Download PDF | Coinage & money in the Byzantine Empire.1081-126- By MICHAEL F. HENDY 1969.
530 Pages
Acknowledgements
Since the informal groundwork for this volume was already under way while I was still an undergraduate at Oxford, a considerable element of thanks must go to my former tutor, John Prestwich of The Queen’s College, for aiding and abetting my interest in the Byzantine state and its coinage-—-even to the detriment of the fundamentals of historical research which he was endeavoring to inculcate.
My chief debt of gratitude is due to Philip Grierson, Reader in Mediaeval Numismatics at Cambridge University. That formal work was begun is almost entirely due to his encouragement, and that it was completed owes much to his friendly support over the past three years.
Alfred R. Bellinger, Professor at Yale University and Visiting Scholar at Dumbarton Oaks, not only performed the unenviable task of reading through the work while it was still in manuscript, but also showed himself willing to lend a sympathetic ear to extravagant ideas and to ensure their discarding with humor and kindliness.
Michael Metcalf, Assistant Keeper of Coins in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, was the first to draw my attention to the possibility of using the numismatic material in Bulgarian museums and has been most generous in providing me with information regarding the coins in the Ashmolean Museum itself, including those from the Goodacre Collection now on loan from Mrs. N. J. Goodacre.
That this volume contains as much new hoard material as it does is the result of an extremely pleasant stay of seven months in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria under the terms of a graduate exchange scholarship. That once there I was actually able to fulfil the possibilities offered by the immense amount of material available both at Sofia and in the provincial museums is largely because of the guidance and efforts of Dr. Todor Gerassimov, Head of the Coin Cabinet at the Archaeological Museum of the Academy of Sciences. Warm thanks for cooperation, and in many cases for personal hospitality, are also due to the staff of the Archaeological Museums at Plovdiv, Pazardzhik, Stara Zagora, Kazanluk, Turnovo, Assenovgrad, Nova Zagora, Sliven, and Blagoevgrad. Particular thanks must go to Messrs. Dzhambov and Kolev of Plovdiv, Nikolov of Stara Zagora, and Getov of Kazanluk, and to Mme Gizdova of Pazardzhik.
The possibility of turning this into a book is very largely due to the generosity of Dumbarton Oaks in electing me to a Junior Fellowship and in prolonging it over two years. For most Byzantine scholars such a stay means the provision of admirable working conditions and the use of a splendid library; for a numismatist it means, in addition, the privilege of access to one of the great coin collections of the world. I am also profoundly grateful to the Publications Committee for accepting the volume for publication in their series of Studies.
Special mention must be made of the indefatigable efforts of Mrs. Margaret Sevéenko who not only typed my manuscript but also attempted at that late stage to correct the major blemishes of language that had hitherto escaped. Photographs of coins in the Miinzkabinett, Berlin, were obtained through the kind offices of Dr. Peter Berghaus of Miinster.I owe Plates 48-50 to the generosity of Paul A. Underwood, Professor at Dumbarton Oaks.*
Messrs. Wallace Lane and Richard Amt, the Dumbarton Oaks photographers, have exercised their skill (and patience) in providing the photographic plates for the volume mainly by direct photography rather than by the more usual process utilizing plaster casts. The casting of over four hundred scyphate coins, many in lamentable style and regrettable state of preservation, would have been a gigantic task.
Messrs. John Wilson and Robert Halpin of Dumbarton Oaks have used their admirable talents in drawing the maps at the end of the volume.
Finally, my thanks must be extended to the authorities of the various museums and institutions that have allowed me to illustrate material from their coin cabinets: the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, the Bibliothéque Nationale, the American Numismatic Society, and the Johns Hopkins University Museum. Mr. Philip Whitting also kindly gave me the freedom of his considerable collection. To Mme Cécile Morrisson of the Bibliothéque Nationale the author owes a particular debt of gratitude for friendly hospitality and cooperation.
24 May 1967 M. F. Hendy
THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: MONETARY CRISIS
On Easter Sunday, 4 April ro81, after a period of looting and riot, Alexius Comnenus was crowned Emperor of the Romans by the Patriarch Cosmas in the Great Church at Constantinople.
It was not an enviable heritage into which he entered: externally, the Empire was threatened from several sides simultaneously ; from the west by the Normans, from the north by the Patzinaks, and from the east by the Seljuk Turks. Internally, the situation was little better: an empty treasury and a wildly debased coinage; an army reduced by the conscious efforts of his predecessors, and by the losses and confusion of the disastrous defeat of Manzikert and its aftermath; considerable disaffection among the powerful landed nobility, to many of whom he must himself have appeared something of an upstart and hardly a permanent figure. It is, in itself, a measure of his achievement that, on his death in 1118, he was able to hand on the Empire to his son John IT (r1z8-43) with at least no threat to the dynastic succession as such. The fact that the position of the Empire then bore no resemblance to that of the chaotic and dangerous years of the eighth and ninth decades of the eleventh century, renders the extent of his success comparable to those of Heraclius and Leo ITI.
Yet the period of a little over a century during which the Comneni and Angeli ruled the Eastern Empire is customarily regarded very much as a time of temporary respite—an age of superficial brilliance, all but hiding an essential and ever-increasing decadence, culminating naturally in the sack of Constantinople by the armies of the Fourth Crusade. It was in spite of this decadence (so runs the argument) that the dynasty was for long able to play a leading part in the politics of the Mediterranean, to maintain a sumptuous court which dazzled east and west alike, and to act as a generous and energetic patron of art. Stripped of its outward glamor, however, the period was marked by an unhealthy increase in the power of the military nobility at the expense of the central government; the decline of the war fleet and mercantile marine in the face of neglect and of the privileged competition of the Italian trading republics; the loss of revenue as a result of the widespread granting of tax immunities, both to those same republics and to the lay and ecclesiastical nobility, and of the shifting of trade routes to areas outside the control of the Empire. The precarious financial position of the Comneni was marked by the large-scale debasement of the coinage, which, if they did not originate, they certainly encouraged and increased. Such a conception of twelfth-century Byzantium is perhaps best illustrated by Runciman’s well known phrase that “Under the capable rule of Alexius’s son, John II, the decadence barely showed,”
The supposed debasement of the coinage under these two dynasties is a widely accepted assumption, and generally held as one of the most obvious illustrations of the Empire’s economic debility—and although it is true that views dissenting from the traditional have been, and are, expressed, no exhaustive examination of the coinage and monetary system of the late eleventh and the twelfth century has yet been undertaken. It was still possible in 1951 for R. S. Lopez, one of the leading authorities on the economics of the period, to state: “We have specimens of seven different types of the nomisma struck by Alexius I, and of thirteen struck by Manuel. Presumably all of them were intended to pass as good bezants, but most of them were of bronze, billon, silver, or pale gold.’’* Commendably, with a little more reserve, N. G. Svoronos wrote, in 1959, in an article on the cadastral registers of Thebes:
Certains renseignements autorisent néamoins 4 penser que la monnaie d’or d’Alexis devait étre de toute facon inférieure en titre 4 celle d’avant la dévaluation de Monomaque et peut-étre méme 4 celle de Michel VII Ducas, puisque Bohémond exige le versement annuel stipulé au traité de paix de 1108 en piéces d’or 4 l’effigie de cet empereur ou bien de Michel IV. D’autre part, étant donné les nombreux types de nomismata de bas aloi émis par Alexis Ie, on peut se demander si les monnaies 4 base d’or et de bon poids n’avaient pas dans l’Empire un cours limité, étant réservées aux payements extérieurs, et si le numéraire en nomismata vraiment en circulation ne consistait pas justement dans ces monnaies de bas aloi, dont Ja valeur intrinséque ne pouvait pas atteindre un niveau élevé....3
As long ago as 1951 L. Schindler suggested that the coinage of the period might fit into a fractional system, and even drew up a table of denominational values and relationships,* recently modified by T. Bertelé.> Unfortunately, however, neither Schindler’s nor Bertelé’s studies have been in any way exhaustive, and their hypothetical systems do not appear to have been accepted with any great enthusiasm by other numismatists and economic historians. At the moment, the question apparently rests.
The coinage and monetary system of the period ought not to be considered in isolation, but rather against the background of that of the preceding century, during which time the first signs of strain occur in the traditional monetary pattern, and at the end of which it lay in chaos. In addition, a comparison should be made between the pattern of coinage of the period c. 1034-1081, and that of Alexius and his successors up to 1204, for even with a cursory examination several important differences meet the eye.
The coinage of the Byzantine Empire during the eleventh century until the reign of Michael IV (1034-41) very largely conformed to a pattern set in the preceding centuries. The standard gold nomisma of 24 “‘keratia’”’ weight and 24 carats fine, called in documentary sources the “(hi)stamenon nomisma”’ (16 voptopa [foréuevov), was evidently still struck at the Constantinian rate of 72 to the pound—although it may well be that the Byzantine pound had become somewhat lighter than the Roman by this time, since the average weight of the stamenon (c. 4.40 gm.) gives a pound of 316.80 gm. as opposed to 327.45 gm. From the reign of Nicephorus II, Phocas (963-69), there had been issued parallel to the stamenon a light weight gold coin known from the sources as the “tetarteron nomisma’” (td véyioua tetaptnpdv)—light by 4/,., or 2 keratia, and, according to recent research, probably the result of an attempt by Nicephorus to bring the weight of the nomisma into line with that of the Fatimid dinar. Since the later part of the joint reign of Basil II and Constantine VIII (976-1025), the two denominations had been clearly distinguishable, the stamenon taking a thin, spread fabric, the tetarteron a thicker and smaller one.
The silver “‘miliaresion,”’ a coin of thin, flat fabric, continued to be accounted at the rate of 12 to the stamenon; the copper “‘follis’” (of large, flat fabric), at the rate of 288 to the same, which is also 24 to the miliaresion. Both silver and copper coinages were of a token nature, their nominal value being considerably in excess of their intrinsic worth.
There is every reason to believe that at this time (1034), the coinage was functioning normally, and that the government was having no difficulty in maintaining the weight and purity of its precious-metal denominations. The Emperor Basil II, at his death in 1025, left what was considered the enormous sum of 200,000 Ibs. of gold in the treasury—possibly several years’ revenue.”
Despite the depredations of Constantine VIII during his short sole reign (1025-28), there seems no doubt that the bulk of this treasure remained to Michael IV on his accession; indeed, the chronicler Psellus repeatedly affirms that most of it remained at the beginning of the reign of Constantine IX, Monomachus (1042-55). Nevertheless, the reign of Michael IV marks the beginnings of the debasement of the gold coinage, which seems to have hovered somewhere between the theoretical 24 carats fine and an actual 194, at this time. The debasement was extended by Constantine IX, at the end of whose reign the purity of the gold coinage remained at approximately 18 carats. This situation lasted until late in the reign of Romanus IV, Diogenes (1067-71), when a new slide began, which, with increasing rapidity, was extended by his two successors Michael VII, Ducas (1071-78) and Nicephorus III, Botaneiates (r078-81). At the commencement of the reign of Alexius, the fineness of the gold coinage had been reduced to about 8 carats, although the full weight of 24 keratia (4.40 gm.) had been retained. The tetarteron nomisma fell in much the same way as the stamenon.
Under Michael IV, the stamenon had assumed a new fabric and had become very spread, and also slightly scyphate (cup-shaped). It seems probable that the new shape was adopted when it became necessary for the treasury to distinguish between the old, and hence pure stamena, and the new, debased ones. The emperor who systematized the debasement (Constantine IX) definitively adopted the new fabric and even accentuated it—possibly to stop the fraudulent battering of the scyphate into a flat piece of supposedly pure content. There can be no doubt that these gold scyphates are to be identified with the ‘“nomisma trachy’’ (16 véuiopa tpayw) of documentary sources, and it would appear reasonable to assume that the description ‘“‘uneven’’ (tpoxv) referred to the scyphate fabric of these issues.8 The debased tetarteron continued to be struck in the old fabric, the problem of distinction not arising.
There is, unfortunately, no contemporary evidence bearing directly upon the effect that the debasement of the gold coinage had upon either the system of account, or upon the system of silver and copper denominations hitherto dependent upon the stamenon nomisma. Given the circumstances, however, it is not too difficult to ascertain the course that events must have taken.
Throughout the period c. 1034~81, the government would have paid its debts in the debased coinage of the day. Although a given number of currently issued nomismata, during the reign of Romanus ITI, Argyrus (1028-34), would still have held the same value as under his predecessors, the same number of currently issued pieces under Theodora or Isaac I, Comnenus (1.e., 1055-59), would have held only */, of its former worth, and under Nicephorus III it would have represented barely one half. Although the government might eventually have been compelled to increase the number of nomismata in its payments in order to offset the decline in their actual, as opposed to theoretical, value, it would have been impossible to ensure that it did so at a rate sufficient to keep pace with the decline, On the other hand, the government at no period appears to have demonetized and called in the intrinsically more valuable issues of its predecessors. Consequently, despite the gradual operation of Gresham’s law tending toward the withdrawal of the least debased issues from circulation, the circulating medium, during the reign of Nicephorus ITI, for example, would have contained issues ranging in fineness from the full 24 carats down to 8 carats. The Byzantine theory of coinage had for so long been based on the notion that the value of a gold coin was equivalent to the amount of metal that it contained as bullion, that it is difficult to believe that the authorities could have enforced the circulation of debased pieces at the same rate as those of pure gold. Instead, a hierarchical principle would eventually have been evolved, with the standard based on the value of the old pure gold stamenon nomisma as a unit of account, the value of each new issue, once in circulation, being estimated according to its intrinsic worth. It would have been on this basis that the government would have demanded payments made to it. Thus a trachy of Nicephorus ITT, at a fineness of 8 carats, although paid out as a nomisma of full value, would have been counted, once in circulation, as worth its 8 keratia weight of pure gold—possibly plus the value of the silver which went to make up the rest of the alloy. Sixteen keratia of silver being approximately equivalent in value to 11), gold keration, the total value of the trachy would have been 9% (ie., 8-+14/,) keratia—or 114 folleis.
The fact that the government must have operated some such system seems to be indicated by the general custom of accompanying a further debasement by a change in the type of the gold coin, Had the authorities counted pure and debased coins indifferently as worth a full standard nomisma during the colJection of taxes, for instance, this would have been superfluous.
The miliaresion and follis being, in any case, denominations of a token nature, they would have tended to remain stable, pegged to the traditional standard, acting as units in which the value of the debased trachea were estimated.
The debasement of the nomisma between c. 1034 and 1081 involved a fall from a theoretical 24 carats to an actual 8. The pattern for the Comneni and Angeli is noticeably different: there exist nomismata of gold, electrum, and low grade alloys of varying proportions of silver and copper (billon), for each reign over a period exceeding a hundred years. Clearly a complete debasement from gold to billon over the whole period is out of the question: equally, a complete debasement within each reign, no matter how long or short it might be, would be logically absurd, implying as it does either foreknowledge of the length of the reign, or the existence of a quite incredible series of coincidences.
On the other hand, the assumption that coins of what is apparently good gold, of electrum, and of billon, could circulate together—all being invested with the same theoretical value of a nomisma of pure gold®—is completely unrealistic, and it is to be wondered how such a conception could possibly last as long as it has. In this kind of situation the tendency is for the less debased pieces to disappear from circulation in favor of the more debased (Gresham’s law). To ensure otherwise would necessitate an omnipotent and omnipresent government and a population of superhuman honesty. Furthermore, the possibilities of illegal profit would have been obvious, enormous, and accessible to all with sufficient capital to buy a quantity of base metal and the ability to manufacture a presentable pair of dies.
It must also be pointed out that if the Byzantine government were fortunate enough to be able to enforce the circulation of billon coins at the same rate of exchange as those of gold and electrum, it is difficult to imagine any convincing reasons for it continuing to strike pieces of high intrinsic value at all.
Nor is the suggestion that coins of gold were for external use and those of base metals for internal circulation’? any more convincing. Although gold was occasionally exported, even officially, it is hard to conceive of the imperial government with its long tradition of forbidding, or at least discouraging, the export of that precious metal, actually aiding such a movement by the production of special coins—even if it were in the greatest difficulties. To accept this theory is also to ignore the large amounts of gold found on imperial territory. A system by which gold was formally reserved for the use of the higher ranks of society, particularly the official, while those of lower status were obliged to make do with a currency of base metal, is similarly, on examination, improbable, if not quite impossible. Restrictions of this type would scarcely have been feasible: the whole point of coinage is that (at least theoretically) it can circulate in a society.
Alternatively, it might be supposed that, once put into circulation by a fraudulent government at a grossly enhanced rate, each coin found its own level of value, dependent on its intrinsic worth. This, of course, would have meant that each piece in a transaction would have had to have been tested as to its actual value. At any given moment, therefore, there would have existed almost as many levels of value as there were coins in circulation. In these circumstances, it would be surprising not to find the fabric of the Empire shattered and commerce at a standstill within a decade, let alone a century .
On dealing with any large series of these coins, or better, with a series of hoards, it soon becomes evident that although the Comneni and Angeli undoubtedly struck coins of the same size, weight, and fabric, in several metals or alloys, issues of a particular combination of obverse and reverse types are, with only rare exceptions, struck in one metal or alloy only. Small, carefully selected collections naturally tend to obscure this, for “odd” coins are naturally preferred. Given the above, there would seem to be an unanswerable case for treating the series as fractional in type: that is, that there should exist a regular rate of exchange from the point of view of both issue and circulation, between coins of the same size, weight, and fabric, but distinguished by the particular combination of their obverse and reverse designs and by a fixed metal content. The crucial point is, obviously, to establish whether issues of each metal or alloy were struck according to a regular standard, and whether that standard bears any fairly simple fractional relationship, as far as intrinsic worth is concerned, to issues of other metals.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق