a different rate at Coron-Modon, being valued 24 sterlings, or 12 grossi.168 The hyperpyra of Negroponte and of Thebes, meanwhile, are the equivalents of 23.5 sterlings, and are worth 12 grossi.169 The irregular sterling rates in Pegolotti reveal two facts: that the hyperpyra were mostly pegged to tournois, and that a regular relationship of 8 tournois to the grosso was desirable.170 163  Appendix II.8, pp. 1357–1374. 164  Pegolotti, p. 40. 165  On what follows, see also Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 55–58; Stahl, “European Coinage in Greece”; Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, p. 172. 166  Pegolotti, pp. 65, 116–117, 149. 167  That this relationship of sterlings and tournois was stable in the mind of Pegolotti can also be deduced from the consistent use of sterlings besides tournois in his descriptions of the dues at the Clarentza mint: Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1379. 168  Pegolotti, p. 153. 169  Pegolotti, p. 119. 170  Compare: Stahl, Tornesello, p. 55.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1533

In the Venetian context, the hyperpyron of Negroponte is worth 25 sterlings or 20 soldi ‘a’ grossi (= one pound ‘a’ grossi), at 26 1/9 piccoli to the grosso, which results in 9 ¼ calculated grossi to the hyperpyron.171 This, according to Stahl, equates the sterling approximately with the Venetian soldo (of piccoli), at 7½ grossi to the pound of piccoli.172 This can also be squared entirely with another piece of information given by Pegolotti in the same passage, that is to say that piccoli (called here bagattini), which were used locally in Negroponte, were valued at 1/3 of a tournois, hence 300 piccoli or 300/12 = 25 soldi to the hyperpyron. A few decades earlier, this was only approximately the case with the cited equivalent at Coron from Pasquale Longo, since the hyperpyron was worth there 273/12 = 22.75 Venetian soldi, as against the usual 20 manus. We notice in turn that all of these figures are lower than the earlier soldo equivalents contained in the Ternaria document which has also been discussed. In Pegolotti, these same hyperpyra of Clarentza and Thebes are also weights of an alloy, at 23 carats respectively.173 The latter are weights and not units of account, and Schilbach is therefore very much right to establish the weight of the hyperpyron of Kyllene (= Clarentza) and hence that of the said carats accordingly:174 4.22g (going via the peso of Cyprus, the relationship for which is also contained in Pegolotti) and 0.18g respectively, the latter being equal to the carats of the Byzantine system of account. The hyperpyron of Clarentza represents therefore, according to Pegolotti, an alloy of 4.22g. The hyperpyron of Thebes is also a mass of alloy, though it remains undefined. In going via southern Italian weight equivalents given in other passages of the manual, we can add further precisions:175 5.5 hyperpyra of Negroponte and 6.25 hyperpyra of Clarentza are the equivalent of one gold ounce of the Regno of Naples. This formulation is slightly ambiguous, since one may well imagine that these were monetary equivalents:176 in the case of Clarentza, Pegolotti is rather explicit (“Perpero 6 1/4 al peso di Chiarenza fa in Firenze once 1 a peso del regno di Puglia, perche perperi si vendono e pesano in Firenze al peso del regno”), and if one were to consider 5.5 and 6.25 of the respective hyperpyra the monetary equivalent of one gold ounce of the Regno, then these would result in grain

171  Pegolotti, p. 149. The official ‘a’ grossi rate of the Venetian pound was 9 1/5: see below, p. 1574. 172  Stahl, Tornesello, p. 55. See Spufford, Handbook, p. 92. 173  Pegolotti, pp. 65; 117; 119; 198. 174  Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 219. 175  Pegolotti, pp. 171 and 198. 176  See also below on the Macedonian hyperpyron, for which the manual also gives a weight relationship in similar terms: p. 1571.

1534

appendix iii

equivalents (109 and 96 grains), and in tournois to grain ratios (1:1.1 and 1.2) which are not realistic for the first half of the fourteenth century. Accepting then that these are weight equivalents, we can derive figures, at 26.7g to the ounce, of 4.86g and 4.28g (in the second case, this is close to the figure established independently above). In this context, the hyperpyron of Negroponte is defined as 24 carats, hence one carat weighs just over 0.20g. It is not certain where this leaves our Theban hyperpyron, considered only on rare occasions (see above) different to that of Negroponte, but might this have consequently weighed 0.20g * 23 = 4.66g? It is also not entirely certain how the weights of the hyperpyra and pounds of Clarentza might have stood to one another, maybe something in the region of 82:1177? The fact that Pegolotti gives, for Puglia, the hyperpyra of Greece in terms of gold ounces of weight and not of account is indicative of how familiar the hyperpyra were, and it confirms the extent to which the hyperpyron was a weightbased currency. The spread of various Greek accounting systems into other parts of Italy (Venice, Florence), and to Alexandria, is generally noteworthy.178 An analysis of Pegolotti’s listing of South Italian weights179 reveals another interesting insight: an evidently new silver ounce at 33 tarì weight is the precise weight equivalent of the pound of Clarentza, which could not be a coincidence and which testifies once more to this close relationship. In general terms, the first half of the fourteenth century was a period in which Greek money had a high level of international recognisability. In Constantinople, again according to Pegolotti, this may have been the case in the form of (Greek?) tournois worth eight to the grosso.180 60 hyperpyra of Clarentza are exchanged between an Anconite and a Ragusan.181 An awareness of Greek monetary conventions can be expected amongst certain Venetian parties, and is proven in a private act drawn up in the city.182 In 1312, a loan in Venice recorded in the grosso system of account is to be paid back in Modon or Coron in good quality grossi (this being the interpretation of “denarios novos de la ceçha”), or in tournois (at a stipulated rate of 9 to the grosso) should the former not be available. The Zibaldone da Canal, which is slightly earlier and also more eclectic than Pegolotti’s handbook, but also more limited in terms of information and range,183 has an additional example of how local standards are created: “la lbr 177  See Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1379. 178  Pegolotti, pp. 74, 149, 153, 171, 176, 198–199. See also Baker, “Apulia”, pp. 245–246. 179  Pegolotti, p. 168. 180  See the discussion above, p. 1519, and Pegolotti, p. 40. 181  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 189, no. 150 (1330). 182  Domenico prete di S. Maurizio, p. 173, no. 224. 183  Dotson, Zibaldone da Canal.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1535

de Negropont è tal como quella de Brandiço (= Brindisi) a ponto”,184 the latter obviously accommodating the former, since it stands in no relation to the usual pound to be found in the Regno. For the Peloponnese (Clarentza, Coron, and Morea) the hyperpyron is given a number of equivalents in the Zibaldone: 6s and 8d of tournois, or 20 “mane de tornexi”, both representing 80 tournois, or alternatively 10 grossi of Venice (at eight tournois to the grosso), or in fact alternatively 12 ‘new’ grossi to the hyperpyron (i.e. just under seven calculated tournois to the grosso).185 The meaning of the latter (“gss … de Venexia novi”) defies an easy explanation, since it is difficult to imagine new grossi of lesser value than older ones: Serbian grossi, which made an appearance at about this time, might provide a solution were it not for the fact that these new grossi are also explicitly defined as Venetian.186 The practice of accounting the tournois in shilling units of twelve is usually confined to one set of sources (see above), but can also be found in Pegolotti on one occasion, when he specifies how many tournois can be cut from a pound of alloy,187 and one can imagine that it was actually quite frequent on a daily basis. In Negroponte the Zibaldone values the grosso the same as in the Peloponnese, at 8 tournois. Evidently in order to prioritise the grosso, the hyperpyron is given there a neat equivalent in grossi (at 12), but then a rather crooked tournois rate of 96 (or 8 shillings). It is also revealed that the 100 hyperpyra of Thebes are the equivalent of 100 hyperpyra and 25 carats of Negroponte. The Zibaldone corroborates some of the accounting practices we find in Pegolotti, and is perhaps able to shed a somewhat more accurate light on the relative values of the three main hyperpyra because some of the equivalents are stated less ambiguously, and makes a more pronounced differentiation between the hyperpyra of Euboia and Boiotia. Perhaps the information derived from the period of conflict between the two territories in the wake of the Catalan invasion.188 With respect to the values of the different hyperpyra, the Venetian claims of 1321 are also an invaluable source:189 the hyperpyron of Negroponte is given as manus 25, that of Coron as manus 20, and two gold hyperpyra of 14 grossi each 184  Zibaldone da Canal, p. 59. 185  Zibaldone da Canal, pp. 54–58. See also Dotson, Zibaldone da Canal, p. 196. 186  On the Serbian grosso in this period, see Appendix II.4.C, pp. 1302–1305. On their value in approximately this period, according to Venetian sources, as 24 piccoli (the grosso stood at 32), see Cessi, Problemi monetari veneziani, p. XLV (1299). Consider also the fact that such coins find apparently easy integration into the local system according to the evidence of hoards: Chapter 2, p. 140. 187  Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1379. 188  Baker and Galani-Krikou, “Lytsika”, p. 471. 189  Thomas, Diplomatarium, 1, no. 88. See also Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 55–56.

1536

appendix iii

(see above) are the equivalent of three hyperpyra of Negroponte. According to this information the hyperpyron of Constantinople of 14 grossi stands at 0.66 to that of Negroponte (9.3 grossi), and 0.53 (7.4 grossi, though actually explicitly 8 in the same document) to that of the Peloponnese. 3.7 Accounting in Catalan Territories If our knowledge of the monies of account of south-central Greece in the first half of the fourteenth century is quite detailed owing to the merchants handbooks and the Venetian and Angevin sources, we have a relative dearth of information emanating from specifically Catalano-Aragonese-Sicilian sources of the systems of account used in the eastern Mainland after 1311. This is in some measure due to the fact that the Sicilian dukes of Athens and Neopatra initially did not engage in the kind of (financial) micro-management which we have witnessed from the Angevins and especially the Venetians, but also to the rate of preservation of the relevant acts, which improves only from the 1350s/1370s onwards. We have touched upon the fact that there may have been a temporary divorce in the 1310s between the hyperpyron standards of Negroponte and Thebes. However, Pegolotti implies that a decade or two later the two towns were once more accounting in the same hyperpyra. We are told explicitly some time later (1348) in a will drawn up for a Venetian cleric in Modon that payments made within the Catalan duchy are accounted in hyperpyra of Negroponte, valued at 25 sterlings.190 Hyperpyra would have been used quite naturally by the new rulers of the area. They were, for instance, referred to in the truces which were concluded with neighbouring Negroponte, probably a reason for the harmonisation of the hyperpyra in the area.191 In the 1360s Roger of Lluria and Negroponte discussed damages.192 As inhabitants of the duchies invested in Negroponte-based enterprises in the course of the fourteenth century, no doubt Negroponte hyperpyra were the main money of reference.193 Matters remaining entirely within Catalan-held Greece could conveniently be resolved with reference to the same Greek monies, for instance when concessions of 190  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 7.23. This money will go to his ‘people’ in Athens, and towards a mass which is to be celebrated in the church of St. Mary (i.e. the Parthenon): “… lasso a li mie homeni de la calonega de Setine perper cento e trenta – perper da Negroponte da sterlin xxv lo perper” and “… lasso per far dir messe in la dita clesia de Setine perper cinquanta da xxv sterlin lo perper …”. 191  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 133, no. CIX (1319); p. 143, no. CXVI (1321); p. 197, no. CLIII (1331). Compare Setton, “Catalans in Greece”, p. 180. 192  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 110, no. 428 and p. 122, no. 479. 193  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 100, no. 383 (1361).

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1537

goods were made in response to losses suffered during the civic unrests of the 1360s.194 Earlier (1349), during the initial negotiations over the exchange of control over Karystos from Boniface Fadrique, son of the Vicar General Alfonso, to Venice, 12,000 hyperpyra of Negropone were the agreed sum.195 Three decades later, just after the Navarrese conquest of Thebes, we find twice within one Greek-language source simple taxes being paid on vineyards in soldia, which were the main dividers for hyperpyra.196 There is however one instance from 1367 when local holdings are assessed in gold hyperpyra.197 Another citation which is also difficult to interpret relates to the defence of Megara by the Greek notary Demetrios Rentis (which occurred from 1375). For Demetrios’ services to the Catalans the King and Duke Peter IV of Aragon offered him 40 gold diners from indirect taxes in Athens. Logically, such monies would have been local rather than Iberian. Is this another reference to gold hyperpyra198? The later hyperpyron of Negroponte is considered in the further course of this discussion. Regarding imported monies and monies of account, the Catalans emerged from southern Italy and bound their new polity to the Aragonese crown of Sicily. In the course of the fourteenth century gold ounces of account, which we have already seen in this chapter in the Angevin context, became essentially accounting tools for silver carlini, that is to say in Naples and Sicily respectively for gigliati and pierreali.199 With 60 of these to the ounce of account, the metrological differences between these coins resulted in differently valued ounces, as can be revealed by comparisons with the stable gold florin.200 In the 1320s and 1330s, at Naples there were 4.1–4.4 florins to the ounce, at Palermo between 3.3 and 3.7. Whether the gold ounces in sources pertaining to Greece denoted Neapolitan or Sicilian ounces can usually be deduced from context. The cited episode involving the wealth of Muntaner relates to a time (1308) when the two kinds of ounces may still have had the same values, in that case 4:1 to the florin.201 A particularly Greek numismatic feature, given also the generally early date of the evidence, is the fact that the various carlino emissions 194  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, pp. 356–357, no. CCLXXII (1366); Loenertz, “Athènes et Néopatras I”, p. 244, no. 195 (1381). 195  On this episode, see Chapter 3, p. 380. 196  Schreiner, Kleinchroniken, 1, p. 345, nos 3 and 4 (1381 and 1382). Compare: Dennis, “Capture of Thebes”. 197  See above, p. 1515. 198  Setton, Catalan domination of Athens 1311–1388, p. 161; on Demetrios’ career see also pp. 166–173. 199  Appendix II.11.B–E, pp. 1502–1508. 200  Spufford, Handbook, pp. 62–65. 201  See above, p. 1530.

1538

appendix iii

are so thoroughly mixed. Carlini are still referred to in the Catalan-Greek context in one Venetian act of the 1350s (see below). Muntaner himself, as we have seen, used predominantly ounces in his account, evidently to facilitate understanding for his audience. The ducal title of Athens passed from various members of the Sicilian royal family to others in the early course of the fourteenth century, and some Sicilian monies, accounted naturally in gold ounces, would have flowed to Greece directly from royal sources.202 Also within Greece payments for local services may at times have been specified by the Sicilian crown in gold ounces of account, for instance to compensate an individual for damages incurred through the loss of Megara (see the previous page), on this occasion given as three ounces per annum.203 Easy conversions between the Greek and southern Italian systems were possible. According to the marriage contract between Isabelle of Sabran and Ferdinand of Majorca (Messina, 1314), monies were given to Ferdinand in hyperpyra of account, but the latter were specified in terms of gigliati (four to the hyperpyra), and actual payments in florins.204 This corresponds more or less to the Peloponnesian rate of the 1330s (see below). About a century later at Constantinople, a sale of metals involving Sicilians is recorded by Badoer: this reveals the rates 1 ounce = 5 florins = 13 hyperpyra.205 With respect to Iberian monies, Catalan officials of the duchy of Athens were also familiar with the Barcelona pound of account and its shilling and penny subdivisions,206 which was naturally the system of reference for the Catalan-Aragonese area,207 and for Catalan merchants in Romania.208 Of lesser international stature was the Majorcan monetary system, although we find it in Greece on account of some close personal and business ties:209 note the episode surrounding Archbishop Sirello of Thebes, who died in 1357, and the dean 202  Setton, “Catalans in Greece”, p. 195. 203  Setton, “Catalan Society in Greece”, pp. 274–275. 204  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 86, no. LXIX. 205  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 222. 206  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 169, no. CXXXVIII: see for instance the episode when the castellans, captains and others are asked to cover the debts of Peter of Castellet, who had died in their lands in 1327, amounting to 1,000 soldi (the equivalent of ca. 50–60 florins: Spufford, Handbook, p. 139). 207  See Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 224, no. CLXXI (1338): King James III of Majorca estimates the value of the principality of Achaïa in terms of this currency (300 pounds), of which 100,000 florins remain after military expenditure. 208  Duran i Duelt, Berenguer Benet, pp. 65–70: in the early 1340s the value of the Barcelona pound fluctuated between 2.5 and 2.8 hyperpyra of Constantinople. 209  See Duran i Duelt, “Els mallorquins a la Romania”. On the monies of account, see Spufford, Handbook, p. 153.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1539

of the church of Thebes, Michael Oller, who was victim of the urban revolt in that town in 1362.210 Evidently the rich sums which the former amassed passed into the hands of the latter. They were estimated at 5,000 or 6,000 Majorcan (silver) reals,211 or, at ca. 20 Majorcan shillings or a pound to the florin, and 16 pennies to the real, between 6,500 and more than 8,000 florins. A couple of years earlier a Majorcan was compensated by Venice for the considerable sum of 1,700 Majorcan pounds (= florins) taken from him in the port of Athens.212 An entry in the Commemoriali, which documents damages incurred by Majorcans at the hands of Venetians between Sicily and Clarentza, is revealing regarding the kind of monies (of account) involved in this kind of commercial venture:213 there are Majorcan pounds and their fractions (8,114 s.9 d.4), pounds of ‘alfonsino’ pennies (42) and groats (117), which would have been issues of the Barcelona mint, in addition to carlini (420) and florins (2,046.5). On some rare occasions we can witness in the relevant acts the passage of Aragonese officials to Romania and their payments, as in the case of the Venetian empire, which are upfront and therefore in indigenous monies.214 Upon their returns, officials may also have been remunerated in Iberian monies.215 One may imagine that, as in all of Romania, Catalan officials and traders used Italian gold ducats and florins from mid-century onwards. However, the evidence for this is slight,216 and sometimes negative,217 to such a degree that one must consider their importance heavily outweighed by Iberian or South Italian silver currencies and their accounting systems, as international terms of reference, for most of the duration of the duchies. Only during the reign 210  For the historical context, see Chapter 3, p. 367. 211  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 335, no. CCLII (1362); Dennis, “Archbishop Sirello’s money”. 212  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, pp. 322–325, no. CCXLIV (1360). 213  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 6, no. 63 (1358). 214  See for instance Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, pp. 517–518, no. CDXLVII (1381); pp. 581–582, no. DXXIX (1382): the Viscount of Rocaberti embarks with 6,000 Aragonese florins; he is joined by others with similar monies: Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català,; pp. 602–603, no. DLX (1384). 215  In Aragonese florins and in soldi of Barcelona for service in Athens (1382 and 1383): Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 578, no. DXXIV and p. 594, no. DXLV. Compare also Setton, “Catalans and Florentines in Greece”, p. 237. 216  See for example Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, p. 269ff, no. CCIX (1352): this is an inventory of incomes from items traded in Romania; Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, pp. 467–471, nos CCCLXXXVIII and CCCLXXXVIII (1380): on losses incurred by Catalan traders at the hands of Venetians, accounted in florins of Florence and gold ducats, in addition to some Catalan monies. See also the Majorcan traders which have just been mentioned. 217  There are no such currencies in the 1340s accounts of Duran i Duelt, Berenguer Benet.

1540

appendix iii

of King Peter IV of Aragon, duke from 1379, the ensuing diplomatic efforts to secure the duchy and to compensate for losses incurred in the duchy by individuals, can one find more references in the sources to florins.218 3.8 Moreote Accounting from the 1330s to the 1350s The mid-fourteenth century Moreote inventories of feudal holdings received from the Angevin crown, and edited by Lognon and Topping, is the next body of sources to yield significant information on the systems of account of the peninsula.219 In 1337, Empress Catherine of Valois, widow of Philip of Taranto and mother of Prince Robert of Taranto,220 provide Nicholas Acciaiuoli with estates in Elis and surroundings. At the end of the relevant document a total figure of the revenue is given which is converted into ounces, tarì, and grains of the Regno.221 Therefore: 1,150 hyperpyra 1 sterling = 73 ounces 11.5 grains; 21 deniers tournois = 1 carlino/gigliato; 2 carlini/gigliati = 1 tarì; 30 tarì = 1 ounce. By deduction, 1 ounce = ca. 16 hyperpyra, 1 hyperpyron = ca. 38 grains, and 1 grain is given the value of 2.1 tournois, or less than 0.5 grains are valued 1 tournois. This devaluation of the tournois had been going on since the second half of the previous century (we have seen above tournois and grains in parity from ca. 1273; 0.8 grains to the tournois later in the 1280s; and in 1299 the Angevin sources reveal to us a value of 0.625).222 The tournois was in a reasonable relationship with the carlino,223 the latter containing theoretically 3.74g of fine silver, the tournois therefore 0.18g. There are 60 carlini or 1260 tournois to the ounce, and one hyperpyron is the equivalent of 80 tournois (1260 * 73 / 1150), in line with the previously discussed sources. The grand total which can be calculated from the individual entries is 1134.5 hyperpyra 351 sterlings 7 tournois. This is close to the given total, confirming both the accuracy of the document and the rate of 20 sterlings to the hyperpyron. The pattern emerging from a second document, of one year later, again in favour of Nicholas, who is given more estates in the western Peloponnese, is 218  Rubiò i Lluch, Diplomatari de l’Orient català, pp. 548, 550, 555, 559. 219  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres. These documents were analysed in some depth in Carile, Rendita feudale, not always successfully according to Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale. See also Chapter 3, p. 292. 220  Compare Appendix II.9.A.12, p. 1425. 221  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. II (1337), p. 53, lns 6–10, and Carile, Rendita feudale, p. 127: “… yperperorum mille centum quinquaginta sterlingii unius ad yperpera Clarencie, que reducta ad uncias generalis ponderis, ad racionem de tornesibus xxj pro quolibet carleno et carlenis ipsis duobus pro quolibet tareno et tarenis ipsis triginta per unciam computatis sunt et faciunt uncias septuaginta tres et grana undecim et dimidium”. 222  Baker and Ponting, “Deniers tournois”, p. 238. 223  Appendix II.11.B, pp. 1502–1504.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1541

the same:224 1165 hyperpyra 5 sterlings = 66 ounces 8 tarì 13 grains; 21 deniers tournois = 1 gigliato; 2 gigliati = 1 tarì; 30 tarì = 1 ounce. This leads to the same tournois value in terms of grains, and the same ounce value in terms of tournois (1260), but it would establish a hyperpyron at just under 72 tournois (66.3 × 1260 / 1165.25), a highly unexpected and improbable outcome. Perhaps the error occurred by adding to this equivalent the 12 ounces worth of lands, once given to the late Jacovojohannis, for which separate military obligations are due according to the document. The resulting total of ca. 74 ounces would then square the above equation at the usual rate of 80 tournois to the hyperpyron. In the first document of the series dating to 1336, the same Catherine and Robert give feudal holdings to Nicholas Acciaiuoli in Messenia.225 These are valued at 48 ounces and 24 tarì of the Regno. The total calculated dues from the individual entries in the document are 722 hyperpyra 750 sterlings and 45.5 tournois. At 1260 tournois (an assumption taken from the other two documents) to the ounce and four sterlings to the tournois, one has to take the exchange rate of the hyperpyron and the sterling at 20.24, and to the tournois therefore at 80.96. These figures lie within a tolerable margin of error, given that the overall accuracy of the entries cannot be accounted for, and we need to assume that also here the same 1:20:80 system of hyperpyra, sterlings, and tournois applied. A few examples of accounting errors can easily be given: in doc. II the calculated totals and those given in the text cannot always be squared, for instance in the case of the casale of Cothico226 the former is 316.5 hyperpyra 195 sterlings 9 tournois, while the latter stands at 316 hyperpyra 1.5 sterlings. In Catzicove227 203 hyperpyra 173.5 sterlings compare with 199 hyperpyra 13.5 sterlings. In Mavrion228 the calculated total is 76 hyperpyra 30 sterlings, and that given in the text 73 hyperpyra 2.5 sterlings. In Vodilli and Lithero229 the figures are 158.75 hyperpyra 205 sterlings and 158 hyperpyra 2 sterlings respectively.

224  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. III (1338), p. 57, ln. 26- p. 58, ln. 1, and Carile, Rendita feudale, p. 141: “… yperperorum mille centum sexagintaquinque et sterlingorum quinque ad yperpera Clarencie, que reducta ad uncias generalis ponderis regni Sicilie, ad rationem scilicet de tornesibus vigintiuno pro quolibet carolena et de carolenis ipsis duobus pro quolibet tareno et tarenis ipsis triginta pro qualibet uncia computatis, sunt et faciunt uncias sexagintasex tarenos octo et grana tredecim …”. 225  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. I (1336). 226  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. II (1337), pp. 36–38. 227  Pp. 38–40. 228  P. 43. 229  Pp. 44–45.

1542

appendix iii

By contrast, the casali of Vutiri230 and Basilika231 have yielded the exact same figures, at a rate of 20 sterlings to the hyperpyron. The significance of these many discrepancies may well lie in the different nature of the two figures, that is to say that one, the list in the form of the praktikon, might represent an ideal while the other corresponds to a real instance. The two figures would also very probably not be contemporaneous. The fact that the indicated sub-totals per casale reflect a more recent reality than the values of the individual stoicheia is borne out by the additions of the former and their comparison with the total given at the very end of the document which indicates the current value of the fief (at the time of composition): 1134.5 hyperpyra 351 sterlings 7 tournois and 1150 hyperpyra 1 sterling (see above). Finally, it is possible, though this cannot be further controlled given the other inconsistencies, that the relationship of the sterling to the tournois was indeed not always 1:4. This can be further explored in the next document: In 1354 we find an inventory of Nicholas’ holdings in the Morea. This reveals at one point explicitly a rate of 24 sterlings to the hyperpyron.232 As this document is an inventory rather than a donation it contains as such no ‘servicium’ dues233 and no grand total which is converted into different monies of account. It does, however, consistently provide intermittent totals, which can be compared to those established through my own additions.234 Bearing in mind some of the reservations which I have already expressed, the different 230  Pp. 42–43. 231  Pp. 47–48. 232  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. IV (1354), p. 102, pp. lns 11–15. This was dismissed by Carile as a freak occurrence, as he assumed the rate to stand at 20 at all times, and especially because in this particular instance one is dealing with a marginal note added to the document: Rendita feudale, p. 75, n. 147. 233  Jacoby, review of Carile, Rendita feudale, p. 359. 234  The first row represents those figures given in the text, the second my own calculation. All references are to Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. IV (1354): 1. Casale of Christina, regular staseis (pp. 68–9): 80h, 13st 76h, 88st, 16t. 2. Casale of Christina, empty staseis (p. 70): 37h, 18t 35.5h, 57.75st, 9t. 3. Casale of Fanaro, all dues (pp. 71–72): 38h, 8st 38h, 14.5st. 4. Casale of Cremidi, appactuaciones (p. 77): 1h, 17st 36st, 3t. 5. Casale of Machona, appactuaciones (pp. 78–79): 5h, 9st, 1t 1h, 76.5st, 42t. 6. Casale of Clegi, regular staseis (pp. 80–81): 13h, 16st, 3t 12h, 33.5st, 12t. 7. Casale of Clegi, empty staseis (p. 81): 22h, 15st, 1t 19h, 75.5st, 1t. 8. Casale of Clegi, appactuaciones (pp. 81–82): 2h, 18.5st, 58.5st, 9t. 9. Casale of Glichi, feudal dues (p. 82): 21h, 7st 18h, 70.5st, 8t. 10. Casale of Glichi, empty staseis (p. 83): 10h, 3st 7h, 385st, 4t. 11. Casale of Grisi, appactuaciones (pp. 86–87): 9h, 12st, 3t 4h, 118st, 3t. 12. Castro of Cosuma, all dues (pp. 87–88): 37h, 13st 34h, 73st. 13. Casale of Bulcano, regular staseis (pp. 95–96): 26h, 1t 22h, 81st, 16t.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1543

hyperpyron-sterling rates are: 22 (1); 16.8 (2); no possible rate (3); 20 (4); 20 (5); 17 (6); 20 (7); 21.125 (8); 21.8 (9); 12.16 (10); 21.35 (11); 20 (12); 21.25 (13). A certain tendency for the hyperpyron-sterling rate to stray above the 20 level is undeniable, which is significant particularly in view of the fact that the annotation of 24 sterlings to the hyperpyron which I cite above was situated next to a statement in the text itself to the effect that 20 sterlings were the equivalent of one hyperpyron. By deduction, is it possible that there was already a similar tendency in place in the earlier documents which may also partially account for some of their discrepancies? Document VII, a donation of 1357, provides us with the next glimpse of the same system of account: it gives a total for the revenue (753 hyperpyra 7 sterlings 2 tournois) and its equivalent in the southern Italian system of accounting (47 ounces and 25 tarì235), in addition to a hyperpyron and sterling to ounce rate (15 hyperpyra and 15 sterlings equal one ounce). This information alone allows us to return to all the previously established relations: 2.1 tournois to the grain, 1260 tournois to the ounce, and 80 to the hyperpyron. The value of the hyperpyron also finds confirmation in Walter II of Brienne’s second will of 1354, in which the Peloponnesian hyperpyron is given the equivalent of 40 grains, that is to say there are 15 hyperpyra to the ounce.236 In summary, a system was in place in the Peloponnese according to these sources in the years to the 1350s which was apparently very simple, but rendered quite complicated by different usages and rates for sterlings. One wonders whether the currencies used locally might be the underlying causes for the observed upward tendency in sterling rates. Might the latter have been caused by the gradual introduction of the soldino, a lighter silver coin, or by the reduction in fineness of the last tournois issues of the Clarentza mint237? Or might the introduction of the soldino have influenced the sterling rate indirectly, by causing the changes in the local tournois currency? The precise sequence of cause and effect is not certain. In the main discussions I have assembled recorded official payments within the Venetian colonies of the Morea before mid-century.238 There is a slight hint of some of these problems in the fact that local and domestic monies of account were strictly separated. On the whole, however, the republic appears satisfied to use local hyperpyra for many exchanges, and it is clear from 235  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VII (1357), p. 140, lns 1–5. At one point this figure is rounded up to 50 ounces: p. 134, lns 12–13. 236  Compare above, p. 1523. See Vallone, “L’ultimo testamento del duca d’Atene”, p. 256. 237  Appendix II.9.A.11–12, pp. 1418–1426. 238  Chapter 3, pp. 301–307.

1544

appendix iii

the documentation that they understood these to be mostly amalgams of local tournois, which could be rationalised into ‘mani’ of four. Venetian notarial documents from the same period and area are also quite consistent in using hyperpyra of Coron and Modon, defined as manus 20 of tournois.239 Occasionally, single goods or services are given sterling values, for example in wills of 1336240 and 1358.241 Sterlings can also be seen to be fully integrated into the hyperpyron accounting system.242 Regarding the survival of sterlings, in Coron-Modon small payments such as indirect taxes and fines were occasionally stipulated in sterlings into the second half of the fourteenth century.243 The same Venetian notary defines the same hyperpyron on another occasion as “in tornesibus”.244 The will of the cleric from Modon (1348), which has already been cited for payments made within Catalan Athens, is a very rare and explicit stipulation in a Peloponnesian private act of certain hyperpyron payments in soldini and tournois before mid-century.245 3.9 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Spreads In the last phase of our analysis, after ca. 1350, the main southern Greek accounting systems continued. The hyperpyron of Modon is referred to in Venetian acts until the end of our period,246 and, to judge by the information provided by Badoer, still had an international, or at least inter-regional, standing.247 At the same time the eastern Mainland, which has already been discussed, and Negroponte, would have continued using the same local hyperpyron. There are a few explicit mentions of hyperpyra of Negroponte.248 239  See Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, s.v. iperperum – “ad manus viginti denariorum turonensium pro quolibet iperpero” and variously “currens in Corono/ Mothoni” etc. The notaries in question for this period are mostly Antonius Paulo (no. 1), 1332–1334 and 132–1344, and Nasciben de Scarena (no. 6), 1334–1336. 240  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 6.261. 241  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 3.105. Similar instances can be found s.v. Venezia – starlinus. 242  See Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, nos 6.99 and 6.189 (1334 and 1336): in both cases the sub-division of the hyperpyron, defined “ad manus viginti”, is the sterling. 243  See for instance Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 263. 244  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 6.191. 245  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 7.23. 246  For instance: Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 145–146, no. 1624 (1416). 247  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 221. 248  See for example Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 1.101 (the 1343 sale of a house in Negroponte in local hyperpyra); in 1431 a Greek interpreter is employed at 160 hyperpyra of Negroponte, the equivalent of ca. 28 ducats (i.e. 5.7:1): Thiriet, Régestes, 3, p. 10, no. 2226.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1545

The two main southern Greek hyperpyra dominated their areas and expanded further, so newly Venetian Pteleon adopted the hyperpyron of 25 manus in the fourteenth century,249 in the early fifteenth Venetian Naupaktos accounted in Peloponnesian hyperpyra, although the town may have done so ever since it became Angevin and hosted a tournois mint itself a century earlier.250 Thessaly was also dominated in the early fourteenth century by a polity emitting tournois.251 Nevertheless, it became Byzantine again for nearly three decades before the Serbian invasions of the mid-1340s, and of all of our regions it was the earliest to be integrated into the Ottoman state. For these reasons it is quite possible that, similarly to Lakonia or the Sporades which have already been discussed, there may have been periods and contexts in which the gold hyperpyron, rather than or in addition to the southeastern Greek hyperpyron, may have been current there, but probably combined with diverse currencies, tournois and other non-Byzantine coins, or indeed later on with aspra. This would initially not have been the situation in adjacent Epiros, which emphatically did not continue nor ever revert back to any Byzantine accounting systems (see the next discussion). Both Thessaly and Epiros might then again have used the same systems of account from the late fourteenth century onwards with the coming of the Ottomans and the rise of the aspron. 3.10 Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: General Features We will view the evolution of these systems through the pertinent Angevin and Venetian sources. Two developments are universal: the occasional addition of a gold unit to the hyperpyra and their fractions, and the introduction of the soldo, since the sterling was mostly phased out by the 1350s, as we have just seen. Regarding soldi, these could represent a money of account, that is to say a fraction of a hyperpyron; or they could be a reference to the increasingly prominent soldino coins,252 counted in tale; or perhaps most commonly they were simply a way of counting tornesi in units of four. Whatever the case may have been, it is noteworthy how these penetrated not merely the accounting practices of the main late medieval powers in Greece, but also for instance diverse Greek-language sources, some of which no doubt in the metropolitan 249  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 39, no. 81; p. 47, no. 130 (1341); Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 56, no. 855 (1383). Compare also Chapter 3, n. 544. 250  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 154, no. 1650 (1417); Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 57–58. 251  Appendix II.9.G, pp. 1453–1462. 252  In this regard, see Baker and Stahl, “Morea”, pp. 172–173. See also Chapter 2, p. 101, on the quick introduction of actual soldino coins.

1546

appendix iii

area.253 We have already seen this in the context of accounting notes and a Rechenbuch otherwise featuring florins and aspra (see above in the Byzantine context). Elsewhere, in notes which are equally difficult to locate (one is perhaps Epirote, another Peloponnesian) but which invariably date to the late fourteenth or early fifteenth centuries, soldini consistently sit alongside hyperpyra,254 as they do in a note from Thebes from the period 1381 and 1382, which has already been cited. The monks of Vatopedi received ten soldia per person per week in 1398.255 With respect to the Italian gold currencies, in the relevant appendix256 I attempt to detect the presence of ducats and florins in medieval Greece from some of the more useful pieces of evidence: there is some indication that actual florin coins were already available in the later thirteenth century, especially in political and commercial contexts linking Greece to southern Italy. By the first half of the fourteenth century ducats gain in prominence in precise Venetian contexts, official and unofficial.257 As a monetary shorthand for a clearly understandable system of values in the minds of contemporaries, ducats and florins replaced the Byzantine gold hyperpyron in the course of that century. This would have varied from place to place, and person to person, but it is safe to say that this process was accelerated during the 1320s–1340s and would have been completed by mid-century. In the relevant discussions of Chapter 3 I have gone to some length to convey the usage of these currencies in the narrative and diplomatic sources.258 The Greek-language sources had a clear preference for the florin, since the term doukaton had been reserved for the silver grosso or, as Morrisson has suggested, some ducat issues were too unreliable. It is very difficult to deduce from the sources themselves how much of this actual currency was available. Already during the initial phase of their appearance in Greece, as we have seen, ducats were a money of account of sorts for silver grossi. The occasional citation of fractions of ducats is also proof of such a ducat of account,259 as are some specifications of ducats and florins “in gold”260 since they suggest that there were also other kinds of ducats and florins. In the further course of this appendix the question will be revisited. 253  Compare also the discussion in Appendix II.4.E, p. 1319. 254  Schreiner, Texte, texts 10; 15; 19. 255  Laiou and Morrisson, Le monde byzantin III, p. 200. 256  Appendix II.4.D.2, pp. 1309–1314. 257  Compare also Chapter 3, p. 306. 258  Compare again the relevant discussion in Appendix II. 259  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 6.180 (1336): a debt of 22.5 ducats is paid back; no. 7.42 (1347): half a florin is left in a will in Modon by a Genoese person. 260  Already discussed in this appendix, and Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1314.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1547

Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Angevin Land Regime The importance of the remainder of the documents from the edited volume which has just been discussed, V–VI and VII–IX, dating after 1350, lies firstly in highlighting the introduction of the soldo into the hyperpyron system of account. We have seen above that within this system the soldo of piccoli might also in earlier times, in terms of its value, have been regarded on a par with the sterling. The gradual introduction of the soldo in these particular sources was nevertheless largely due to the appearance in Greece of the one coin which represented this value, the soldino, and then the disappearance of the local tournois. Far from maintaining the standard set by the previous generation of sterlings and tournois, this step would therefore have lowered the absolute value of the hyperpyron: Document V (1354), a fragmentary inventory from Elis, reckons consistently in soldi, with the exception of one entry where hyperpyra and sterlings (abbreviated st.) are combined.261 A report on the fiefs of the same Nicholas from the same year adds little to the discourse, with only one entry recording a sum in s.262 A decade later, the accounts of the castellany of Corinth are largely rendered in hyperpyra and sterlings, the rates of which at 1:20 being revealed in some particularly tight calculations of tax receipts.263 The fact that one passage of this document specifies s. rather than st.264 underlines the general exchangeability of soldi and sterlings of account in this period. Noteworthy is also the absence of tournois from the same three documents. This could mean a couple of things: the automatic commutation of tournois into soldi or sterlings at a standardised rate of 4:1, or the avoidance in these documents of the tournois currency altogether, in favour of soldi. The latter could imply that, in practical terms, tournois were commuted at diverse and going rates into this new system prior to the payment of dues and taxes; or indeed that actual tournois currency was not available in this period between the discontinuation of local Greek issues and the arrival of Venetian torneselli in any significant quantities. In due course, as we shall see, this state of affairs once more came to be turned on its head, with soldi being almost exclusively represented by actual torneselli. The much cited letter of 1361 of Nicholas of Boiano to Mary of Bourbon, wife of Prince Robert of Taranto, also reveals the centrality of the soldino as 3.11

261  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. V (1354), p. 119, ln. 30–31. 262  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VI (1354), p. 127, ln. 11. 263  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. IX (1365), p. 178, ln. 25–30 and p. 184, ln. 1–13. 264  P. 177.

1548

appendix iii

the most commonly encountered specie.265 It is evident from the description that locally these are accounted in hyperpyra, but that for the purpose of sending any sums back to the Regno conversion into gold ducats was required, which was only partially successful. The rates which are revealed in the letter are 73–74 soldi to the ducat, and 3.5 hyperpyra to the florin.266 This results once more in a soldo-hyperpyron rate of just in excess of 20:1. This precise relationship of hyperpyra to ducat or florin was evidently useful to compute the monies sent back to Italy from profits made in Greece, but it meant applying precise soldo-ducat rates.267 Likewise, a couple of decades later, the entire document XI (1379), the receipts which Aldobrando Baroncelli sends to Angelo Acciaiuoli for his Greek fiefs, was calculated at one rate, 3 hyperpyra, 15 soldi = 1 ducat.268 This results in ducats of 3.75 hyperpyra or 75 soldi. Once we apply this rate to the individual entries and calculate ducat-soldo rates, the equivalent of 1:75 is represented on some occasions (p. 203, lns 23–24; p. 204, ln. 3; p. 204, lns 10–11; p. 205, lns 9–10; p. 206, lns 16–17), but there are also some significant fluctuations: 68.6 soldi (p. 204, lns 22–23); 74.5 soldi (p. 207, lns 16–17); 76.125 soldi (p. 201, ln. 34); 78.16 soldi (p. 203, ln. 8); 79.23 soldi (p. 201, lns 9–10); 79.5 soldi (p. 204, lns 27–28). The next and related document XII of the same year, which contains more receipts, fails to give us explicit ducat-hyperpyron or soldino rate, but the individual entries more or less manage to maintain the same 1 ducat = 3.75 hyperpyra relationship.269 What we are witnessing in these three documents is quite clear: the ducat represents in theory an absolute value, that of the gold coin of the same name. Beneath this, the relations of hyperpyra and soldini to the ducat take account of the local accounting traditions, and perhaps of the lack of familiarity with or availability of actual ducat coins. From the information which has already been presented in this appendix, we can compute independently for the first half of the fourteenth century a florin of four Peloponnesian hyperpyra (the Sicilian gold ounce of account has been given in separate sources as ca. 4 florins or ca. 16 hyperpyra, hence 4 hyperpyra = 1 florin). In the light of this and 265  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VIII; Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1310; Appendix II.4.E, pp. 1317–1325. 266  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VIII (1361), p. 149, ln. 9: 200 gold florins = 700 hyperpyra; p. 151, lns 15–6: 25 florins = 437 hyperpyra. 267  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. VIII, p. 145, lns 6–7. 268  This rate is cited throughout the document: Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres, doc. XI (1379), p. 201, lns 9–10 and 34; p. 202, ln. 24; p. 203, ln. 8; p. 204, lns 11, 23, 28; p. 205, lns 10, 30; p. 206, lns 16–17; p. 207, ln. 17. 269  Longnon and Topping, Régime des terres.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1549

the elapsed time, the ducats and florins of the documents from the 1360s and 1370s, at 3.5 or 3.75 Peloponnesian hyperpyra, are very cheap. Even the usually much more valuable gold hyperpyron was in this period in the same order of magnitude: see above. The reason why the Peloponnesian documents are so optimistic regarding the current values of these local currencies as against the ducat, should most likely be sought in an attempt to make the overall sums look better, if only on paper. But this optimism was not confined to the Angevin sources: according to the information provided during the Green Count’s expedition of the 1360s, while in the Peloponnese soldino rates of 74 were generally applied.270 There was an inherent danger here: once it became customary to express ducats in lesser monies at unmerited rates, these local ducats would be divorced from the international absolute standard of gold ducats and begin to form a money of account in their own right. In summary, these documents of the 1360s and 1370s do not in themselves suggest the existence of ducats of account based on soldini or tornesi, but they come close to doing so. Late Medieval Southern Greek Accounting Systems: Venetian Colonies The main currencies in Greek circulation in the period after 1350 were to a very great degree Venetian. The republic also controlled some of the most important locations in Greece, and her trade dominated many others.271 For these reasons it is logical that Venice should have had the most consistent monetary policy of all the powers involved in the area, and the deployment of accounting systems was an integral part of this. At the same time, because of the dominance of Venetian specie, the monies of account of Greece, whether indigenous, colonial Venetian, or domestic Venetian, would mostly have had Venetian link coins.272 With respect to the former, the Venetian sources are usually quite clear, and countless references could be given to this effect, that the systems we are dealing with consist of hyperpyra, soldi, and tornesi, 1-20-80 in the Peloponnese, and 1-25-100 in the eastern Mainland and Euboia. Regulations regarding the minutiae of the administrative and legal systems in Coron-Modon in the Venetian state bodies, mostly the senate, specify dues and fines very consistently in soldi and tornesi.273 Private acts from the same places also combine 3.12

270  Compare Appendix II.4.E, p. 1319. 271  Compare Chapter 3, pp. 378–382. 272   On specifically Venetian accounting, see the discussion below in this appendix, pp. 1573–1581. 273  See the large amount of documentation which Hodgetts, Modon and Coron has assembled, for instance pp. 98–99 and p. 221. See specifically Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 175, no. 726 (1387);

1550

appendix iii

soldini and tournois in the local hyperpyra.274 In Negroponte, in 1415 the annual revenue of the Regimen was given as 9,491 hyperpyra, 15 soldi, 2 tornesi.275 The hearth tax (kapnikon) in fifteenth-century Negroponte reveals a direct equivalent of two hyperpyra or 50 soldi,276 as does a Venetian act explaining that damage incurred near Chalkis by a Cretan galley had to be compensated for in hyperpyra, at 25 soldi each.277 In the Peloponnese soldi and tornesi were fractions of the hyperpyron and the simple Venetian pound alike, respectively at 20 and 80. For instance, the courts in Coron-Modon could impose a penalty for groundless litigation, given in documents of 1384 and 1397 alternatively as 2 soldi per pound or per hyperpyron of the value of the claim (10%).278 During the calculations for the triangulated payments between Nerio Acciaiuoli, Despot Theodore I Palaiologos, and Venice, for the transfer of Argos and Nauplio (1394) precisely this equivalent is revealed: “li qual yperperi vintitremillia se debia defalcar libre XXIIIM de piçoli in Veniexia de le monede che se spende in Veniexia”.279 In some acts it is made more explicit that soldi and tornesi are the local currencies: for instance, upon the transfer of Argos and Nauplio in 1394, we are informed that the “monede che core e che se spende a Coron” are “soldi over tornesi”.280 Rather curious is the rate of five tornesi to the soldo given here, instead of the usual four. Perhaps this is merely the result of a bad transcription from the act into the Commemoriali, or perhaps there is more to this: we notice that the two payments to Despot Theodore through his ambassador Frankopoulos amounting to 23,000 hyperpyra and ca. 1700 ducats, which are to be the equivalent of 9,700 ducat, suppose a high hyperpyron value of ca. 2.9 to the ducat. Was the value of the hyperpyron increased by calculating more tornesi per soldo? This would be an internally neat explanation, though the whole scenario is still quite far fetched. While the Peloponnesian hyperpyron could consistently be equated with the simple Venetian pound, a similar easy relationship to the ducat might be possible if a specific ducat-soldo rate is assumed: in 1409 the Venetian senate advises the authorities in Coron-Modon that the ducat should Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 464, no. 230 (1401); Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 568, no. 302 (1402); Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 127, no. 1545 (1414). 274  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 8.21 (1362); no. 3.21 (1371). 275  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 132, no. 1567. 276  Chapter 3, n. 304. 277  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 156, no. 1300 (1426). 278  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 116. 279  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, no. 141, p. 272. 280  Compare the episode in Chapter 3, p. 372.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1551

be equated with five pounds of piccoli or more.281 5 × 20 = 100 soldini are here the equivalent of the ducat, the latter being in turn worth 5 local hyperpyra. Usually however in this period the soldino to ducat rate was higher and less stable. Regarding this relationship, there is clearly a general increase in the number of soldini or torneselli required to the ducat.282 This happened as a result of soldino debasements and the massive increase in the tornesello issues from the 1380s. Nevertheless, in making their decisions the Venetian state bodies had their own sets of parameters for applying rates. A certain gamesmanship on their part in this respect can also not be denied, where the recipients of official payments ended up with fewer soldini or torneselli than they may have expected. The relevant data are not dense enough to allow one to conclude whether such instances were part of a consistent policy or simply individual acts of opportunism. One must also bear in mind that anachronistic ducatsoldo rates may have been applied when a certain kind of payment had precedents. We find for instance that the commander of the Negroponte galley originally received a yearly salary of 70 gold ducats in 1404, based on a rate of 96 soldi to the ducat. In 1410 he pressed for an increase since the going rate was now 120, and he was rewarded with 80 gold ducats per annum, yet based on the previous soldo rate.283 This kind of arrangement still left him worse off, with the equivalent of 64 ducats per annum at the 1410 value instead of the intended 70. In 1415 the republic specified salaries to be paid out on the galley to Negroponte in ducats, at 98 soldi per ducat,284 and a year later the rate of pay for the new rector of Naupaktos was calculated at 96 soldi per ducat.285 Even towards the very end of our period the bailo of Negroponte still had his salary calculated at the 96 soldo rate instead of 140, necessitating an increase in the salary, according to one act, of 200 ducats.286 We do not know whether on this occasion this official was short changed by the republic. When counted in hyperpyra (and based no doubt on soldini or torneselli), salaries could also be stagnant: to give one example, the rector of Pteleon received the same annual 300 hyperpyra in 1417287 as his predecessor had sixty years previously.288

281  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 83, no. 1338 (1409). 282  See Appendix II.4.E, p. 1318. 283  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 92–93, no. 1383. 284  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 134, no. 1198 (1415). 285  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 141, no. 1600 (1416). 286  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 257, no. 2125 (1429). 287  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 151, no. 1638 (1417). 288  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 82, no. 959 (1399).

1552

appendix iii

Even if the republic tried to apply conservative rates of exchange to its own advantage, the developments in Greece often required it to take specific action: the new bailo of Negroponte had problems recruiting a new chancellor to accompany him around the island, since the proposed salary was too low in view of the fact that the ducat was now the equivalent of 150 soldi.289 Again at Negroponte, the crew of the local galley had to have its salary increased by 40 soldi in view of the same problems (1425).290 This dramatic situation was exacerbated by counterfeit tornesi from Attica and Boiotia, as noted in 1435.291 Because all hyperpyra, Peloponnesian and eastern Mainland, as well as Sclavonian and Cretan (see the next discussions) were consistently defined through soldini and torneselli, it would have been easier to move between them. This would also have become increasingly necessary as the republic tried to forge an entity out of the colonies. So when in 1409–1410 the Regimen of Crete was instructed to send 3,000 and 3,000 hyperpyra, and then later 10,000, to Coron-Modon, we may presume that the latter would have expected to receive in its own currency 6,000 * 32/20 = 9,600, and 10,000 * 32/20 = 16,000 Peloponnesian hyperpyra.292 In 1414 the same Regimen was ordered to send again 6,000 hyperpyra to the same destination, either in ducats or lesser coins.293 Four years later however the instructions were slightly different, since Crete was told to already calculate the hyperpyra it was sending (4,000 for Modon, 2000 for Coron) at 20 soldi,294 though on other later occasions such instructions were again omitted.295 The tornesello was a Venetian colonial coin, to be used in Greece as part of the local hyperpyra. On very rare occasions indeed, as we have already seen, torneselli could have been counted by the Venetian authorities in units of 240 and 12 (i.e. their own pounds and shillings).296 Torneselli had no domestic Venetian circulation, but they were nevertheless produced there, like all other Venetian currencies. For the purpose of specifying consignments of torneselli to the colonies these were very often counted in ducats, though we 289  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 182, no. 1778 (1420). 290  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 225, no. 1977. 291  Thiriet, Régestes, 3, p. 47, no. 2392. Compare also Appendix II.F.1, p. 1327. 292  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 116, no. 1116 and pp. 117–118, no. 1124. 293  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 122, no. 1524 (1414). 294  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 162, no. 1682 (1418). 295  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 179, no. 1760 (1420): 2,500 hyperpyra are to be sent from Crete to Modon, followed by another 10,000; Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 195, no. 1847 (1422): 4,000 follow; Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 227, no. 1986 (1425): Crete is to send Coron-Modon 4,000 hyperpyra to employ soldiers. 296  See above p. 1528.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SOUTH GREECE

1553

are seldom informed about the rates: in 1375 4,000 ducats were sent to Candia ‘in tornesellis’.297 The same phenomenon can be noted for the Ionian colonies (see the next discussion). In the light of this it would seem probable that other such monetary transfers to the colonies which were simply given in ducats would in reality also have involved mostly torneselli. For example, this may have been the case when Negroponte was to receive 1,000 ducats for various preparations against the Turks,298 or when in the same year, upon the death of Peter of San Superán, the captain of the Gulf was asked to investigate the situation in the principality and to bring with him 10,000 ducats to support his mission.299 It is likely that the additional specification ‘in gold’ indicated more accurately the actual specie involved, but this is difficult to prove and will also not always have been consistently applied: we have seen above that the commander of the Negroponte galley’s salary was stipulated in gold ducats and paid in soldini. One also wonders whether similarly the 300 gold ducats sent for repairs to the same colony in 1392 were also an expression of more menial coins,300 or when Crete was instructed to send 3,000 ducats to Coron-Modon (1418)301 and another 3,000 in 1426,302 and when 300 ducats reach Modon from Venice in 1420 for more public works.303 In one act we find the kind of pragmatism that had to be applied: the marquis of Bondonitza Nicholas Zorzi had become a Venetian feudatory in Euboia. The 350 gold ducats he was due to pay for the town of Karystos could be handed over in local monies since gold ducats were difficult to come by.304 Eventually, the ducat of account found its way into the everyday local colonial Venetian system of payments. An example can be given from Coron-Modon (1415), when different services in relation to landholding needed to be paid for to the chancery: one ducat when land changed hands, two tornesi for copying entries in the register, 10 soldi for any contract between Greeks.305

297  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 136, no. 552 (1375). 298  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 24, no. 1041 (1402). 299  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 32–33, no. 1082 (1402). 300  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 194, no. 812 (1392). 301  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 170, no. 1716 (1418). 302  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 240, no. 2040 (1426). 303  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 183, no. 1768 (1420). 304  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 106, no. 1451 (1412). 305  Hodgetts, Modon and Coron, p. 104.

1554 4

appendix iii

Hyperpyra of Sclavonia and “De Cruce”306

The system of account under discussion here relates to parts of our primary area, stretching northwards approximately from the Ambracian Gulf, at times even from the western Corinthian Gulf,307 but it also finds diffusion in more northerly directions, including the important towns of Durazzo and Ragusa. This hyperpyron of different names shared features with those of neighbouring southern Greece and of Macedonia, discussed separately in this appendix. In general terms, it was defined according to the region (Sclavonia or Dalmatia), or according to particularly well documented locations (Durazzo, Ragusa, Corfu), and intermittently according to the main Serbian link coinage. While there was evidently always one dominant hyperpyron in and of the region, there may also have been some regional variation, especially from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. 4.1 Early Local Hyperpyron Changes As we have said, private Venetian acts of the period before 1210 relating to Durazzo already record sums in gold hyperpyra at a local weight.308 In the same town in 1214, but in a private Ragusan act, a payment is made in “yperperos Schlavinie ad pondus Ragusii”.309 This tendency to weigh would a priori imply the pre-1204 stock of hyperpyra at variable weights and given more contemporary values: compare, for instance, the cited Venetian citizen deprived of a gold hyperpyron in Corfu worth 25 carats (1228).310 The hyperpyra of Constantinople and of Negroponte may also have evolved in a similar manner, as weighed gold hyperpyron coins.311 However, the early hyperpyron of the north and west of our area may at the same time have been influenced by standards not based on hyperpyron specie: we note that the same Venetian carried substantial sums expressed in sterlings, and we saw in the second discussion of this appendix that the electrum trachy standard was particularly prominent in Epiros and the islands. As in Negroponte, the piccolo system may 306  Some of the passages in Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII– XIV vek, are relevant to the present discussions, but he erroneously locates Sclavonia in Bulgarian lands. 307  On this area, see also Preface, pp. xv–xvii. 308  See above p. 1513: especially Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti, p. 76, no. 69. 309  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 45, no. 144. On this and what follows, see also Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 218. 310  Above, p. 1524. 311  Above, pp. 1512 and 1524.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SCLAVONIA

1555

also have held a position in early Venetian Durazzo,312 and it was used as a system of value in the 1210 treaty between Epiros and Venice.313 For this reason these weighed hyperpyra may have been shorthands for diverse currencies, not merely hyperpyron coins that were weighed and then converted. 4.2 Coming of Venetian Grossi The early Venetian colonial venture in Albania and Ionia was soon over, but in due course it was a Venetian monetary denomination, the grosso, which made the most lasting impact there. Nevertheless, the level of documentation for grossi, at least for the initial period, is not particularly rich: as the Venetian sources become unavailable, the Ragusan public and private ones only gradually begin to fill the void. In the latter, the local hyperpyron emerged in the 1240s as being valued at 13 grossi.314 In 1249 in Durazzo the hyperpyron is specified as being “denariorum grossorum venetorum”.315 In 1252 Venice acknowledged the receipt of 100 hyperpyra in pounds of grossi from the Republic of Ragusa.316 In the Ragusan sources relating to the town itself and to its commercial interests in Romania, grossi become particularly prominent from the 1280s.317 Hyperpyra and grossi were combined freely in the sources, bearing testimony to the fact that they were a fully integrated system.318 In addition to Ragusan activities, another important source of Venetian grossi in the general Albanian/Ionian and Epirote region were those of the Angevins: as we saw earlier in this appendix, during the 1270s and 1280s significant sums were transported to these territories from Italy. Most of these sums were naturally stipulated in the domestic gold ounce system of account of the Regno. With regard to foreign coins, beside gros tournois and florins, these included a fair number of grossi valued for this purpose varyingly between 5.5 and 7.5 grains of account.319 Some of these rates were rather favourable to the authorities, who

312  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 41–42, no. 501; pp. 46– 47, no. 507 (commercial receipts of 1208 and 1209); Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti, pp. 66–67, no. 60 (a colleganza of 1204); p. 78, no. 71 (a commercial receipt of 1208). See also Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 133. 313  Chapter 3, p. 230. 314  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 55, no. 179 (1243); p. 56, no. 180 (both Durazzo 1243). See also Ducellier, La façade maritime, pp. 189 and 223, nn. 193 and 194. 315  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 59, no. 192. 316  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 108. 317  Appendix II.4.B, p. 1300. 318  See particularly the acts in Krekić, Dubrovnik, pp. 174–191, covering the 1290s to the 1330s. 319  Many of the relevant acts from the Registri are assembled in Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 217–218.

1556

appendix iii

certainly would have been able to acquire grossi sometimes through forced exchanges. Nevertheless, this evidently was not always possible. 4.3 Tornesi and Piccoli It seems that amongst these foreign coins, grossi were the preferred currency which carried the Angevin military venture. In certain urban centres governed by the Angevins other important currencies are in evidence. In Durazzo in 1274 the castellan pays salaries in tournois.320 In Corfu the Venetian piccolo may have continued to be used, since in his function as captain, Giordano di S. Felice (1272–1284) spent 800 soldi for daily expenses from his own funds, which according to an Angevin act of 1293 Charles II agreed to restitute.321 In the extensive Venetian claims of 1278 the same system is again encountered for entries relating to Corfu and Epiros.322 In 1320, when the annual revenues of Butrint and Parga were assessed with a view to offering these localities to Venice, we again find that the piccolo is the money of reference.323 Even though the occurrence of tournois in the Corfiot or Albanian context is rare in the Registri Angioini, circumstantial evidence would suggest the growing importance of this currency around the general coastlines of the northern Ionian and southern Adriatic areas, whether on the Italian or Balkan side of the sea. This evidence includes a few non-Angevin documentary sources,324 relevant coin finds,325 and the activities of the mint of Corfu, which may have begun as early as 1294.326 4.4 Hyperpyron Rates at the Height of Angevin Power The local system of account which we encounter most in the Angevin sources for payments stipulated within Corfu and Albania revolve around the hyperpyron and the grosso.327 There is in this body of early Angevin sources no indication of how many grossi there were to the hyperpyron, nor is there 320  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 91, no. 314; Registri 11, p. 215, no. 130. 321  Perrat and Longnon, Actes, p. 65, no. 59. On this person, see also Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, p. 133. Also in Ragusa at the turn of the century Venetian pennies may have circulated: Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 193. 322  Morgan, “Venetian Claims Commission”, p. 426ff. 323  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 2, no. 222: £1,000 and £1,500 respectively, the latter in sugar. See also Soustal, “Butrint”, p. 24. 324  Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1384. 325  See the respective discussions in Chapter 4, pp. 474–479 and Chapter 2, pp. 99–100. 326  Appendix II.9.D, pp. 1441–1443. 327  For references to gold ounces of account in the same contexts, see for instance Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Les ‘Albanais’”, p. 238; Dourou-Iliopoulou, “Colonisation latine en Romanie”, p. 127.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SCLAVONIA

1557

an independent value given to the latter, but we are informed at one point that in 1279 Charles of Anjou advised the local administrators that 1 ounce = 8 soldi (of grossi) and 4 grossi = 100; hence 6 grains = 1 grosso, which is again on the low side.328 The hyperpyron was obviously the preferred currency in the specifically Albanian context, for instance when the local chieftain Paul Gropa was provided with a yearly stipend of 400 hyperpyra for his services,329 or when damages were assessed near Spinarizza in 1270330 and 1277,331 and near Durazzo in 1278.332 It is not entirely straightforward to assess how this hyperpyron and its link coins evolved in these years, especially in view of the lacunae in the information and the evidently variable grain to grosso rate. We are informed by the aforementioned document for the Venetian customs officials of the Ternaria that the hyperpyron of Sclavonia was worth 12 grossi,333 one grosso less than previously noted, and it is possible that this document reflects the situation during Angevin rule. This was its value also for much of the fourteenth century (see below). If this was the system that evolved under the Angevins, then we may surmise that the relationships were perhaps 1 hyperpyron = 12 grossi = 72 grains of account, using the only grain to grosso ratio which we have for the local context (6:1). In such a case, the most important considerations to the Angevin authorities might have been a neat and favourable relationship of the two key units (1 ounce = 100 grossi), and the resulting cheapness of the hyperpyron which this entailed. It may also have been the intention to bridge the gap between the Epirote and south Greek hyperpyra, specifically by equating those of Epiros and Thebes in all their aspects.334 This may have entailed a first-time accommodation of the tournois into the system, certainly not at the later rate of 10 tournois to the grosso (see below), but perhaps at eight, which would have resulted in 8 shillings tournois, or 96 coins, to the local hyperpyron. Nevertheless, it is difficult to ascertain whether this may have been more of an ideal, and whether the reality may perhaps have been closer to the following equivalents (at the more realistic 7.5 or even 8 grains to the grosso): 1 hyperpyron = 12 grossi = 90 or 96 grains. It is also possible that, despite Angevin efforts, the hyperpyron of Sclavonia remained defined

328  Registri 11, pp. 220–222, no. 145 (1274) and Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, passim, and specifically pp. 167–168. 329  Registri 10, p. 176, no. 682 (1273). 330  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 74, no. 261. 331  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, pp. 109, no. 368 and 110, no. 372. 332  Registri 19, p. 130, no. 118. 333  Above p. 1525. 334  Above p. 1532.

1558

appendix iii

as 13 grossi in the later years of the century. A Venetian source of 1293 gives the hyperpyron as 30 soldi.335 These need presumably to be considered 1.5 pounds ‘a’ grossi, or just over 13 grossi to the hyperpyron.336 As a consequence, one can imagine hyperpyra of 78, 98, or 104 grains, depending on the rate applied. 4.5 Fourteenth-Century Hyperpyra: Tornesi and Venetian Grossi As Angevin power in Albania waned, and with the relative demise of the Venetian grosso and the parallel rise of the Greek tournois, it is very likely the local hyperpyra came more and more to be based on the latter.337 The sources we have to this effect are rather later and scattered, but the ratio is consistently 1 hyperpyron = 12 grossi = 120 tournois, whereas the absolute standard of this hyperpyron can be measured against the currency of the Regno, standing at 54 grains in 1330 and 40 grains in 1382.338 This establishes for the 1330s a considerably more valuable hyperpyron than that of Angevin Morea.339 At respectively 54 and 38 grains and 120 and 80 tournois, it is interesting to note that the tournois of account which provided the base were close to one another in value, and that this Corfiot tournois of account had therefore not suffered from some of the adverse developments affecting this currency in the general Epirote area.340 On the other hand, as in Crete, the grosso was according to this evidence developing into a pure money of account in the course of the central years of the fourteenth century. Before that date the grosso-tournois rate was still prone to fluctuations, especially in non-official documents. The Irish traveller we have just mentioned paid 11 tournois to the grosso in 1323. One final piece of information from the first half of the century is again testimony to the importance of the tournois: the permission given in the 1319 chrysobull of Andronikos II to the people of Ioannina to use their own system of account (‘charagma’).341 Had the latter been limited to hyperpyra of 12 grossi then there might not have been the need for such an extra-ordinary stipulation given that this had long been the established hyperpyron of neighbouring

335  Cessi, Deliberazioni del Maggior Consiglio, 3, p. 331. 336  See below p. 1574. 337  Consider also the account of the Irish traveller who documents the usage of tournois in Durazzo in the 1320s, a state of affairs that one may not have assumed in the light of the numismatic data: Appendix II.9.A.1, p. 1384. 338  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, pp. 168–170, with reference to the important Luttrell, “Guglielmo de Tocco”. 339  Above p. 1540. 340  See especially Appendix II.9.J, pp. 1466–1476. 341  Chapter 1, p. 56.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SCLAVONIA

1559

Macedonia, but the tournois would have constituted an unusual ingredient in this newly imperial context. 4.6 Fourteenth-Century Hyperpyra “De Cruce” Parts of the Dalmatian and Epirote area soon came under the influence of another coinage. As we have seen, the private and public Ragusan sources recorded consistently to the 1320s all expenditure domestically and in other areas of Sclavonia in plain (local) hyperpyra and grossi. In the subsequent period there was a shift in the monies of account used. The 1330s saw the first appearance in the Serbian and Dalmatian area of ‘Venetian hyperpyra’,342 for instance when a Ragusan widow defended her late husband from the allegations that he had made debts at Valona (1335).343 About a decade later, Venetian hyperpyra can also be found in Macedonia, where they are demonstrably hyperpyra constituted by 12 Venetian grossi (see the next discussion). In parallel with this new system of account, we find in a similar body of sources the hyperpyra of “de cruce”: there are some early exchanges in this currency in Cattaro;344 a trade accord regarding Durazzo and its area reveals a rate of 32 grossi “de cruce” to the gold ducat;345 some Milanese cloth is valued in this currency at Scutari;346 a loan is made in Cattaro;347 and a straight exchange of this currency into gold ducats is made by a Venetian at Ragusa, at 35 grossi “de cruce” to the ducat.348 In 1348 salt is bought at Valona in this currency349 As has been noted many times, these grossi of account were presumably based, at least initially, on Serbian issues of Stefan Uroš III (Dečanski) (1321–1331) with the prominent double cross.350 We can see that according to these sources within five years a certain evolution in the value of this particular grosso had taken place. At an official rate of 24 Venetian grossi to the ducat, the relationship of the Venetian to the “de cruce” grosso is 1:1.3–1.5. According to another piece of information, in 1333 a pound of grossi “de cruce” was worth 140 Venetian grossi,351 which establishes a relationship of 1:1.7. The sources of the area in this period still generally 342  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 109. 343  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 192, no. 169. 344  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 222, no. 745 (1330), and p. 225, no. 757 (1332). 345  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 234, no. 789 (1335). 346  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 1, p. 239, no. 804 (1336). 347  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 193, no. 175 (1337). 348  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 197, no. 202 (1341). 349  Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 594. 350  Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 243, no. 5.1. See also Metcalf, SE Europe, p. 219, and Appendix II.4.C, p. 1303. 351  Ivanišević, Novčarstvo Srednjovekovne Srbje, p. 207.

1560

appendix iii

abound in hyperpyra that are not any further defined, but which one may surmise continue to be Venetian grosso-based hyperpyra. According to these disparate pieces of information, anything between 16 and 20 of these Serbian grossi would have been required to meet this Venetian-grosso-based hyperpyron. A decade later, the Serbian empire was able to negotiate a slightly more favourable rate of exchange when it agreed to compensate for the losses incurred by a Venetian ship off Valona.352 According to the information we find in that source, 16 hyperpyra are the equivalent of one pound of account, which results in 240/16 = 15 of these presumably Serbian pieces to the hyperpyron. In papal sources of this period 55 of the same Serbian coins were required to the florin.353 This goes to show how much the Serbian coins might have been overvalued in some of the other documentation, or how much they had declined in quality by the 1350s. This leaves the question unresolved as to whether hyperpyra “de cruce” were conventional hyperpyra met with 15–20 grossi “de cruce”, or whether this term denoted a new kind of hyperpyron of perhaps 12 grossi “de cruce”. One suspects that the first of these scenarios applied. Towards the Late Medieval Period: Hyperpyra, Grossi, Tornesi, Ducats, Soldini Beyond the cited cases, this system of account was however shortlived in the general Dalmatian and Ionian area, a stopgap solution one may suppose after the demise of the Venetian grosso and even the tournois currencies. Perhaps ironically, the height of this ‘Serbian’ accounting system in our area pre-dates the Serbian domination there, which began in the 1340s. One may suppose that the presence of some Serbian specie from this point onwards might have continued this system of account, but there is no hard evidence for this.354 From the middle of the century one may discern instead different developments in the sources: There were on the one hand regional developments, within or outside of the overriding hyperpyron-grosso system, which created a gulf between Epiros/ Ionia in the south, and the Dalmatian towns of Ragusa/Cattaro further to the north. Scutari and Durazzo were, as ever, intermediary areas in this regard. According to the numismatic evidence, from the middle of fourteenth century these more northerly areas used, in addition to the main denominations of the Venice mint, also grossi, denari, and copper coins produced locally under

4.7

352  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 4, no. 336 (1350). 353  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, 2, p. 26, no. 90 (1351). 354  Compare our discussion in Chapter 3, pp. 414–415, and also Ippen, “Münzfund in Albanien”, for a Serbian hoard of the 1360s from the area of Durazzo.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SCLAVONIA

1561

different civic, regal, or colonial conditions.355 Such coins are, with only one belated exception (see «211»), not known from our area. Because the newly evolving hyperpyra and pounds of account, built around these Dalmatian denominations, were also confined in the sources to precisely those areas,356 they evidently had no bearing on Greece and will not be further considered here. One entry in the Commemoriali reveals that 3.5 of these Dalmatian hyperpyra were worth one ducat.357 Second there is the continuation of the general hyperpyron and grosso system of ghost monies, often paid in or combined with different Venetian coins from billon to gold. The latter were sometimes explicitly real coins: in an act of 1357 we find hyperpyra which are “ad ducatos”.358 Hyperpyra (nomismata) were traditionally used in the Greek-language narrative sources to describe monies changing hands as part of local political and military developments, but more often now, as in the case of southern Greece which we have already explored in this appendix, ducats were now more useful for these purposes.359 It is interesting that the Chronicles of Ioannina and of Tocco have a predilection for florins rather than hyperpyra or ducats. In some Ragusan sources pertaining to Romania ‘ducats’ seem to indicate the presence of actual gold coins of that name, especially in the early documentation,360 but from mid-century onwards these were also very frequently monies of account.361 In the course of the second half of the fourteenth century in some Epirote areas Venice assumed the succession of Angevin, Serbian, or other, authorities, thereby complementing the much more extensive Venetian colonialism in Dalmatia, and in southern Greece.362 The Venetians were keen to continue 355  See for instance Metcalf, SE Europe, pp. 191–203; Schmitt, Albanien, pp. 334–336. For a payment made explicitly “in grossis sclavonicis”, see for example a Ragusan act concerning Antivari: Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, pp. 54–55, no. 240 (1368). 356  Consider in particular Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 206, no. 257 (1366); p. 220, no. 348 (1380); p. 240, no. 465 (1396); p. 243, no. 477 (1397); p. 258, no. 578 (1409); p. 262, no. 602 (1413); p. 264, no. 614 (1415); p. 267, no. 631 (1417); p. 276, no. 690 (1424); p. 285, no. 736 (1427); p. 285, no. 738 (1427). See for instance Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, p. 96, no. 404 (1387) for a payment in “perperos de Cataro”. 357  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 11, no. 231 (1426). 358  See Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 203, no. 238. 359  Compare again the discussions in Chapter 3, pp. 360–364 and 372–374. 360  See Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1311. 361  This fact is often revealed by the citations of fractions of whole ducats: Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 195, no. 189 (1340): a loan of 5.5 ducats; Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 199, no. 217 (1347): an uneven ducat rate for the purchase of wheat. 362  A useful overview of accounting in Venetian Corfu and the wider area is contained in Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, pp. 380–393.

1562

appendix iii

using the local hyperpyra in each of these locations, especially in matters relating internally to these territories.363 In 1417 we are informed, as certain assets were valued in Corfu and Patra, that the respective Sclavonian and Peloponnesian hyperpyra, of 30 and 20 soldi respectively (= 120 and 80 torneselli), were still very much in place.364 We have already seen that Naupaktos, which became Venetian in 1407, would also have used the Peloponnesian hyperpyron. As part of this process, the Sclavonian hyperpyron was in many cases divided into the current soldi and tornesi, rather than the more oldfashioned grossi of account. It is difficult to say whether Epirote hyperpyra of 30 soldi had the same absolute value as the Dalmatian one (3.5 of which were one ducat: see above): the soldo to ducat ratio to make this equation work is 105:1. According to Nicol’s interpretation, Charles I of Tocco received in 1395 20,000 local hyperpyra in damages, being the equivalent of 5,000 ducats (i.e. 4:1).365 Some time later we are informed that at Corfu there were 96 soldi to the ducat in 1423,366 and in general within the official Venetian sources this rate does not stray higher than 100. As elsewhere, in Venetian times the system of account for everyday exchanges would eventually be very much based on soldi and tornesi. There are also instances here of tournois being counted in their own system of pounds and shillings (‘soldi tornesiorum’).367 In some more conservative contexts, such as payments within the land regime, the old hyperpyron-grosso system of account was current into the fifteenth century, together with smaller units, the tornese and (rarer) the soldo.368 There were also contexts in which accounting would have taken place on purely Venetian terms, circumventing the hyperpyron altogether. This is explored below in the appendix,369 and in the discussion of the Venetian empire in this period in the main chapters.370 Also torneselli sent to Sclavonia were often specified in ducats, which was not to everybody’s liking: this is well illustrated by the complaints of the local Albanian lords of the Thopia family upon the receipt of torneselli instead of new ducats on the occasion of the handover of Durazzo to the Venetians (1392).371 Earlier, during the period of transition in 363  See, for instance, on affairs between the colony of Durazzo and the local Albanian families: Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, p. 157, no. 572 (1396). 364  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 154, no. 1650 (1417); Schmitt, “Lepanto” p. 84. 365  Nicol, Epiros II, p. 224. He corrected Thiriet’s Régestes, 1, no. 905 (1395). 366  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 202, no. 1878 (1423). 367  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 392. 368  Asdracha and Asdrachas, “Les paysans dans les fiefs de Corfou”, pp. 25, 28, 31. 369  See the discussion below on the Venetian system of account, pp. 1573–1581. 370  See esp. Chapter 3, and esp. pp. 298–307. 371  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, p. 122, no. 483 (9 August 1392); Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 500.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: HYPERPYRA OF SCLAVONIA

1563

Corfu, the new Venetian authorities were sent ducats ‘in tornesibus’ for different purposes, such as harbous repairs.372 Likewise, in 1388 Durazzo received 100 ducats ‘in tornesellis’.373 In this period torneselli were new to the area.374 According to one act the new bailo and captain of Corfu was to be in receipt of a salary, specified in pounds of grossi (80), but payable in ‘current’ coins or in torneselli.375 The grossi referred to here may well have been a nod to the old local accounting system of hyperpyra and grossi, but the precise identity of the local coins before the introduction of torneselli is more difficult to establish. Another interesting and possibly typical scenario can be added with a Corfiot dimension: the captain of the Gulf Pietro Loredan reported to the bailo of Corfu in a letter about a mission to the sultan on the straights of the Dardanelles in July 1416. He did not proceed since safety was not guaranteed. In the meantime he paid his crew, apparently from funds gathered from a Venetian merchant’s galley (5,000 ducats).376 The captain was obviously accompanying these galleys, or was at least aware of their itinerary. He was also able to arrange this transfer of monies, probably destined for Constantinople or the Black Sea to purchase merchandise. The further wording of the passage is not entirely clear: either half of the 5,000 ducats was gathered on this occasion in tornesi; or the full amount, half in tornesi and half in other currencies.377 Whether the Venetian authorities referred to local hyperpyra or ducats of account, conversion from one to the other appears not to have been an issue. In 1413 we are informed that a sale’s tax on wine at Corfu, given as one ducat per unit, amounted to a total profit to the Regimen of 2,560 hyperpyra.378 The Ottomans became active in Epirote politics from the later 1370s, in the area of Valona in the north, and by involving themselves with the ruler of Ioannina, Thomas Preljubović, his successor Esau Buondelmonti, and their Albanian foes. One would assume that, as in neighbouring Thessaly, which was Ottoman uninterruptedly from 1393, the Byzantino-Ottoman aspron currency and its system of account (as plain ‘aspra’ or as link coins for different hyperpyra or even florins) would also have come to Epiros, but our evidence to this effect is almost non-existent. One example for Thomas’ tyrannical rule given in the two versions of the Chronicle of Ioannina is the imprisonment of 372  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 172, no. 712 (1386). 373  Thallóczy et al., Acta et Diplomata Res Albaniae, vol. 2, p. 102, no. 424 (1388). Compare Ducellier, La façade maritime, p. 496 and Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 381. 374  Compare also Chapter 3, p. 394. 375  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 177, no. 731 (1387). 376  Codice Morosini, p. 685, no. 429 (1416). 377  I thank Andrea Nanetti for discussing this matter with me. 378  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 111–112, no. 1477 (1413).

1564

appendix iii

the abbot of Metsovo in 1379. The futile attempt to save the latter from being blinded involved the payment, by godly men, of 200 aspra.379 In the demotic version of the same chronicle this sum is given as 150 florins,380 which defies explanation since the equivalent of 200 aspra cannot have been more than a handful of florins (compare with our discussions above). Either an outright mistake occurred or this is evidence for the rather formulaic fashion in which monetary sums are rendered in some narrative sources. The Ottoman fiscal sources, for Thessaly for instance, post-date the chronology of this book, but use exclusively akčes.381 5

Other Regional Hyperpyra: Crete, Chios, and Macedonia

The subject matters are here three hyperpyra of account of the Aegean region, peripheral to our own area though impinging on it in various ways. 5.1 Crete382 As we have seen in the earlier discussions of this appendix,383 Crete, much as Euboia, continued to use the gold hyperpyron after 1204, but also moved to other standards rather rapidly. The first explicit mention of Cretan hyperpyra dates to 1229,384 although an earlier act had already ceased to make reference to the metropolitan hyperpyron in its full titulature, indicating a break-up of the unified system.385 Thereafter one finds Cretan hyperpyra relatively frequently in this particular set of private sources.386 In mid-century,387 and thereafter,388 379  Appendix II.1.F, p. 1277. 380  Cirac Estopaña, España y Bizancio, pp. 154 and 47 (textos griegos); Chronicle of Ioannina, p. 91. See Nicol, Epiros II, pp. 224–225. 381  See Chapter 3, p. 388. 382  Vincent, “Money and coinage in Venetian Crete” deals specifically with this subject matter, though its focus begins towards the later years of our own study. 383  See pp. 1513–1515. 384  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, p. 185, no. 646. On this and what follows, see also Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 108; Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 204; Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, p. 218. 385  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Nuovi documenti, pp. 89–92, no. 82 (1225). 386  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 318–319, no. 795 (1248); pp. 319–320, no. 796 (1249); pp. 383–384, no. 857 (1260). 387  See above, p. 1525. 388  Pietro Scardon, nos 29 and 280 (1371); Leonardo Marcello, nos 280 and 318 (both of 1280); Thiriet, Délibérations, 1 p. 40, no. LI (1281); p. 81, no. 8 (1301): The sterling as a system of value is occasionally found on the island also much later: Gasparis, Η γη και οι αγρότες στη μεσαιωνική Κρήτη, Tables 7 and 12.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: REGIONAL HYPERPYRA

1565

the hyperpyron was occasionally defined through sterlings on the island. In 1255 the former stood at 13 grossi,389 in the early 1270s even more.390 In the instructions issued to the Venetian oil office, the same hyperpyron was valued at 12 Venetian grossi (30 soldi).391 From this period onwards the Cretan system of account remained close in character to the Venetian domestic system which is explored in the next discussion, with the hyperpyron of Crete as an add-on at a consistent rate of 12 grossi. There is a distant memory in the Codice Morosini of the fifteenth century that the Cretan hyperpyron of the time of Doge Pietro Ziani (1205–1229) may have had the value of half a ducat, which is in fact quite accurate if somewhat anachronistic in its reference to the gold currency.392 It is also likely that until the 1280s the Venetian penny currency, undoubtedly already known in Crete,393 was also inconsistently integrated into the Cretan hyperpyron, and that even the rates of the grosso to the penny fluctuated.394 On the other hand, the easier integration of these piccoli in the notarial documents from the early fourteenth century onwards suggests that we are dealing here with a regular system, that is to say 1 hyperpyron = 12 grossi; 1 grosso = 32 piccoli.395 This results in the equivalent 32 Venetian soldi = 1 hyperpyron. It appears that the crucial relationship for the integration of any later developments in the Venetian monetary system in the fourteenth century into this hyperpyron was the relationship of the hyperpyron to the piccolo and its soldo. By contrast, in other territories which have so far been discussed in this appendix, the key coinage for the transition from the later thirteenth century to the middle of the fourteenth was the tournois, a value which in Crete was only occupied by the later Venetian tornesello. On the island, in the course of the fourteenth century the following would have been the ideal monetary and accounting system, as proposed and enforced by the authorities, with soldini

389  Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti del commercio, pp. 354–355, no. 827. 390  Stahl, “Latin Empire”, p. 204. 391  See above, p. 1525. 392  P. 17, no. 27. 393  Appendix II.4.A, p. 1296. 394  Leonardo Marcello (1278–1281) does not use these pennies as fractions of the hyperpyron, and neither does Pietro Scardon (1371), and on some occasions (nos 50, 51, 65, 243) he needs to describe elaborately how the Cretan system converts into the domestic Venetian one, and how grossi and piccoli relate to one another, which further underlines the point. 395  See for instance Benvenuto de Brixano (1301–1302), Pietro Pizolo (1300 and 1304–1305), Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella (1305–1306 and 1321), and especially Franciscus de Cruce (1338–1339). Overall, these piccoli are not particularly abundant, but this is due to the generally high level of expenditure (only the last of the cited notaries records smaller sales).

1566

appendix iii

and torneselli being added from the 1330s and 1350s respectively, and grossi and piccoli being progressively turned into ghosts:396 1 hyperpyron = 12 grossi = 32 soldi/soldini = 128 torneselli = 384 piccoli ½ hyperpyron = 6 grossi = 16 soldi/soldini = 64 torneselli = 192 piccoli ¼ hyperpyron = 3 grossi = 8 soldi/soldini = 32 torneselli = 96 piccoli The difficulty in all of this lies not only in the general acceptability of the new and intrinsically inferior ‘moneta’ coins (soldini and torneselli) within the previously established system, but in the fact that in Crete, because of the precise constellation of piccoli and grossi as part of the local hyperpyron, the new currencies were even more overvalued than domestically: for instance in Venice three soldini were required to make up a grosso (the latter now of 36 piccoli, and in the course of the fourteenth century 48397), whereas on the island 2.67 sufficed.398 These problems were compounded by the appearance of fresh gold ducats, officially valued at 72 soldini or 24 grossi, although within the Cretan context at merely 64 soldini (= 2 hyperpyra). High ducat production rates from the 1320s, and an apparent saturation in Crete, blunted the initially negative impact of these coins caused by their undervaluation.399 The lack of specific ducat recordings in the notarial records from the island in mid-century would suggest that they were fully integrated with the other values.400 This situation changed dramatically towards the end of the century, with ducats becoming much rarer on the island, and, in line with developments also elsewhere (see above), much more valuable against the soldino- and tornesello-based soldo, reaching 70 soldi in the 1370s, 100 soldi at the turn of the century, and 150–170 by mid-fifteenth century.401 The ducat was consequently valued at nearly five Cretan hyperpyra by the early fifteenth century.402 In this late medieval period a complex system of monies was in place on the island. As elsewhere in Greece, soldini and tornesi would have been the main currency, and therefore menial wages and small-scale exchanges would have been expressed in their equivalents, soldi and tornesi. Yet the local hyperpyron and its grossi and piccoli divisions, and the Venetian gold system of ducats and grossi were also in 396  Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 5; 54–55; 58–59. 397  Spufford, Handbook, p. 85. 398  Appendix II.4.E, p. 1318. On the continuation of the 1:32 relationship of grosso and piccoli on the island, see Stahl, Tornesello p. 54. 399  Stahl, Zecca, p. 51; Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1310. 400  Appendix II.4.D.2, p. 1312. 401  See Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 2; 10; 61–70; 87–90. 402  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 227.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: REGIONAL HYPERPYRA

1567

use. This is exemplified nicely in an act of 1417: a debt incurred in Crete, of 400 hyperpyra, 1 grosso, and 11 piccoli, is paid back in the Venetian gold system, at 116 soldi to the hyperpyron, as 110 ducats and 9 grossi.403 Here, as elsewhere, there would have been two different grossi ghosts in operation, one a multiple of the soldino (at a peculiar Cretan rate of 2.67, as we have said), and another a fraction of the ducat. Unique to Crete would also have been the dichotomy between two different kinds of piccoli, the first being a fraction within the local hyperpyron-grosso-soldino system (32 to the grosso), the second being a fraction within the ducat and grosso gold system (at 48 to the grosso). Even though the ducat and hyperpyron systems worked in different ways, they would have existed on the island side-by-side and interacted on a daily basis in view of the fact that certainly by ca. 1400 ducats and torneselli would have been the main currencies available. A large transaction of 690 hyperpyra is documented for 1403, being paid in 75,520 torneselli (= 590 hyperpyra) and 33 ducats, assuming a soldo-ducat rate of 97.404 Beyond the island, the Cretan hyperpyron reached into two distinct areas in the Aegean, namely the Cyclades, part of the primary area of this book, and the eastern islands and the Anatolian mainland. In the first case this was due to a few inter-connected factors: the often fluid exchange of populations between Crete and the islands to the north, and the residence of many of the island potentates, mostly Venetian citizens themselves, in Candia;405 and more technically, the usage by the latter of notaries of Candia as quasi-chanceries.406 Kythira is one of the better documented islands since it became a Venetian colony in the 1360s. We have some information relating to the previous period when the Venier were lords of the island, and also thereafter, indicating that the Cretan system of hyperpyra and grossi was consistently used.407 In 1389 the castellan of Kythira had a salary of 500 hyperpyra of Crete.408 Candia itself as an international harbour became much more important after the turn of the fourteenth century with the establishment of the galley system,409 exactly the period in which Byzantine authority waned in western and northern Anatolia. It became the centre of the trade in Greek slaves, some from the 403  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 139, no. 1220. 404  Cited in Vincent, “Money and coinage in Venetian Crete”, p. 289. 405  See Chapter 3, pp. 227–228 on early political development in this regard. One early reference to Cretan hyperpyra in the Cyclades, though recorded in Candia, is the 1280 loan of 360 hyperpyra by the people of Melos to their bishop: Koumanoudi, “Latins in the Aegean after 1204”, p. 262. 406  On this, see Tiepolo, “Public documents and notarial praxis”. 407  Koumanoudi, “The Venier Kytheran estate records (15th c.)”, p. 504; Koumanoudi, “First Venetian lords of Kythera”, pp. 98–99. 408  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 68, no. 895 (1389). 409  Chapter 3, pp. 298–299; Borsari, Dominio veneziano a Creta, p. 68.

1568

appendix iii

Cyclades themselves, who appeared on the market after the Turkish invasions. Trade connected both the Cyclades and the eastern Aegean with Crete, leading to the proliferation of the Cretan money of account: damages to Venetians in the area of Smyrna are assessed in this currency in 1321,410 and a century later the Cretan hyperpyron is a recognised entity in Constantinople.411 It may be surmised that the unspecified hyperpyra of the Anatolian coast in later medieval times were Cretan.412 Persons operating in the Cretan-dominated areas of the Aegean might, in later medieval times, much like in Thessaly for instance, have been acquainted with the aspron currency and accounting system for the simple reason of geographical proximity. Two high officials of the galleys had committed considerable misdemeanours while transporting Turkish and other fugitives across the Dardanelles. As a consequence of their actions they had to pay the Regimen of Crete 3,300 Cretan hyperpyra, 1,400 aspra, and 100 gold ducats (1403).413 Finally, in the remainder of Greece, especially in the Venetian colonies and especially from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards, the Cretan hyperpyron would have been a known currency unit, as we have already suggested in the discussions above. Cretan hyperpyra are referred to occasionally in fourteenth century notarial acts drawn up in Coron-Modon, though usually in a Cretan context.414 5.2 Chios The close connection between Crete and the eastern Aegean from the early fourteenth century onwards is also underlined by the expressed vigilance in 1310 against inferior grossi of Chios which might infiltrate Crete.415 These would have been issues in the name of the Zaccaria family (1304–1329).416 Their rule, and the monetary system which they deployed, moved Chios away from the earlier imperial tradition.417 It would appear that before the Chiot hyperpyron was to be based on new link coins minted on the island, much as in other territories lost to imperial control about a century earlier (Negroponte, Crete), it was initially constituted by a particular way of weighing actual gold 410  See above, p. 1518. 411  Morrisson, “Badoer”, p. 221. 412  This is the case for instance for the export taxes imposed by the new Ottoman authorities: Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 138, no. 68 (1390). 413  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 37–42, nos 1103 and 1127. 414  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, nos 3.35 (1371); 3.56 (1372); 3.101 (1374). 415  Stahl, Zecca, p. 39. 416  See Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349; Appendix II.9.I, pp. 1464–1466. 417  Compare also Chapter 3, pp. 190 and 278.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: REGIONAL HYPERPYRA

1569

hyperpyron coins: an act of 1311 specified “hyperpres auri boni ad sagium Sii”.418 Otherwise there is from this early period relatively little documentary information on the system of account of this island, and we must therefore infer developments from circumstantial evidence. Recent interpretations of the complex denominational system under the Zaccaria by Mazarakis, which have departed somewhat from those of the older authorities (Promis, Lambros, Schlumberger) now place more emphasis on the efforts of the administration to cover parallel monetary realities, the imperial system of hyperpyra and carats, the new silver currencies which had so far had little or no impact on the eastern Aegean, and perhaps even developments on the Anatolian mainland.419 The Chiot currency (= hyperpyron) appears to have been based accordingly on basilika (inferior to the Venetian grosso standard) and their halves, the latter called keratia with reference to the ratio of 12 basilika to the hyperpyron, and in due course combined with billon tournois. The relation of tournois to basilika is unknown in this period, but might have been 8:1 according to the contemporary metropolitan model, and also to fit carats as a unit. Hence very hypothetically in the first half of the fourteenth century one may have found the following: 1 hyperpyron of Chios = 12 basilika = 24 keratia = 96 tournois   1 basilikon = 2 keratia = 8 tournois   1 keration = 4 tournois On this basis, and bearing in mind the number of uncertain elements, the hyperpyron of Chios may in this period have been slightly inferior to that of the eastern Greek Mainland. Its relation to the hyperpyron of Constantinople is difficult to fathom, since there was a considerable difference in the city between gold- and basilikon- (and Venetian grosso-) based hyperpyra.420 To this core system, according to Mazarakis’ most recent interpretations, the Chiot authorities would have added the facility, via an aspron denomination,

418  Promis, La zecca di Scio, pp. 28–29; Schlumberger, Numismatique, p. 413. Similar descriptions persist also into the later medieval period, although they became perhaps more formulaic: Mazarakis, “Chio”, p. 831. 419  Mazarakis and Pitidis, “Μερικές Σκέψεις”; Mazarakis, “Νομισματοκοπείο της Χίου την περίοδο των Ζαχαρία” (in English as Mazarakis, “Some thoughts on the Chios Mint”); Mazarakis, “Μαρτινέλλο”. 420  See above, pp. 1518–1519.

1570

appendix iii

to meet the general Ilkhanid standard which was gaining in stature in Anatolia and reaching its western seaboard.421 The small gold coins of the Chios mint under the Zaccaria, metrologically quarter ducats/florins, might have sat rather uncomfortably beside the hyperpyron based on silver coins, each being certainly more valuable than 12 carats. These coins would have represented a more widely recognised western standard, deemed perhaps necessary in view of the deficiency of the new hyperpyron of account, or maybe simply symbolic in character. For the second half of the century, when the island came to be dominated by the Genoese Maona Company,422 an exposition of its system of account can in turn be given with reference to documents.423 This consisted of five elements: the ducat (Venetian or local), the local hyperpyron, the gigliato (initially foreign, then local), the carat, the tournois. The core, hyperpyra and carat, remained in place throughout, and these constituted also the preferred currency of chanceries and notaries. The other units, represented more often than not by actual coins, were added to this at evolving rates in the course of the period from the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth century: Venetian ducats at ca. 53–80 carats (2.2–3.3 Chiot hyperpyra); 3 to 4.5 gigliati, 192 to 288 tournois to the Chiot hyperpyron. The equivalents are reflections of the different qualities of the link coins and the values of the hyperpyron and carat of account of Chios. Overall, the latter lost considerably in absolute value during this period, but it remained quite close to the metropolitan values throughout. 5.3 Thessalonike Thessalonike, and to a slightly lesser extent the surrounding areas of Aegean Macedonia, remained imperial Byzantine for most of the initial period covered in this book. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that the main hyperpyron of account used there was of a different standard to the Constantinopolitan one for a number of decades in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The evidence lies largely in equivalents to other monetary systems and in certain wordings and usages. We owe an explicit piece of information in regard of this standard to Pegolotti, whereby in Barletta 6.17 of the “perpero a peso di Salonacchi” are the 421  Pamuk, Monetary history of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 28–29. Compare also Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella, p. 54, no. 140 (1305). 422  Chapter 3, p. 290. For references to their coins, see Appendix II.6.E, pp. 1347–1349; Appendix II.11, p. 1496. 423  With regard to these systems, see especially Mazarakis, “Chio”, pp. 822–846; Mazarakis, Τα νομίσματα της Χίου, pp. 71–90, referring extensively to the notarial sources.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: REGIONAL HYPERPYRA

1571

equivalent of “once 1 d’oro.424 We have seen above how Pegolotti gives South Italian equivalents for the hyperpyra of Negroponte and of Clarentza, and I have postulated that these were weight equivalents.425 Also here a value of ca. 97 grains for the Thessalonican hyperpyron, the equivalent of 9.7 gigliati which are considerably heavier than Venetian grossi, would simply be too high. We need to seek an alternative proposal for this equivalent by inferring that the Thessalonican hyperpyron is represented by an uncertain alloy weighing 26.7g (the ounce of the Regno) / 6.17 = 4.33 modern grammes. Another source gives us also a weight equivalent for the hyperpyron of Thessalonike: the Zibaldone da Canal relates that 106.75 of the latter (saggi) were the equivalent of 100 saggi of the light pound of Venice.426 The saggio of Venice is frequently encountered in this manual, being a sixth of an ounce.427 The ounce, in turn, is 1/12th of the pound, the Venetian light pound 301.23g,428 and according to this information the Thessalonican hyperpyron weighs 4.18g. Given the differences between the two sources, the margin of these two calculated weights is rather slight.429 The thirteenth and fourteenth century documents preserved in the archives of the Athonite monasteries, and elsewhere in Macedonia link the local hyperpyron consistently with ducats (= grossi) during a prolonged period. They describe these coins in terms of their quality and origin, and they occasionally reveal the relationship of 12 grossi or one ounce of grossi to this hyperpyron.430 Hyperpyra of grossi may have prevailed in Macedonia throughout the period 1280s to 1370s, marginalising the Byzantine gold coinage. Hence, from the time of the aforementioned document issued by the Venetian customs officials (1260s to 1280s), when the Thessalonican and Constantinopolitan hyperpyron were still equated, to a point in the 1340s, when the latter also assumed the standard of 12 grossi, these two hyperpyra of account were mostly divergent.431 424  Pegolotti, p. 176. See also Chapter 1, p. 40. 425  P. 1534. 426  Zibaldone da Canal, p. 69. 427  Zibaldone da Canal, p. 17. 428  Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 227. 429  For some alternative ways of calculating the weight of the Thessalonican exagion, all in the same order of magnitude, see also Avdev, Monetnata sistema v srednovekovna Bălgarija prez XIII–XIV vek, pp. 55–56. 430  This information was already assembled and discussed in Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 181– 182, and Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, p. 109. See further Touratsoglou and Baker, “Grossi”, pp. 222–225, with reference to newer editions and more examples. See also Appendix II.4.B, p. 1301. 431  See above, pp. 1525 and 1518.

1572

appendix iii

An important intermediary chapter may have been the presence in Macedonia of Serbian grossi and of hyperpyra based on these (“de cruce”), a development which did not affect the capital: see in this respect an act of Chilandar monastery (1348).432 As in the Epirote/Sclavonian context, also in Macedonia we find in this precise period some references to Venetian hyperpyra, that is to say the same hyperpyra constituted by 12 Venetian grossi, probably as a safeguard against lesser hyperpyra of Serbian coins.433 It is also possible that different tournois/tornesello-based hyperpyra provided during certain periods before and after the 1370s a differentiation between Macedonian and metropolitan hyperpyra.434 Also the existence in the 1380s of specifically Thessalonican ingots may indicate that there were still differences.435 The descriptions in the relevant text of these ingots do not allow one to establish their individual weight and value with great confidence,436 but assuming that all standards are metropolitan since the final calculation took place in Constantinople, and that the two ingots had equal weight, we arrive at 22 pounds (at 324.7g) and 2 ounces divided by 2 = 3598.7 modern grammes per ingot. We are further informed that the pound of silver is worth 19 hyperpyra, that is to say each hyperpyron is the equivalent of 17g of silver or, as the editors of the text have noted, two current stavraton coins. This was not necessarily meaningful in the Thessalonican context, where the ingots were made, and indeed the fact these 17g cannot be made to fit the ingots very comfortably is perhaps a sign of this. There is little else that one can do with this information, other than to speculate that the relatively recent and heavily debased rate of the hyperpyron had perhaps not yet spread to Macedonia, where some local hyperpyra equalled more silver than in the capital (hypothetically: the two ingots were perhaps worth 400 local hyperpyra, each one perhaps 200, and the local hyperpyron equalled 18 modern grammes). The first Turkish occupation of Thessalonike in the 1380s was followed by a Byzantine occupation after the battle of Ankara. On the whole one needs to assume that the stavraton currency, and especially its fraction the aspron,437 were soon to prevail there. Thessalonike then passed into the hands of Venice 432  Appendix II.4.C, p. 1305. 433  Docheiariou, p. 180, no. 24 (1345); Vatopedi II, p. 226, no. 100 (1348). 434  On tournois in Macedonia and their different standards, see Chapter 2, pp. 99–100 and 103; Appendix II.1.E.4, pp. 1273–1274; Appendix II.9.J, p. 1473. 435  Chapter 2, p. 156. 436  Morrisson and Ganchou, “Lingots de Thessalonique”, esp. pp. 165 and 167. 437  On the latter, see for instance Kugeas, “Notizbuch eines Beamten”; Morrisson, “Traités d’arithmétique”, p. 178. Further: Appendix II.1.F, p. 1277. In fact the aspron is particularly prominent in Thessalonike.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: VENETIAN SYSTEMS

1573

(1423). One intriguing fact is that Venetian torneselli were minted in very small quantities indeed by that date.438 One wonders in what currency the significant subsidies might have been sent to the city.439 6

Venetian Systems of Account

6.1 Venetian Coins in the Accounting Systems of Romania Multiple Venetian coinages, domestic and colonial, were available in our area and in Romania more broadly.440 There were also a number of ways in which these could be counted and accounted. In this appendix we have so far touched upon the position of these coins and the standards based on them in the accounting systems of Greece and the surrounding areas: piccoli were present beside gold hyperpyra in many of the earliest public and private accounts concerning Romania after 1204, though not as part of an integrated system. They also constituted a Cretan money of account, where their ratio to the grosso remained frozen. Whether or not the Venetian piccolo was an accounting money in Angevin Corfu is less clear cut.441 Venetian grossi formed the basis of hyperpyra of account in Constantinople and in Macedonia in very precise periods of the thirteenth and fourteenth century. In the Peloponnese and the eastern Greek Mainland, Epiros, Ionia, and Albania, and in Crete (and the Cyclades), local hyperpyra were in different phases wholly or partially based on or paid out in Venetian grossi. Venetian soldini and torneselli replaced grossi gradually as dividers of hyperpyra in all of these places. The gold ducat positioned itself in or beside these systems in various ways, representing intermittently actual coins, absolute standards against which to measure the variable local values, or indeed another local value in itself, based like hyperpyra on lesser coins such as soldini and torneselli. Discussed here will be Venetian accounting systems in their own rights and their implications for actual link coinages,442 before proceeding to view these again in the Greek context.

438  Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332. 439  Compare: Chapter 3, p. 395. 440  Appendix II.4, pp. 1294–1332. 441  Asonitis, Κέρκυρα, p. 167. 442  On this subject matter, see in the first instance Lane and Mueller, Money and Banking, and Stahl, Zecca. Cessi, Problemi monetari veneziani retains its usefulness for the reproduction of original acts. A convenient overview is also provided in Stahl, “Venetian coinage and money of account”.

1574

appendix iii

6.2 Pounds and Shillings of Piccoli and Grossi in the Thirteenth Century As we enter the thirteenth century, the two Venetian denominations, piccoli and grossi, were each accounted in the simple pound and shilling fashion (240 and 20 respectively of the base unit), resulting in pounds or shillings of grossi, and simple (Venetian) pounds or shillings, which were implicitly of piccoli. The basic pound or shilling could also be paid in grosso coins (“ad grossos”) according to a given exchange of grossi to piccoli. Throughout the thirteenth century and later, the value of the grosso was continuously increasing against the piccolo,443 beginning at 1:24, then going through a phase of ca. 1:26–28 for the first seven to eight decades of the century, before being officially set at 1:32,444 and even after that date there was an upward trend to 36 and eventually 48. Intermittently, in 1254, the official exchange rate for rendering the smaller pound into grossi was set at 26 1/9.445 As the piccolo-based pound continued to fall the “ad grossos” system provided a stable way of meeting sums stipulated in the piccolo currency. With grossi set at 26 1/9 piccoli for this purpose, the pound ‘a’ grossi had a value of 240 piccoli divided by 26 1/9 = 9 1/5 grossi.446 The advantage of this system was its ability to express well established payments, for instance salaries of civil servants, in the ascendant silver currency. 6.3 Fourteenth-Century Metallic Separations In the course of the fourteenth century new layers were added to this basic system.447 From 1328 onwards the ducat was fixed at 1/10th of a pound of grossi or 24 grossi, having previously had the value of merely ca. 18 (= 1 soldo and 6 denari of grossi). In other words, 10 ducats were henceforth a pound of grossi, while 2 soldi of grossi were one ducat.448 In terms of the ‘a’ grossi system, since the established rate of 9 1/5 grossi to the pound ‘a’ grossi was maintained at all times, the ducat was originally worth about 40 soldi or 2 pounds ‘a’ grossi (or 9 1/5 × 2 = 18 2/5 pounds of grossi), and after 1328 the ducat was the equivalent of 24 divided by 9 1/5 = 2 pounds and 12 2/9 soldi ‘a’ grossi, or 52 2/9 soldi ‘a’ grossi. After 1328 the grosso system and ducats became interchangeable, that is to say pounds of grossi could be shorthands for actual ducat coins, or vice-versa. 443  Spufford, Handbook, p. 85. 444  Compare also Appendix II.4.A, pp. 1294–1296. 445  Lane and Mueller, Money and Banking, pp. 124–127 and Stahl, Zecca, p. 27. 446  Spufford, Handbook, p. 92. 447  For an overview of the situation from the turn of the century onwards, see Stahl, Tornesello, pp. 53–66 and also “Genova e Venezia”, p. 333, where he speaks of a system of three levels. 448  On the relationship of gold and silver in the fourteenth-century Venetian system, see also Luzzatto, “L’oro e l’argento”.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: VENETIAN SYSTEMS

1575

Eventually, however, the gold ducat came to be disentangled again from both the grosso and piccolo systems. The reasons for this lay in changes in the bimetallic ratio and in the devaluation of the accounting systems resulting from the introduction of the soldino, and also the disappearance of the grosso currency: the soldino, first minted in 1332, was the value equivalent of a soldo of piccolo (= 12), and was accompanied by a mezzanino. The new silver ‘moneta’ system of account was henceforth theoretically:449 (1 grosso) = 2 mezzanini = 3 soldini = (36 piccoli) Consequently, the Venetian pound was worth 20 soldini, and the pound of grossi 720 soldini. In all of this it should be noted that grossi and piccoli were gradually turning into ghosts, being either multiples or fractions of the soldino. The ducat was allowed to float against this system, and was from the outset invariably slightly more valuable than 72 soldini. In 1353 the tornesello was added, at a rate of 4 to the soldino. As we have seen above,450 in the later decades of the fourteenth century the value of the ducat increased progressively to over 100 soldini. Responsibility for this lay with the continued debasement of the soldini, and then the replacement of soldino coins with torneselli within the soldo of account.451 Even though the rates between torneselli and ducats could be variable, it is clear that the Venetian authorities liked to stipulate large tornesello sums in ducats, often for one-off payments. This is a topic we have already explored above in the southern Greek and Ionian contexts. If, in theory, after 1328 the pound of grossi could have represented interchangeably 240 grossi or 10 ducats, already from the 1330s the pound of grossi in the moneta system, being 720 soldini, would no longer have been the equivalent of 10 ducats. However, for a while in the fourteenth century, actual soldini and grossi of the first generation co-existed, so that simple grosso-based sums (pounds or soldi) could in theory have represented actual grossi or even ducats. To ensure ducat payments at this rate, one needed to stipulate sums in pounds of grossi ‘ad aurum’. In the further course of the fourteenth century, and especially after 1379, a fully-fledged gold system of account was in place, whereby the ducat was accompanied by two ghosts, grossi (24 to the ducat), and piccoli (48 to the grosso, 1152 to the ducat). The introduction of a new grosso coin in 1379 did not bridge 449  On what follows, compare also Chapter 2, pp. 97–98, 101, 143–144; Appendix II.4.D.2, pp. 1309–1314; Appendix II.4.E, p. 1318. 450  P. 1551. 451  Appendix II.4.F, pp. 1325–1332.

1576

appendix iii

the gap between grosso ghosts and currency.452 It was of lower intrinsic value than the first-generation grosso, and this was reflected in its official valuation of four soldini. 240 of the new grossi, being 960 soldini, were in the long run still not an adequate equivalent of 10 ducats. 6.4 Venetian Systems of Account in the Greek Context The central or colonial institutions of the republic, and private Venetians in Greece, used a number of accounting systems, according to their needs and intentions, and in line with the general monetary conditions. Whenever we find the basic monetary units, grossi, ducats, soldi, stipulated in a given source alone and in tale, it is at times difficult to ascertain which Venetian or Greek accounting system was being referred to. In Greece some of the other complications which I have just referred to were apparently avoided. The grossi were for instance soon turned into ghost units and therefore a serious clash in the Greek context of the traditional and moneta systems of accounting was apparently largely avoided.453 The post-1379 grosso currency is also not in evidence in our area, although it was used in Constantinople from where it probably radiated into the adjacent areas of Anatolia and Thrace. Our greatest problem lies nevertheless in discerning, from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards, whether grosso citations in the sources were intended as fractions of ducats or multiples of soldi; and, related to this, whether ducats referred to the gold coinage of this name or to a unit of account for lesser coinages. In private sources in Greece the Venetian monies of account were often used in contexts relating back to Venice in one way or another. For instance, in the acts of Pasquale Longo (Coron, 1289–1293) the local and Venetian systems sit side by side. The largest number of mentions of grossi is in the context of loans which are to be paid back in Venice, and which are initially given in the local system and then provided with a Venetian equivalent.454 On rare occasions the grosso and piccolo systems appear to lack a Venetian context. In later Peloponnesian notarial acts the majority of the small number of references to the grosso system of account is also clearly made in contexts which relate back to Venice (for example commissions to meet debts incurred by a person, though now resident in Coron, while still operating in Venice), although there are some acts which, similarly to those drawn up previously by Pasquale Longo, had purely local concerns.455 It is also interesting that according to 452  Compare Appendix II.4.B, p. 1299. 453  Chapter 2, p. 97. 454  Pasquale Longo, nos 1; 2; 11; 12; 13; 39; 41; 47; 92. 455  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, s.v. Venezia, denarius grossus.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: VENETIAN SYSTEMS

1577

Pegolotti the salary of the engraver at the Clarentza mint was given in the Venetian grosso system, perhaps a reflection of the origin of this specialist member of staff.456 Of all the narrative sources, only the History of Sanudo, no doubt due to the Venetian origin of its writer, used the grosso system of accounting in order to describe certain sums, with a preference for soldi of grossi.457 This natural Venetian preference for accounting in the domestic Venetian system accounts also for the ‘a’ grosso system in a Constantinopolitan context in the Zibaldone da Canal, or used by the notary Bresciano in the same city.458 Pegolotti equated the hyperpyron of Negroponte with one pound ‘a’ grossi.459 In private notarial acts drawn up within Romania this form of accounting is practically nonexistent.460 For the main Greek colonies in the later part of the thirteenth century, and for the fourteenth century, the acts of locally based notaries in combination with other disparate pieces of evidence,461 suggest that actual piccoli were in local usage. The Venetian state assemblies in the period before the middle of the fourteenth century use the local Greek and Venetian monies of account in a more or less systematic fashion.462 Venetian monies are used, as a rule, when payments originated in that city. Amongst these, the simple grosso system was by far the most prominent. As I have already noted, the acts in which the ‘a’ grosso system is used are very disparate and no pattern emerges. Some high ranking officials received salaries in ducat and pound of grosso equivalents. The simple Venetian pound is marginal and mostly early within this set of sources, and it is not possible to discern in the sources any immediate impact of the soldino from the 1330s on the pre-existing monies of account. The hypothesis that from this period onwards simple grosso citations related to soldini, whereas grosso and ducat equivalents related to grossi, is possible but will remain difficult to prove. 456  Appendix II.9.A.1, pp. 1379–1380. 457  See Chapter 3, p. 306 on the price for which half of the island of Andros was exchanged in 1289, and on the sum spent on the defences of Negroponte in the early fourteenth century. See further Sanudo, p. 109, on the proposed compensation for the baron of Veligosti for help provided over Negroponte should he lose his hereditary rights in Romania (11,000 soldi of grossi per annum); p. 139, reporting on the wealth of the megadux of Lemnos (90,000 soldi of grossi); p. 157, on the release of John de la Roche of Athens after being captured in 1276 (30,000 soldi of grossi). 458  See above, p. 1518. 459  See above, p. 1533. 460  Pasquale Longo, p. 70, no. 88 (1292): 110 pounds ‘a’ grossi is the total value of a dowry. 461  All assembled in Appendix II.4.A, p. 1295. See further some of the evidence from Corfu under Venetian rule: Asonitis, Κέρκυρα και τα ηπειροτικά παράλια, p. 284. 462  The information has been assembled in Chapter 3, pp. 298–307.

1578

appendix iii

As we enter the second half of the century, the ducat initially sat beside the other Venetian currencies of the moneta system – soldini and torneselli – at a rate of 1-72-288.463 Curiously, even if the Venetian authorities soon allowed the value of the ducat to float, other protagonists in Romania can be found to have accepted this initial rate.464 The republic was also able to manipulate this rate when dealing with third parties: in negotiating the acquisition of Karystos on Euboia with the Fadrique family, the republic attempted to offer ducat values at a particularly favourable rate to itself, at 56 soldi to the ducat.465 The actual sale finally took place some seven years later, although we do not know the soldo-ducat rate applied on that occasion.466 The ducat-grosso (and piccolo) (gold) system is in evidence in the second half of the century in contexts which clearly seek to avoid the soldo and the moneta system.467 We find these monies in a will from Modon of 1352.468 In 1363 it was calculated that the money owed to Venice by the Byzantine Empire since 1343 had risen from 30,000 ducats to 79,598 ducats, 12 grossi, 7 piccoli, at 5% annual interest.469 In 1394, as Nauplio was handed over to Venice,470 Despot Theodore Palaiologos’ envoy received 1704 ducats, 21 grossi, 28 parvi “ad aurum” in Venice.471 In 1410, the new bailo and captain of Negroponte received his salary in the colony in hyperpyra, in addition to which he was paid 358 gold ducats in Venice, of which a fraction in ducats and grossi (19 and 22) was set aside for travel.472 In the Codide Morosini the percentages charged for a maritime loan (1417) and ship charter (1423) are given as (gold) grosso fractions of ducats.473 In later medieval Greece the pure Venetian monetary systems are largely the preserve of the Venetian state bodies. The same institutions would also often 463  In Crete, however, 64 soldi (= 2 hyperpyra) were the initial value of the gold ducat: p. 1566. See further Appendix II.4.E, p. 1318 and Appendix II.4.F, p. 1327. 464  Luttrell, “Hospitaller Commandery of the Morea”, p. 292: in 1366 the substantial value of the Hospitaller commandery of the Morea is assessed at the official Venetian rate of 72 soldi to the ducat. 465  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 6, no. 151 (1359). 466  On this episode, compare in this appendix, above p. 1537, and Chapter 3, p. 380. 467  I owe these interpretations to Alan Stahl. 468  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 6.253: in this will “ducatos auri sex grossorum” are left to the Scuola di S. Marco. 469  Predelli, Commemoriali, book 7, no. 119 (1363). 470  See here above, p. 1550. 471  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, no. 143, p. 278 and no. 158, p. 310. 472  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 120, no. 1138 (1410). 473  Codice Morosini, p. 704, no. 481 (1417): “grosi XII in oro per C de duchati” (i.e. ½ ducat in 100); p. 939, no. 1050 (1423): “grosi XXX in oro per C” (i.e. 30%). On the value of this source for Greek history, see Nanetti, “Il Peloponneso tra 1414 e 1433”.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: VENETIAN SYSTEMS

1579

continue using the local hyperpyron accounting systems, yet, unlike in earlier decades, there is little qualitative difference between any of these, and often one system is used rather than another without any discernible reason.474 When not specifying colonial matters in hyperpyra, soldi, and tornesi, the senate and other bodies laid down a large number of payments in ducats, and occasionally in ‘gold’ ducats. For example a new doctor in Corfu will receive 100 of the latter annually from 1387;475 the sums paid to Mary of Enghien for the acquisition of Nauplio and Argos are recorded in the same;476 in 1394 the great council decides that the ambassadors to Despot Theodore can spend up to 500 gold ducats on a gift;477 in 1399 the salary of the bailo of Negropone was increased to 200 gold ducats478 while the castellan of Coron-Modon received 100 in the same period;479 in 1402 an envoy sent to Patra to investigate the fate of Naupaktos brought 3,000 gold ducats on his mission;480 in 1406 the marquis of Bondonitza was given Tinos and Mykonos in fief, in return for which he would give an annual 5,000 gold ducats to the republic.481 We have already seen the 300 gold ducats sent to Negroponte in 1392 for repairs to the walls, and the examples could be multiplied. Ducats without the ‘gold’ epithet are much more commonly encountered in this body of sources. They were used in the context of large-scale exchanges of territories, of penalties and damages, feudal rents and tributes, salaries of all kinds (to mercenaries and galley staff, professionals, civil servants, ‘syndics’ and surveyors), subsidies and loans to the colonies, relatively small-scale indirect taxes, local expenses in Romania such as works on infrastructure and defence, diplomacy and gifts. It is possible that the addition of ‘gold’ may sometimes have been a reflection of the actual coins involved. Nevertheless, we must recognise in a similar vein, following writers such as Chrysostomides, that this would not always have been the case. For one, there is little difference in the kinds of payments that are specified in ducats or ‘gold’ ducats. There is also little to distinguish these payments from those specified in hyperpyra. The latter were in themselves shorthands for soldi and tornesi. We have already given a number of examples in the discussions of the Greek monies above where (‘gold’) ducats quite explicitly denoted soldi or

474  See here above pp. 1549–1553. 475  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 176, no. 730. 476  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 179, no. 744 (1388). 477  Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 297, no. 151 (1394). 478  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 82, no. 959 (1399). 479  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 85, no. 971 (1401). 480  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 26, no. 1052 (1402). 481  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 60 and 61, nos 1224 and 1227 (1406).

1580

appendix iii

tornesi, and this must also be our general conclusion with regard to the many ducat references in official Venetian documents throughout the entire period ca. 1350–ca. 1430. Context is the best indicator for the kind of currency that might have been involved, and additionally some acts are clearer regarding the identities of currencies: when, according to a decision of 1422, a new galley was sent to Corfu, and sailors paid in plain Venetian pounds and their captain in ducats, it is likely that these monies would have translated respectively into silver and gold denominations.482 With the prevalence of hyperpyra and ducats, the grosso system was relegated in importance in this period. It became very rare to see direct pound of grossi – 10 ducat equivalents in the official Venetian acts.483 The grosso system was used for the auctions (incanti) for commercial space on the state galleys. Otherwise we find a disparate set of stipulations in this currency: soldiers’ salaries in Modon were specified in soldi of grossi (40 per annum from 1360);484 the new bailo of Constantinople received an annual 115 pounds of grossi beginning three years later;485 the Regimen of Coron-Modon was to give 20 soldi of grossi annually to the convent of the Franciscans;486 the bailo and captain of Corfu was to receive annual salaries of 80 pounds of grossi;487 a few years later the podestà and captain of Nauplio, the podestà of Argos, and the captain of Athens, all received 70.488 As with the ducats, these grossi of account could translate into actual currency in a variety of manners. In connection with the payment of the salary of the bailo at Constantinople a three-way monetary translation is proposed by the relevant act, should he receive his salary locally: the 115 pounds of grossi would be converted into ducats (1150), and from there into hyperpyra (2 × 1150 = 2300). In practical terms this would imply being paid in the kind of non-Byzantine silver currencies that would have constituted the hyperpyron of Constantinople at the time, perhaps even the equivalent of 482  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 145, no. 1250 (1422). 483  Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 40, no. 804 (1368): £gr70 (= 700 ducats) are the salary of castellans of Coron-Modon; p. 42, no. 809 (1369): £gr32 (= 320 gold ducats) are the salary of the counsellors of Negroponte. Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 188, no. 1811 (1421): as the galleys of Romania are armed, their captain is to get £gr24 (= 240 ducats) for the mission. 484  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 94, no. 353 (1360). 485  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 104, no. 401 (1363). 486  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 133, no. 536 (1374). 487  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 177, no. 731 (1387). 488  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 204, no. 861 (1394) and p. 208, no. 885 (1395); Setton, “Catalans and Florentines in Greece”, p. 261; Chrysostomides, Monumenta Peloponnesiaca, p. 118, no. 55 (1389); see also p. 293, no. 149 (1394) and p. 307, no. 156 (1394); p. 350, no. 176 (1394).

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: VENETIAN SYSTEMS

1581

12 × 2300 = 27,600 grossi,489 which is in fact the same as the direct conversion 115 × 240 = 27,600 grossi would have been. The stipulations regarding the bailo of Corfu are also intriguing. Beneath him are two “socii” and one notary, who are on 30 and 20 ducats per year, sums which would be absolutely dwarfed if we converted his own salary directly into ducats (800). Might it have been the case that by setting out a grosso salary a certain degree of leeway was ensured regarding the payment of at least a fraction of this sum in the lesser currencies? Similar scenarios can be imagined for the new posts at Nauplio/Argos and Athens in the 1390s, where lesser officials were also paid very small sums in ducats for salaries. We have already seen in the discussion above that the bailo of Corfu was to be paid his salary in 1387 in current coins or torneselli.490 The simple Venetian pound, no doubt a reference to soldino payments, is in this period in the Greek context the preserve of certain missions to the colonies paid upfront in Venice.491 More rarely it is used to fine colonial civil servants for wrongdoings.492 In the latter cases, the fine is 500 pounds: perhaps the sum and the denomination were fixed and immobilised? There is a hint in some of the acts relating to Corfu that the piccolo coinage may have been part of the system of smaller payments of taxes and dues.493 We have seen that the island might have been familiar with this coinage ever since the early thirteenth century. 7

Units of Silver and Gold

In Byzantium and the west alike there was a long tradition of accounting in weights of particular metals at specified finenesses.494 The Roman or Carolingian pounds of nominally fine gold or silver are prime examples of this. By the time we reach our period, counting 72 Byzantine solidi or 240 Carolingian pennies (more or less comfortably) to make up these units had long passed. As 489  See in this appendix above, p. 1580. 490  P. 1563. 491  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 103, no. 397 (1363); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 138, no. 559 (1375); Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 181, no. 750 (1389); Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, pp. 93–94, no. 1011 (1403); Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 101, no. 1047 (1405) and p. 105, no. 1064 (1406); Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 105, no. 1448 (1412); Thiriet, Délibérations, 2, p. 136, no. 1204 (1415). 492  Thiriet, Régestes, 2, pp. 197–198, no. 1858 (1422): the podestà of Nauplio; Thiriet, Régestes, 2, p. 241, no. 2040 (1427): the former bailo of Corfu. 493  Thiriet, Régestes, 1, p. 176, no. 729 (1387). 494  See, in general, the discussions in Chapter 1.

1582

appendix iii

we have seen, the successors of the solidus/nomisma, the different hyperpyra, had badly controlled individual weights and steadily decreasing finenesses, whereas the myriad of western pennies were usually counted in tale to make up specific pounds and shillings of account (240 and 12). 7.1 Byzantine Pound and Its Units Nevertheless the pound of weight and its divisions remained entrenched in Byzantium in our period, where the relations were:495 1 pound ca. 320g

= 12 ounces = ca. 27g

= 72 solidi/exagia/saggi = ca. 4.5g

= 1728 carats/keratia = ca. 0.2g

The metropolitan Byzantine ounce used to weigh Venetian grossi in Macedonia is an important money of account.496 It is mostly known through the acts preserved in the great monastic archives of the area, but may also have been used in a wider range of contexts.497 Macedonia and Sclavonia were prime grosso and pure silver using areas, and (Byzantine) pounds of silver would have been an understandable currency. In 1329 a person from Cattaro owed another person from Thessalonike 24 pounds of silver, to be repaid via the archdeacon of Antibari.498 7.2 Italian and Greek Weight Units In Italy and medieval Greece itself there were similar, sometimes unofficial and very localised, pounds, often with the same sub-units, in which metals and coins could be weighed:499 these included, amongst already cited examples, the pound and ounce (= 26.7g) of the Regno (not to be confused with the gold ounce of account). Ounces can on occasion be used to weigh tournois,500 and on others to weigh Greek hyperpyra of account.501 The ounce of the Regno was further subdivided into the tarì (30) and grain (600) weight units. Different Greek hyperpyra of account and their units (carats) are also given as fractions of the local Clarentzan and Theban pounds (these hyperpyra are 23 carats in weight), and of the Negropontine pound (this local hyperpyron being 24 carats 495  Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 174. 496  Above, p. 1571. 497  Schreiner, Texte, pp. 325–326, text 83: this text of post-1400 date cannot be localised and gives a certain quantity of Venetian ‘doukata’ to the ounce. 498  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 188, no. 143. 499  Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 186–231; Zupko, Italian weights and measures, pp. 129–136. 500  Above, p. 1527. 501  Above, pp. 1533–1534 and 1571 (Thessalonike).

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: GOLD AND SILVER

1583

in weight).502 There appear to have been local pounds in Puglia built on other tarì combinations which could accommodate Greek values and are testimony to the frequent transfer of fine metals between the two territories.503 Another weight system which we have encountered is the Venetian light pound, which divides into the usual ounces and saggi, and is used on one occasion as a weight comparison for the Thessalonican hyperpyron.504 All these examples underline the importance of counting currencies not merely in tale but also in weight, and in fact of providing physical equivalents (weights and finenesses) for monies of account. 7.3 Gold Ounce of the Regno The main apparently overt weight based money of account of concern to us is that of southern Italy. This combined the regional ounce weight with the specific tarì gold fineness to form the gold ounce of account of the Regno, with its fractions (30 tarì and 600 grains). Perhaps paradoxically, this form of accounting was almost always used to measure silver currencies at specified tale ratios, Venetian grossi or the overvalued local denari, French gros tournois, and of course most importantly for us gigliati and deniers tournois. As such the gold ounce of account has already been extensively treated in this appendix.505 7.4 Marks Areas of the Latin west which had emancipated themselves more fundamentally from the Roman and Byzantine heritage and had substantially shifted to a monometallic silver economy used, after the millennium, increasingly the mark as their main weight unit for silver (and eventually gold). Of Germanic origin, individual marks stood nevertheless in logical relationships with given pounds. Their usages were by-products of the general economic and monetary expansion, silver extraction, and the growth in ingots as a means of preserving and exchanging wealth,506 but they also functioned as units of account. These marks were usually described in geographical terms, and certain northern and western European marks held the function of international currencies, although closer to the area of interest there are attested marks of Venice and Clarentza (both of 8 ounces).507 502  Above, p. 1533. 503  Above, p. 1534. 504  Above, p. 1571. 505  Above, pp. 1527–1544. 506  Van Werveke, “Monnaie, lingots ou marchandises”. See also Chapter 2, pp. 153–157. 507  Schilbach, Metrologie, pp. 192 and 220; Zupko, Italian weights and measures, p. 140.

1584

appendix iii

7.5 Pounds, Marks, and Ounces in Greece In medieval Greece, and in Romania more broadly, pounds and marks and their subdivisions were over time used in different ways to weigh coins and precious metals, and as units of account in their own rights. The protagonists of the Fourth Crusade, and the early settlers in the Latin empire, whose origins spanned the area from the Low Countries to northern and eastern France and across the Alps into Piedmont, Lombardy and Venice itself, would have enjoyed great familiarity with the Cologne mark,508 as they did with the sterling currency.509 During the years 1201–1205 larger sums of money exchanged between crusaders at departure or sent east were recorded in marks, sometimes explicitly in those of the weight of Cologne.510 These marks sometimes related to ingots, at other times to sterlings (at a ratio of 1:160),511 but even hyperpyra could be weighed in marks in this period, as they were later on in mid-century in the context of the crusading venture of Alphonse of France.512 The booty in Constantinople in 1204 was estimated by Villehardouin in marks. At Adrianople in the same year, the accord between Boniface of Montferrat and Doge Dandolo regarding the divisions of territories also specified outright payments in marks, but local incomes in hyperpyra.513 Some of the early regular payments in post-conquest Greece, especially those involving western partners, can also involve marks,514 and marks evidently persisted as long as sterlings were available. In fact, according to Angevin acts of 1279–1280, sterlings were current in the Regno at that time, but maybe their condition was such that they needed to be weighed in order to be given a viable accounting system (one mark of sterlings in weight was the equivalent of 31 tarì of account).515 508  See for instance Schilbach, Metrologie, p. 178; Stahl, Zecca, p. 19; Kluge, Numismatik des Mittelalters p. 38. 509  Appendix II.2, pp. 1277–1282. 510  Bertelè, “Moneta veneziana e moneta bizantina”, pp. 71–78; Stahl, “Latin Empire”, pp. 200– 201 and 205; Stahl, “The sterling abroad”, p. 135. 511  Morrisson and Papadopoulou, “Eclatement du monnayage”, p. 141. 512  Spufford, Money and its use, pp. 180–181. 513  See Chapter 3, pp. 228 and 233. For a traditional summary of the accord, see Borsari, Studi sulle colonie veneziane p. 21: “Bonifacio … cedeva al doge e ad omnibus hominibus Venecie tutti i suoi diritti in Romania compresa l’isola di Creta ricevando in cambio 1,000 marche d’argento e nella parte occidentale … un territorio avente un reddito annuo di 10,000 iperperi, da identificarsi con il territorio di Tessalonica …”. A more recent interpretation is provided by Saint-Guillain, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète”. 514  The de la Roches are to pay annually two marks of silver to the papal legate for the castle of Livadia: Kiesewetter, “Ducato di Atene”, p. 307 (1214); the archbishop of Patra gives a part of the treasure of his see to the monastery of Hautecombe in Savoy in marks of gold and silver, in addition to gold hyperpyra: Μoutzali, “Αγία Ειρήνη Ριγανοκάμπου Πατρών”, p. 134 (1231). 515  Appendix II.2, p. 1282, and above p. 1529.

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: GOLD AND SILVER

1585

In later times, with the rise of the Italian gold currencies, it may again have become necessary to weigh coins, for some obvious reasons. In a Ragusan dowry (1281) and a Cretan loan (1321) we find respectively 40 and 12 exagia of gold, which may have been actual ducats of different states of preservation (for instance 50 and 15), although maybe these exagia were conceivably used to weigh gold in other forms.516 Florins or ducats may also have moved in clearly defined larger units (for example a pound), in which case they could be strung up.517 The same problem applies to silver. The different silver coinages in circulation in Macedonia would have made the constant weighing of grossi a necessity. The same was the case in Constantinople, where silver in different coined or uncoined states was again weighed in pounds and their fractions.518 In Greece, as we have just seen, one mark in weight of sterlings was given the value of 31 tarì. In the will of a certain Manfred of Vercelli, living in Coron (1372), one of the omnipresent silver belts519 was given a monetary value through its weight: Manfred ordered this silver belt to be sold for 22 ounces and the monies to be distributed further (in hyperpyra).520 It is not conceivable that these ounces would have been gold ounces of account (which would have been too expensive and out of context). 8

Summary of Value Relations

Assembled are here the various relations between the monies (of account) which have been discussed in the course of this appendix. This has been done, mainly for the sake of convenience, by distilling the key pieces of information. One must bear in mind that none of the listed relations are constant, secure, or neutral, and some may have been inaccurately reported in historical times or inaccurately extrapolated and interpreted in modern times. The relations are found in a disparate number of sources, and some are derivative. In certain cases the nature of the source is given in brackets, in all others the referenced passage should be consulted for ulterior explanations.

516  Krekić, Dubrovnik, p. 170, no. 14 (1281); Angelo de Cartura and Donato Fontanella, p. 234 no. 33 (1321). 517  In the will of Cecilia in Modon (1348) one such pound of “auri filati” is left for further distribution: Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 7.9. For similar examples see Krekić, “Helias and Blasius de Radoano”, p. 405; Léonard, “Comptes de l’hôtel de Jeanne Ière”, p. 264, n. 2. 518  Morrisson, “Badoer”, pp. 235–236. 519  Chapter 2, pp. 153–154 and 158–159. 520  Nanetti, Documenta Veneta Coroni & Methoni Rogata, no. 8.108.

1586 P. 1511 (CP) (Pegolotti): P. 1511 (1320s, CP and Pera) (Pegolotti): P. 1512 (1320s, Alexandria) (Pegolotti): P. 1513 (1228, Peloponnese) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1513 (1228, Corfu) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1517 (after 1350, Black Sea): P. 1517 (after 1350, Black Sea): P. 1517 (after 1350, Black Sea): P. 1517 (after 1350, Black Sea): P. 1517 (after 1350, Black Sea): P. 1517 (after 1350, Black Sea): P. 1518 (1310s, CP) (Zibaldone): P. 1518 (1310s, CP) (Zibaldone): P. 1518 (1310s, CP) (Zibaldone): P. 1518 (1310s, CP) (Zibaldone): P. 1518 (1320s, CP) (Pegolotti): P. 1518 (1321, CP) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1518 (1350, CP) (Bresciano): P. 1518 (1350, CP) (Bresciano): P. 1518 (1350s–1360s, CP): P. 1519 (1304–, CP): P. 1519 (before 1350s, CP): P. 1519 (from ca. 1388, CP): P. 1519 (from ca. 1388, CP): P. 1520 (before ca. 1350, CP): P. 1520 (1382, CP) (Codice Morosini): P. 1520 (1380s–1450s, CP): P. 1521 (first half 15th c., CP) (Badoer): P. 1521 (first half 15th c., CP) (Badoer): P. 1521 (first half 15th c., CP etc.): P. 1521 (late 14th c., Anatolia): P. 1522 (13th c.): P. 1522 (ca. 1300, CP) (Rechenbuch): P. 1523 (1347, Peloponnese or Athens) (will of Walter II): P. 1523 (1347, Peloponnese or Athens) (will of Walter II): P. 1524 (1274, Greek Mainland) (Angevin chancery): P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, Negroponte) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, Peloponnese) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, Sclavonia) (Venetian state bodies):

appendix iii

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: SUMMARY OF VALUES

1 gold hyperpyron 100 hyperpyra of Pera 6 hyperpyra of Clarentza 1 gold (?) hyperpyron 1 unspecified hyperpyron coin 1 hyp. + 3 carats of Mesemv. 1 hyperpyron of Mesemv. 1 florin 1 hyperpyron of Varna 1 hyperpyron of Varna 1 hyperpyron of Varna 1 old gold hyperpyron 1 old gold hyperpyron 1 recent gold hyperpyron 1 recent gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 silver hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 ducat 1 gold hyperpyron 1 aspron 1 ducat 1 ducat 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 sterling 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron

= 24 carats/kokkia = 99 hyp. of CP and 8 carats = 6 bezants and ½ carat = 38 or 35 soldi = 25 carats = 2 florins = 8 Bulgarian grossi = 17–18 Bulgarian grossi = 16 2/3 gold hyperpyra = 6 grossi and 5 aspers = 1 grosso and 8 big aspers = 32 soldi ‘a’ grossi = nearly 15 Venetian grossi = 28 soldi and 4 denari ‘a’ gr = 13 Venetian grossi = 12.5–13 Venetian grossi = 14 Venetian grossi = 28 soldi ‘a’ grossi = less than 13 Venetian grossi = 12 Venetian grossi = 12 basilika = ½–2/3 Venetian gold ducat = 2/3 Venetian gold ducat = ½ Venetian gold ducat = more than ½ Ven. ducat = ½ Venetian gold ducat = 54–72 carats (2.25–3 hyp.) = 16 aspra = 12 tornesi = 35 aspra or 35/40 or 50 = 33 aspra = 10 electrum trachea = 7–9 electrum trachea = 20 sterlings = 4 tournois = 13 Venetian grossi = 12 Venetian grossi = 20 sterlings = 12 Venetian grossi

1587

1588

appendix iii

(cont.)

P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, Negroponte) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, Sclavonia) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, Peloponnese) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1525 (1260s–1280s, CP/Macedonia) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1525 (1289–1293, Coron) (Pasquale Longo): P. 1526 (1289–1293, Coron) (Pasquale Longo): P. 1526 (1289–1293, Coron) (Pasquale Longo): P. 1526 (1289–1293, Coron) (Pasquale Longo): P. 1528 (1270s, France, Regno, Albania, Greece) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1270s, France, Regno, Albania, Greece) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1270s, France, Regno, Albania, Greece) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1275, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1270s, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1280s, Regno, Albania, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1280s, Regno, Albania, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1280s, Regno, Albania, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1529 (1280s, Regno, Albania, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1530 (1308–1350, Negroponte etc.) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1531 (first 2/3 of 13th c., Greece): P. 1531 (13th/14th c., Greece): P. 1532 (1320s, CP) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Peloponnese) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Peloponnese) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Peloponnese) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Peloponnese) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Coron-Modon) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Coron-Modon) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Negroponte and Thebes) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Negroponte and Thebes) (Pegolotti): P. 1532 (1320s, Negroponte and Thebes) (Pegolotti): P. 1533 (1320s, Venice) (Pegolotti): P. 1533 (1320s, Venice) (Pegolotti): P. 1533 (1320s, Venice) (Pegolotti): P. 1533 (1320s, Greece) (Pegolotti): P. 1533 (1320s, Negroponte) (Pegolotti): P. 1533 (1320s, Negroponte) (Pegolotti): P. 1534 (1312, Venice, Coron-Modon) (Domenico prete): P. 1535 (1310s, Peloponnese) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Peloponnese) (Zibaldone):

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: SUMMARY OF VALUES

1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 gold ounce 1 grain 1 gros tournois 1 hyperpyron 1 provisino 1 tournois 1 gros tournois 1 mark gr. tournois 1 mark sterlings 1 ounce 1 Venetian grosso 1 Venetian grosso 1 tournois 1 hyperpyron 1 sterling 3 sterlings 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 Venetian grosso 1 hyperpyron of Negroponte 1 hyperpyron of Negroponte 1 hyperpyron of Negroponte 1 Venetian soldo 1 Venetian piccolo 1 hyperpyron 9 tournois 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron

= 30 Venetian soldi = 30 Venetian soldi = 26 Venetian soldi = 33 Venetian soldi = 10 Venetian grossi = 18–20 manus = 273 Venetian piccoli = 22.75 Venetian soldi = 600 tournois = 1 tournois = 12 deniers tournois = 80 grains = 0.5 grains/tournois = 0.8 grains = 11 grains or less = 32–32.5 tarì = 31 tarì = 4 florins = 6–7 French tournois = 1.5 sterlings = 4 stamena = 20 sterlings = 4 tournois = 1 Venetian grosso = 7 Venetian grossi = 24 sterlings = 12 Venetian grossi = 23.5 sterlings = 12 Venetian grossi = 8 tournois = 25 sterlings = 20 soldi ‘a’ Venetian grossi = 9 1/4 Venetian grossi = 1 sterling = 1/3 tournois = 300 piccoli/25 soldi = 1 Venetian grosso = 80 tournois = 20 manus

1589

1590 (cont.)

P. 1535 (1310s, Peloponnese) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Peloponnese) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Peloponnese) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Peloponnese) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1299, Venice) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1535 (1299, Venice) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1535 (1310s, Negroponte) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Negroponte) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Negroponte) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1310s, Negroponte) (Zibaldone): P. 1535 (1321, Negroponte) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1535 (1321, Coron) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1535 (1321, Negroponte) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1536 (1321, Negroponte) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1536 (1321, Coron) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1536 (1321, CP, Negroponte, Coron) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1536 (1321, CP, Negroponte, Coron) (Venetian state bodies): P. 1536 (1348, Catalan duchy) (Venetian notary): P. 1537 (14th c., Catalan duchy): P. 1537 (1320s–1330s, Naples): P. 1537 (1320s–1330s, Palermo): P. 1537 (1308, southern Italy, Greece) (Muntaner): P. 1538 (1314, Messina): P. 1538 (1420s, CP) (Badoer): P. 1538 (1420s, CP) (Badoer): P. 1538 (1420s, CP) (Badoer): P. 1538–1539 (1350s–1360s, Iberia, Greece): P. 1540 (1336–1338, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1540 (1336–1338, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1540 (1336–1338, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1540 (1336–1338, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1540 (1299, Peloponnese) (Angevin chancery): P. 1540 (1336–1338, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1540 (1336–1338, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1542 (1354, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1543 (1354, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1543 (1357, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1543 (1357, Peloponnese) (cadastral records): P. 1543 (1357, Peloponnese) (cadastral records):

appendix iii

MONIES OF ACCOUNT: SUMMARY OF VALUES

1 hyperpyron 1 Venetian grosso 1 hyperpyron 1 new grosso (Serbian?) 1 Serbian grosso 1 Venetian grosso 1 Venetian grosso 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 100 hyperpyra 25 carats 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 3 hyperpyra 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 gold hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 ounce of account 1 ounce 1 ounce 1 ounce 1 hyperpyron (of Morea) 1 ounce 1 ounce 1 florin 1 florin 21 tournois 2 carlini/gigliati 1 ounce 1 tournois 1 tournois 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 hyperpyron 1 ounce 1 tournois 1 hyperpyron

= 10 Venetian grossi = 8 tournois = 12 new grossi (Serbian?) = less than 7 tournois = 24 piccoli = 32 piccoli = 8 tournois = 12 grossi = 96 tournois = 100 hyperpyra of Thebes = 25 manus = 20 manus = 2 gold hyperpyra = 9.3 Venetian grossi = 7.4 or 8 Venetian grossi = 0.66 hyp. of Negroponte = 0.53 hyperpyron of Coron = 25 sterlings = 60 gigliati or pierreali = 4.1–4.4 florins = 3.3–3.7 florins = 4 florins = 4 gigliati = 5 florins = 13 hyperpyra = 2.6 hyperpyra = 1 Majorcan pound = 1 carlino/gigliato = 1 tarì = ca. 16 hyperpyra = 20 sterlings = 15 hyp. 15 sterlings =