P.Papadopoulou,The Big Problem of Small Change, 1st Sevgi Gönül Symposium_Proceedings, Istanbul 2010 more

T {E BlG PRoBLEM 0F SMALL CHANGE lN l.|E BYZANT|NE \ ,oRLD [T ffELFTI.| AN D Pe.co T|.| relative values of these petty denominations.a n th s ..small change'' of the K mnenian paper focus on the system, name y the stamenon, the two types of tetartera lRT ENTH cE TURl sl* and the half-tetaπera. To return t Choniates, the passage π Ñ,c.pano po o n nemory of M ch el F. Hendy questi n raises more questions than it answers. one of the main reas ns involves the auth r's classicising lan age..W.e can deduce from other Sources, Such ..Stater as Eustathius f Thessalonica, that the term chalkous'', appl ed to the coin given by Poutzes to be changed dovrn, describes the billon stamenon.S This leaves the term "oboloi" for the rest of the small denominations ith all three of them as p}ausible candidates. n order to solve this mystery, the numismatist has to find answers to several questions: did atl three of these petty denominations circulate in one evening, on his way back fr m the Palace vendors sell ng pickled vegetab es. Despite the fact that his own dinner WaS approaching, he d d not resist the temptation; he grabbed a d shfulof them and devoured them. } e then took a copper coin (st ter ch Llteon) from his purse and gave it to one of h s servants with orders for it to be changed do , n into four smaller coins (obolo ) , of wh ch two r ere to be handed over to the vendor and two to be returned to him at once.' The episode is related by N ketas Choniates and was clearly intended as an example of the logariastes's gluttony, misery and l w manners.2 For the modern scholar however, it is one of the rare cases where a Byzantine author refers to an everyday event involving a transaction in petty coinage. Before examiningthis passage further, it is necessary to briefly present the Byzantine monetary system in the mid_f\ relfth century' when this epis de tookplace.3 Followingthe monetary reform of lexius Komnenos (roBr-trrB) in ro9z, the Byzantine monetary system remained the same for more than a century and a ha}f. t comprised five denominations: the go d hyperp on of' zo l'/z carats, the basis f the system; the tnkeph lon or electrum SProntr chy, a concave coin l rth r/3 hyperpyron, made of electrum; another b llon concave coin called St ,rnenon or b llon aspron trachy and lnlt allyw rth r/4B hyperp}ron; and three flat small coins, the billon tet rteron, the copper tetarteron and the half-tetafieron. only esses can be made about the l,og rL stes, Saw Some wayside of Blachernai, John Poutzes, themeg s U (5 z (J J a U t t--- Z ! (J < __-J u1 J r, (r z FL] U LLZ J j F t z O< Z .^ c F O - ) m-U U L! l'FLL >- i \ o z | ! /} t in the capital? ere the billon tetartera widely used in everyday transactions or d d they represent ..ceremonial issues'' as it has been suggested?6 ere the b 11on tetartera tariffed differently from the copper ones?z D d the so-called half -tetartera exist as a separate denomination or were they just light-we ght fuil tetartera?8 nd why was the vendor not able to provide the required change and recourse to a money changer was necessary? Should one assume a scarcity of petty coinage in the capital? 11 of these questions -provoked by just a line in Ch niates's tert- constitute only part of , hat call, allud ng to the tit e of the zooz book by Thomas Sargent and Franqois Ve de,s who in their turn paraphrase Carlo Cipolla,'o "the big problem of small change'' in π,rrelfth and th rteenthcentury Byzantium. 4 on lexius,s reform and the Komnenian monetary system, see o t ) e, tu ' , M. F. H endy, C oEn ge nd, M oney n th e yz ntLne mp r e, l o 8 - 2 6 (ffash ngton D.C., 969), 4-2139_49'D)C 4'4 _5 . For a somel, hat different view on the re ative values of the new. denominations ..De l'unit6 and their evo ution in time, see Ñ. Papadopou ou, 1'6clatement, la monnaie et son usage dans le monde byzantin (ro9a- . J 6i'' 5 (Ph.D. diss.' Universitd de Paris _Panth6on_Sorbonne. zoo7), B6-ro3. ustathios of Thessa oniki, The C pture of Thess Lon ki: Tr nsl ti,oπ tth ntro d,uctioπ nd Commeπt ry, ed. J. R. M. J ones (Canberra, l 9 B B), r24. The term State is normallay used by Byzantine authors to denote concave denominations, thus state chrysLnos for the hyperpyron' ,rgy ous stater for the * at the Research Center This paper was completed while the author as a Senior Fel ow for natolian Civilizations-Koq University, 1 stanbul (Turkey). Niketas Choniates, H storL , ed. J. L. van Dieten (Berlin-Ne York, On John Poutzes, megas logariastes during the reigns of John and Manuel Komnenos, see Choniates,H stor ,54-57; R. ..Logariaste'', B (196): rr1 (r pr. in idem, Titres Stamenon. Papadopoulou, +6-+ respectively. trikephalon and cha kous stater for the ..De l'unit6 1'6c1atement'' , zz_z3, z7 and ..The 2 1979,57. 6 in the Tvrelfth Century'', N C rc 86 Guilland, 10 et fonctL on s de ' empir e by nti,n I London' et I 97 6J, art. l )' H. et Les l 96 hr ei e , nsti,tutLons πce Me L m ,πne yz πce mpire of π o'ri'tLn-Les de er e, L po t que ur W e- Ve sidcles ( Paris, de z3o_33; P. Magdalino , he [ nuel on. r enos, 4,3- 8o 6) ' Tetarteron 97B). $/{ idem, Coin ge n South stem urope' 8zo- 386 (London. 979). ro5. 7 DoC u. u9-5l' 8 Metcalf, ..The Tetarteron'', 574 ; idem, S uth- stem urope, o6, ..Mint_activity in Byzantine Thessa oniki'.' oboios 4 (zooo), l 3 l idem. This 1ast vie. has been expressed in D. M. Metcalf, (r ; r79. (Cambridge, 993), z54 ; DoC 4'5o (l,yith reference to this particular episode), trc,245-46. 3 Poutzes ñas still megas logariastes in 1157, but had been replaced by ndronikos Cappadox by l7o. Magdalino, M nuel,5o4' 5oB; DoC 4,5o, n. 56. 9 1 T. J. Sargent and F. R. Velde, The g hoblem of Srn ll Ch nge nd Clvtl z tton n the ..The (Princeton, N.J., eooz). 0 The 3.d chapter of C. M. C polla, Money' Prlces Med,i'te bg z7-37 bearingthe title problem of petty coins", served as inspirationto Sargent andVelde. πe nworld, (NewYork, 96), Centralto this pr blem is the fact that as far as the circulation of smaller denominations is concerned, three distinctive zones can be discerned," _ n the first one, comprising approximately the theme of ellas-Peloponnesos in s uthern and central Greece,.. the copper tetartera and the r halves prevail, whereas the billon tetartera are represented but invery smal quantities. The stamena are characteristically absent from this area throughout the twe fth century. - The second zone is that of Asia Minor, where the phenomenon described for Greece is reversed: the tetartera and their halves are virtually absent, with the stamena representing the lovrest denomination in circulation. single known exception is a hoard in c mmerce c nsisting of about z5o Komnenian tetartera and ha f-tetartera said to have been found in southern Turkey in1974''3 Even f the recorded provenance is correct -a fact that has been contested'4- its presence does not change the general mage f the prep nderance of the stamena. - The third zor e, including the rest of the empire, namely the rest of Greece, lbania, the central and northern Balkans and Cyprus, presents a mixed circulation pattern where the stamena prevail as hoard material, but are being supplemented by the smaller denominations as is lated finds..5 s one would expect, Constantinople represents a special case, where all small denominations were circulating in substantial quantities. The numismatic materialfr m the two major excavated sites of the capita , the Saraqhane and the Ka1enderhane,,6 11 This phenomenon Grierson, Stud es Ln has been discussed by several scho ars, Ph. yz πtlr e Coi,ns (London, 9Bz), 2 9-2oi M. F. Hendy, the nti'ne Monet ry conomy, c. 3oo* 4'5o (Cambr dge, 9-7 12 Forthe boundaries of this theme, see J, Koder and F. H ld, {ellos undT| ess l , T B l, ienna, 976)'37_4o. 98 ., yzaπti,ne ntem tLon L Sy npos um for Thr ci n Stud es Thr ce'' , m ge and, Ch r cter, KomotLnt z8-3 M y 987 , ed. Ch. Bakiπzis (Amsterdam' 36 . 9B9), L yzF N ( l9B5), 435-39; . oikonomidou, . Touratsoglou, . Tsourti_Kou i and M. Ga anl - Kr kou, .. o f| g>> / l 97 9 (). o ñ6 g <.Ko o x x oQoqi Q ñb o B, . .X'', F rst Ptochoprodromos.'? lthough the particularities in the circulation of small denominations have been known for almost fo years, little effort has been made to interpret this phenomenon and to determine whether r not it constituted part of the State monetary policy. t has been suggested that the differences in the circulating medium can be connected w th the cost of life in the different territories of the empire: the state produced higher value coins for regions vith a relatively high price St " cture and smallvalue coins for regi ns with a relatively low price structure.'B Our knowledge of prices in the twelfth century is too fragmentary to allow us to draw any Secure conc usions in this respect. n tight of tw examp es however, would consider that this is rather unlikely. The first one dates from the reign of Manuel Komnenos (lr43-rrBo), in one f the letters exchanged between the empress rene and her tutor John TzetzeS \ e }earn that in the Constantinopo itan market ten mackerels cost one tetarteron..9 n lr85 Eustathius of Thessalonica informs us that the re lar price for a smal oaf of bread n his city is again one tetarteron.." t is probable that the two prices refer to tw d fferent types of tetartera, namely the metropolitan billon tetarteron of h gher value and the Thessa}onican copper tetarteron espective y. Even f this is the case, prices in sia Minor, where the tetartera were not availab e, should have been six to eighteen times higher (according to the prevai ing exchange rates between the stamenon and these denominations) in order to allow the purchase of such items with the smallest availab e coin, the stamenon. This examp e represents an oversimp ification, but numismatists often tend to ignore the practical side of matters, besides fiscal purposes, coins were issued to be used in everyday transactions as ,ell. Since a price difference f 6oo En confirms this statement, a ready suspected through the mentions of both stamena and tetaπera in the poems f ( U 7 U t : 1 u () (,) J --J q6F > __J.Z u-l - -L:J.-. LrJ z t- Es ->,^ Co m-J -lrl* j sZ- _ - uJ ll F- > o t z ut lrJ Jl (J o ' e. J ,a LrJ . st nbul . The F'rc v tLons, Structures, rch tectur l Decor tLon, Sn LL .J )), F nds, Co r s, oπes πd, Mo , scs, ed. R. M. Harrisson (Princeton' N. .' r9B5), z7B-373; Kalenderhane: M. F. Hendy, "Roman, Byzantine and Latin Coins'' , K lenderh ne Lπ st r bu ' The rc t t ons. F n l Reports ,Ienderh ne C mi,L R. Reece' ed.,..Byzantine } oards''' CoLr Ho rds r( 975),6r, no.243; M. D. O'Hara, "Notes on Recent Byzantine Hoards", Coiin Ho rds r( 975).58; S. Benda , ed., ..Byzantine Hoards'', CoEnHo rd,sz 13 on the Arch eolog c L F'πp or tLon nd Restor(ut on 956- 978, eds. C. L, StrikerandY. D, Kuban(Mainz' zoo7)' 5-z76' 1 7 H' idene ie r, ed., h o ch opro dr omo s' ffihrung' lcr t s che u s g b e, G oss r (Kti n, l99 ), 3. o2,3. l17, 3, $9' 4. |4o' Gtamenon) ; 3.' 49, 3.'59, 4, 93, 4. 45 (tetarteron). 4. 43, 4. 45z 18 } endy' Studi'es,6oz, This interpretationhas also been adopted deutsche[Jbersetzur g' (l976).B , no.34z. as the Komotini/ry79 (?) hoard of ñ6g tetartera and half-tetartera. oikonomidou et al., .. 14 Hendy' Stud 'es' 437. 15 Exceptions do exist, such <.Ko o '>'' ,394 M. Galani-Krikou, Y. Nlkolaou, M. . Touratsoglou >> oikonomidou, V. Penna, <, and , Tsourti, y o o ( thens, zooz), 96,πo. 83. Co nhoards containingstamena and tetartera at the same time have invariably been deposed after rzo4 and reflect a different monetary sifuation. Olkonomidou et al., Q o N o xo j M o lo ,. o ñ6g <.Ko , 16 Saraqhane f ,>,,, 37o. ..The M. F. Hendy, Coins'', rc v ti,ons -a thoughwith hesitation- byVasso Ñenna in order to exp ain certain particularities obser ed in the numismatic material from Corinth. V. Penna, .H oπo f o , t g 6g π6 g g o M rtLr Jessop ñ ñi (B E-lqoE . .X.)''' Myi ..Numismatic -Pn ce ( thens ry96) 22o_z2, and more recently idem, ' ' Circu ation in Corinth frorn 976 to zo4'' The coπomlc H story of ' yz nt um, ed. . E. La ou ffashington, D.C., zooz), 6sz_5s. 19 oannesTzetzes, pLstul e, ed. P. . M. Leone (Leipzig' 97z),πo. 57, Br, l. rB-2o. l t S r qh ne 20 Eustathios of Thessaloniki' The C ,pture,lq4. . :B_3o , 6'|. z_3. z n IJJ JJ o lrJ ) G, ' J .G, to rBoo% between sia M nor and the rest of the empire is quite improbable, we have to assume that everyday trade was conducted either through barter, or through Some k nd of credit System. There are some cases of barter in Byzantine literary sources, but they do n t concern the given period or region.2. As for c edit, the Cairo Geniza documents offer evidence for the app ication of such practiceS in the s}amic world: Small expenses would be recorded and summed up until the amount payable with the smallest available coin was eached.?2 No such evidence exists for Byzantium but it is a possibility that cannot be excluded, since the notion of credit was far from beins unknown in the Bvzantine societv.'3 n any case, the situation described Suggests a lower levei of monetization in sia Minor when compared to other parts of the empire traditionally c nsidered as }ess deve oped, Such as Bulgaria, Serbia and lbania. The archaeological finds confirm this picture. The northern Balkans demonstrate a constant growth in the annual c in losses throughout the twelfth century, m st pr bably as a result of frequent military perations in the area. t the same time, the sites of sia Minor present a decl ne in monetary f nds compared to the previous and next periods, even th ugh m l tary activity was intense and the area is generally considered to have been commercially and economica y deve oped.?4 Given the present state of research, it is not possible to specify the exact reasons behind this fact. More l ght can be shed on the date and character of the phenomenon. As far as the date is concerned, we poSSeSs litt e evidence. Neve theless, it appears that the creation of d fferent circulation zones for the lower denominations post-dated the monetary reform of iexius ; more precisely, these zones must have been initiated some time duringthe rei of h s son, John Komnenos (rrrB-rr43). Th s conclusion is supported by both numismatic and literary evidence. Accordmgto the accounts of the First Crusade, the tetartera, distributed by lexius to the crusader soldiers,.s were extremely common not nly inThrace, but also in B thynia, a re$on that would later belong to the zone of exclusive circulation f stamena.*6 The monetary sifuation created by the C usades .rMaS definite y an exceptional one that still must have affected loca circulation. f the Crusaders were suppiied withteta tera, they must have used them on their way to the F oly Land; conse![uently these coins were intr duced into local circulation' lthough h s Constantinopo itan tetartera.28 Since the tetartera were still circulating in sia Minorunder lexius K mnenos, it must have been under his successor that the abovementioned distr but on pattern appeared. Even th ugh the avai abie data is Scarce, have recent y dent fied a similar distribution pattern for the precious metai c inage appearing unde John Komnen s that offers complementary evidence for the pr posed dating of the creation of the stamena and tetartera circulation zones. t s the specific distribution pattern of the gold hyperpyra and e ectrum trikepha].a that can tell uS more as to the character _official or not- of th s phenomenon. n this case too, three distinctive Zones of circulation can be discerned,te distributed tetartera to the simp e Crusader soldiers. ,, n1per tor. . . archaeologica data fromAsia Minor iS Scarce, the g eat numbers of early Komnenian tetartera found in n rthern Syria is characteristic.?7 M reover, as coin types better represented in circulation become the object of imitation, it is certainly not a c incidence that the Se juk sultan Rukn al-d n Mas. id (rrr7_l156) adopted for h s copper f lsthe imperia portrait of lexius of the type used on ped t bus quoque d str bu fec t d'e ruumm s Su E o,en,eLs, quos voc nt t ,rt ,rone S'', Fu che ri Carto nensis, HL st orl hL er o s o ymlt π gest Fr r c orum heru s L em p eregrln ,nt uπ , RH C H o c c ( B 6 6) 3, 3 3 3-34. 26 The information comes from Orderic Vital, according to whom the tetartera were as current as bezants in transactions in Thrace and B thyn a. Cited in . . Laiou, ..Byzantine Trade with Christians and Mushms and the Crrrsades'', The Crus des from the Perspecti e of πti,um ndthe Mus mworld' eds. . E. Laiou and R, Ñ. Mottahedeh of the znik Museum Mashin on, D.C,, zoor), 69' note 75. n the numismatic collection ,,les t6,t rt r et Les tr ch6' 21 des Comn nes et d,es Private Transactions" and N on _ c o 22 .. conomic Z BB (r995), 4.o5-rB; . E. La ou' ' nomic Exchange'', Th e conoml c Hi,st o y of yz tlum, ed' . . Laiou (ffashington, D.C.' zooz) ' 693-96. S' D. Goite1n,A Med ter ne n SocLety: The Je Lsh CommunttEes E. Sarad ' '. vidence of Barter Economy in the Documents of L sc ndes sont r ombreur'', but more precise information is not availab e. F. Planet' ci cu ation mon6taire, 6tude des monnaies byzantines du Mus6e d' znik',, in L tth2n e u Moyen Age, eds ' B, Gayer and J. Lefort (Paris, zoo3), 5o4. ..La of 27 S. Heldemann, DLe 'en Lss nce der Stcidte in N ordsyrLen und nt i,cklung und, the r b world' spoπr yed r the Documents of the C tro Ge Lz . VoL. ' conomLc Fou d, t ons (Berkeley_Los nge es, ry6), 5l,-5z. 23 C. Morrisson, ..Byzantine Money. ts Production and Circulation The coπomicH toryof y ,nt uπ , ed. . E. Laiou ..The story of yz ,nt uπ , ed. N ordmesopot m en. StddtLsche π s ch ftl che ed n ngen Ln r_R qq Vo nd S e ds n voπ der Zei't d,er bedulnLschen rherrs ch ft b s zu d en chuk en ( Le iden - Bosto n - K ln' zo o z), Mashington, D.C., 3g+-gs' 2ooz), 9o) G. Dagron, Centuries'', The rcoπomirc Urban conomy' Seventh-Twelfth . E. Laiou 28 Forthetetarteron, seeDOC4.pl. V , no. 33. Forthetype ofthe bl oth que π tion L' AsLe pr€ '.rnongole, Les S Lgπqs et leurs Successeurs Seljuk fa s, see G. Henne q π, C t Lo e des moππ Les musu m πes de 5' DCDXV /I5 9 9. The only difference between the protofype and the imitation is the lnversion of the imperial insignia. 67 Mashin on, D.C., zooz)' 436-3B. overview of the phenomenon can be obtained through the frequency indices of monetary finds from different Byzantine sites in Morrisson, "Byzantine Money", table 5. For more details on the 21 An (Paris, ryB )' 29 The numismatic and written evidence for the specific distribution of precious metal coins, as well as a commentary on its nature question of the monetization of sia Minor under the Komnenoi, ..De Papadopoulou, ]'unit6 l'6clatement'' ,4||_z7' See 25 and the possib e reasons that led to its creation are to be found Papadopoulou, ..De in Fulcher of Chartres informs us that in o97 lexius Komnenos l'unit6 l'6c1atement''' 445-5B. nthe framework * The first one comprised roughly continental Greece, where the gold hyperpyra circulated almost exclusively. _ The second one inc uded the central and northern Balkans, r, here a mixed circulation pattern is visible, as b th h1perpyra and tr kephala were hoarded. _ The third one, fina ly, consisted of the south_ eastern territories of the empire, that is southern sia Min r and the islands f Crete' Cyprus and Rhodes, where the circulation of electrum trikephala was exclusive. t is very probab e that this last zone included the region of Trebizond as well. acted differently. _ D cumentary evidence concerning Cyprus and Crete shows that taxation in these islands was calculated and most l kely collected in trikepha a. n the case of Cyprus, the evidence comes from the inventory of the estates f the Monastery of The tokos of Krinia, where the tax (d,emos ,on) is expresse din rg1rr , that is trikephala.33 The same is true for the Patmos documents concerningthe krostichon of Crete and other taxes, for the estate of Nesi from wh ch the bishop of Ka}amon was exempted.3a Furthermore, a Latin document dated sho t y after the Venetian conquest of the island informs us that the land tax paid to the Byzantine state by the .. ibr s qulnqu g ,nt dem ndLLL tLS'', Church of Crete was that is 3.6oo trikephala.3s - Finally, in a document issued bythe megas logariastes John Belissariotes in I r 97 concerning the privileges of the Monastery of Patmos in Crete, we f nd ,,trLkeph l t k t chor n ,p toun-Len '' , the phrase ..trikepha a, the ones required in the region''.36 that is The fact that the document was issued by the imperial chance lery and that there is a question of re irement -and not just a preference- concerningthe circulating medium of this specif c region, demonstrates that the state was aware of this particularity and supported it. such as the deπ osl kon telos of is impr bable that in this case the state would have fo . eight trikephala h le the prevalence of the hyperpyra in Greece can be justified by the general tendency to prefer goid over other metals, and the coexistence of both hyperpyra and trikephala in the central and northern Balkans by the nature of the miiitary supplies that reached the region -one of the main, if not the most important factor determining the precious circulating medium in these areas- it is iess easy to understand the exc usiveness of trikephala in the third Zone.3o Unl ke the circulation pattern observed for the bi lon and copper denominations, in this case the evidence is not nly numismatic, but also l terary. hile almost alltwelfth-century documents use the hyperpyronto express SumS of m ney, there is no mention of th s denomination inthe su viving documents concerningthe south-eastern parts of the empire from the reign of John onwards. nstead, the trikepha on is used.3, t s beyond the scope of the present pape to examine this last phen menon and ts reas ns in detail. However, a point has to be made concerning its character. Three facts ailowus to establ shthatthe state WaS aware of the particu arity in question and was most probably responsib e for it as well, U a t! t' .Z. z ) t! () --J < F )znfrU -U 3 E i uZ)z|_ ->_ m! m=J s this particularity in the circu ation of precious metal coins was part of the state's monetary and ec nomic po icy and thus was probably the corresponding phenomenon observed for the lower denominations -even f the nature of these c ins and of the surviving l terary Sources has deprived us from any d cumentary evidence. t seems, then, that the monetary poi cy J. Darrouz s, ert s t would not be an exaggeration to suggest that \ t o z IJJ JJ (J o t precious metal coins had always been of great concern for the Roman and later the Byzantine state that tried to control it in the most eff cient way.3. t of this paper, the phenomenon v. ll be discussed only to the extent that it paralle s the circulation pattern of the lo er denominations. - The first one is the nature f the coinage in question, The producti n and circulation of 33 hL l'histoire de Ch1pre (quatri me article)''' K πñ. π. z3 (l959), 47-49 (repr. in idern,L tt1ro,tureet pour Servir st otr e d,es t e ..Notes 34 krostichon, for an see E. Vrano sl, b2z nttr s I Lo ndo n, r 97z 1' art. XV ) overvie.w of the content of the documents, . .l' ct J t ! xq oñ xci (Athens, l9Bo), *6l-*63 and ldem, A, : A .. 6x o og x d o og E d ñdQ E ( B, - d' 6yyñ Q g Mo g . , documents, see Vranousi, t.) ' Symme kt ( 966) . L54-57, For the B A oxq oq xci, no. - surviving (J,ly, 30 ccording of hyperpyra and more than 6o kentenaria oftrlkephala. Choniates, H stor , o47.The use of both gold and silver coins for mi itary campaigns is already attested in the Book of Ceremonies. J. J. Reike, ed., D e cennxonLi,S ul e b1 ntiπ e, 2 ols. (Bonn, B z 9-3 o) ' 47 , 473. See also Morrisson, "Byzantine Money", 95r. 31 The sole exception was a tax exemption of twelve hlperpyra r,vas no to Niketas Choniates' during his last campaign Bu garia (rl95) saac ngelus brought with him ro keπter n in ind ctionX [= (=r 9)l. B -B3; no. zz (April, ind ction X g Mo l 1761 6yyñ Q ), z| 9-21 i M. Nystazopoulou g ri o . , ∆ ' Pelekid o ' oo(, o qy ( thens, r9Bo)' no. 57 [November, indiction , 67o5 (=ll97)1' xq oq xci. 1 o_t . Demosiakon te os, Vranousi' A no. zr (November, indiction V, 67o5 |= 96D' zo6_ 6' For a commentary for other related documents, see Ñapadopoulou, on the monetary terms used in these and ..De 'unit6 the Monastery of Machairas in Cyprus, issued under saac when the island ri g'', iπ nge us, l'6clatement''' 3 _t6. C t stLcu n ecc esi' rum et nxonaste .Lorun.L, mS. M rc. L t' ..Pisani e Bisanzio nel X no. 9,fol. zr", cited in S. Borsari, Bolletlr oStorLcohs πo 6o (r99 )' r14, n.3o, 32 Morrisson, ry6e), fi. πx longer under Byzantin e r Le.,, N l o xd. T π x i .' ed. . P. Tsiknop oul os (Nicosia, 35 36 cL. , secolo'' no. 57 Money'', 9 7-19,939. For the lqth and 3th centuries, see DoC 4.roz_a3. ..Byzantine Nystazopou ou_Ñelekido , ∆ ool (November, indiction ' 67o6 [=rr97J), rrr: qy 1. , 9*1o. of the Komnenoi' , aS more sophisticated than we thought.3z The Fourth Cmsade (rzo4) and its aftermath led t the creation ofSuccessor States, each of them issuing its own coinage. As far as the lower denominations are concerned, the coinages of the Successor states showed a clear eff rt to maintain the circulati n patterns of the imperial Byzantine period. The sole exception was the empire of Nicaea that issued tetartera, a denomination that never circulated in lts territories duringthe pre-r2o4 period. However, they Seem to have been pr duced in restricted quantities , LJ l.] z t L] J J < F -JZ ^ru -U (-) 5 E L!= UJZI_ j uZ-- Ps ->mL :L - - -l o c\t z l. .l n ct lJl mainly for prestige and propaganda reasons. Moreover, it is probable that the Nicaean tetartera started being struck only after the annexation of European territories in the e mpire, where this denominatio n tradiπ.o nally circu ated.38 on the other side of the Aegean, the new Latin lords of southern Greece issued imitations of the Byzantine tetartera of ]exius and ManuelK mnenos. These coins represented the equivalent of the Latin imitative stamena that circulated in the rest of the former Byzantine territories and that were intended for a population accustomed to usingthis denomination.3e The numismatic circulation of the twelfth century, especially of "small change", still retains many secrets for the modern scholar that will hopefully be solved by new material from regions that are rather poorly represented in publications, such as s a M nor. hat can be said with certainty is that the monetary situation of the twelfth and thiπeenth centuries, at least until r26 , is characterized by continuity as far as monetary practices are concerned. The change should be sought in the theoreticalback ound of these practices' a f eld that has yet to be investigated. o E J ) o- e, t! .c, J pol cy'' in the medieval historical context, see Morrisson, "Byzantine Money", 9ro. For the use of the term 37 ..monetary 38 D)C 4,475,48r,58o. 39 d'imitation duX e si cle dutr6sor de Durr s ( ]banie)'',,RN 6r (2oo5). 45-6z. P. Papadopou ou, ..T6taπ ra . propos