12 Coinage, numismatic circulation and monetary policy under John II Komnenos (1118–1143) Pagona Papadopoulou When the emperor of Nicaea, John III Vatatzes (1222–54), decided sometime in the late 1220s to resume the minting of gold coinage that had been suspended since 1204, he selected as his prototype the hyperpyron of his namesake, the twelfth- century emperor, John II Komnenos (1118–43) (Figure 12.1).1 Vatatzes closely imitated not only the iconography of the coin, but its epigraphy as well. Thus, the porphyrogennetos epithet, to which he had no right, figures prominently on his hyperpyra. The emperor’s choice to imitate coins dating back more than a century was most probably dictated by the prestige of the Komnenos name and the desire to connect himself with the celebrated family, something characteristic of every thirteenth-century Byzantine ruler.2 Through imitation, John Vatatzes aimed at creating a visual connection with the imperial past, and more particularly with John Komnenos, whose high-standing reputation as a ruler had earned him the nickname Kaloioannes ( John the Good).3 1 The great similarity between these thirteenth-century imitativehyperpyra and their twelfth-century prototypes led numismatists to lengthy discussions regarding the correct attribution of specific groups of coins. It is now generally agreed that hyperpyra of this type bearing mint marks (sigla) should be attrib- uted to the thirteenth century, but the matter is far from a definitive solution, especially since the Latin empire of Constantinople seems also to have minted gold hyperpyra of the same type, known as perperi latini. See E. Lianta, ‘John II Comnenus (1118–43) or John III Vatatzes (1222–54)? (Distinguishing the hyperpyra of John II from those of John III)’, NC 166 (2006), 269–99. To date, the only secure method of distinction is metal analysis – twelfth-century specimens contain approximately 20 ½ carats of gold, imitations only 18. DOC 4, 475–7. 2 This trend, traceable already in the late twelfth century, continued throughout the period of exile and under the first Palaiologoi. R. Macrides, ‘What’s in the name “Megas Komnenos”?’,Αρχείον Πόντου 35 (1979), 243–5; R. Macrides, ‘From Komnenoi to Palaiologoi: Imperial models in decline and exile’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines: The rhythm of Imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th centuries (Aldershot/Brookfield, VT, 1994), 269–82. 3 Otto of Freising calls John with his nickname (Kaloioannes), but adds that the destruction he caused in the area of Antioch in 1143 showed him to be extremely cruel, not good. Otto of Freising, Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister, MGH SS rer From John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son. Copyright © Pagona Papadopoulou. Published by Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN. 183 184 PagONA PapadOPOULOU Figure 12.1. Hyperpyron of John II Hyperpyron of John III Vatatzes Komnenos (1118–43), Thessalonica (1222–54), Magnesia (second coinage) It is perhaps because of this reputation that the coinage issued by John Komnenos drew no commentary from his contemporaries.4 Thus, information about monetary developments during his reign relies exclusively on the coins themselves and on some rare literary sources, such as the Pantokrator Typikon.5 This is not so unusual when it comes to monetary developments and financial matters, since Byzantine historians were generally reluctant to comment on such issues. In some cases the gap can be filled by a detailed study of the coinage, its production and circulation. John’s coinage is one of these cases. As this chapter seeks to demonstrate, close study of the coins issued by John reveals the existence of specific patterns in monetary production and circulation as well as the introduction of a new monetary policy Germ (Hannover/Leipzig, 1912, Editio altera), lib. VII, ch. 28, 354. In general, however, historians of the period paint a positive image of this ruler. Varzos, Genealogia, I, 213–8. 4 On the contrary, both his father Alexios and his son and successor Manuel had been criticised by John Zonaras and Niketas Choniates respectively, with regard to their monetary practices: Alexios for his monetary reform and Manuel for a debasement. Zonaras, Epitomae, 738, ll. 20–21; for a commentary, M.F. Hendy, Coinage and money in the Byzantine empire 1081–1261 (Washington, D.C., 1969), 48–9. Choniates, Historia, I, 67, ll. 35–6; Commentary in Hendy, Coinage and money, 22, 160 and DOC 4, 283 and n. 38, 286–7. 5 The Constantinopolitan Monastery of Christ Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) was founded by John II Komnenos, who signs its Typikon dated October 1136. See the original text and a French translation in Gautier, ‘Le Typikon Pantocrator’, 1–145; English translation by R. Jordan in BMFD, II, 725–81. For a commentary on the coins mentioned in this Typikon, Morrisson, ‘Coinage and money’, 267–8. COINage, NUmismatic circUlatiON AND MONetarY POLICY 185 regarding the denominations in precious metal.6 These latter denominations, the gold hyperpyron and the electrum trikephalon, form the object of the present study.7 Monetary production Three types of gold hyperpyra were minted during John’s reign. Their sequence was securely established by Michael Hendy, who also asserted that monetary production under the Komnenoi followed the indictional cycle.8 John’s reign included three indictional cycles, and it is only natural to assume that each of his hyperpyra types corresponded to an indictional cycle. This gives us the scheme of Table 12.1.9 It is evident that the issuing period for each type differs significantly: only four years for the first type, fifteen years for the second and six years for the third type. One would have normally expected a much higher production volume for the sec- ond type with the third and the first types following. This, however, presupposes a fairly stable rhythm of production, which, as can be seen in Figure 12.5, was not the case.10 6 The term monetary policy is not used in its modern sense (regulation of the monetary volume with regard to macroeconomic balances), but by taking into account the context and restraints of a medieval economy. 7 Unlike DOC 4, the reference catalogue for the coinage of this period, I prefer to use the term trikephalon in order to describe the ⅓ hyperpyron, made of an alloy of gold and silver (electrum). The term is more common in contemporary documents and less ambiguous than its equivalent, the aspron trachy, which was also applied to the billon denomination, otherwise known as stamenon. 8 DOC 4, 97; Hendy, Coinage and money, 107–8. 9 DOC 4, 250–1. Michael Hendy considers that John’s hyperpyra were produced in two mints: Constantinople (DOC 4, 1–3) and Thessalonica D( OC 4, 4–5, 7). The hyperpyra attributed to Thessalonica are of the same type as the Constantinopolitan ones, but of a smaller diameter and with squat figures (see Figure 12.1). This attribution, based mainly on the presence of such specimens in the Bulgarian hoard of Gornoslav, concealed in 1189/90, presents problems: there are several transitional types, combining elements of the second and third coinage – a fact that does not abide with the function of a provincial mint which normally receives the designs of its dies from the metropolitan mint; John III’s hyperpyra copy these ‘Thessalonican’ hyperpyra and not their metropolitan equivalents as one would have expected; and, perhaps more importantly, there is a mule specimen at Dumbarton Oaks combining the reverse of John II’s ‘Thessalonican’ third coinage with an obverse of Manuel I’s metropolitan first coinage (not included in DOC 4, but mentioned in P. Grierson, Byzantine coins [London/Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1982], 230). Regardless of their attribution and whether one accepts it or not, the ‘Thessalonican’ hyperpyra share with the metropolitan ones their sequence and chronology, as well as a common trend regarding their production volume. Thus, in what follows, I prefer to regard both metropolitan and ‘Thessalonican’hyperpyra as a whole, although I have distinguished them in the hyperpyra production volume graphs (Figures 12.5 and 12.6). 10 For the creation of Figure 12.5 and the following graphs, I took into account the hyperpyra and trikephala in published hoards, as well as the specimens kept in the Dumbarton Oaks collection and in the Whittemore collection (DOC 4, 255–64), in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris (Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies, II, 692–4, 697), and in the Byzantine Department of the American Numismatic Society (http://numismatics.org/search/department/Byzantine, MANTIS online database, last accessed on November 12, 2013). The production balances presented in Figures 12.5, 12.6 and 12.10 should ideally be tested against a die-study of John’s hyperpyra and trikephala, a time-consuming and difficult task given the nature of such a study and the dispersion of the material. 186 PagONA PapadOPOULOU Table 12.1. Chronology of John II’s hyperpyra Indictional cycles I II III 1118–1122 1122–1137 1137–1143 First Coinage Second Coinage Third Coinage DOC 4, 1 DOC 4, 2 DOC 4, 3 Figure 12.2. Hyperpyron Figure 12.3. Hyperpyron Figure 12.4. Hyperpyron of John II Komnenos, of John II Komnenos, of John II Komnenos, Constantinople (first Constantinople Constantinople (third coinage) (second coinage) coinage) Contrary to expectation, we observe a high production volume for the first, shorter period followed by low levels of production during the second, longest period and a slight increase during the third period.11 This peculiarity becomes even more striking when we consider the time factor. Figure 12.6 presents the average annual production of each hyperpyron type, a figure obtained from the division of the total of surviving coins of a particular type by the number of years for which it was produced.