Tetartera

Tetarteron ( tetartera PL) Alexius Coin reform coinage 1092

Currently the denomination is categorized into three denominations. 

Metropolitan Issue, this coin was minted exclusively in Constantinople, it also has had fluctuating amount of silver added to the denomination. It has proven to be tariffed higher than the regional issues from documents that described the buying power of the Tetarteron in the city of Constantinople. It in 1185 had the purchase price of 10 Herring. A regional issue, minted in Thessalonica was noted with the purchase power of a small loaf of bread roughly near the same time period.

Regional ,Thessalonica mint and other unknown mints created a Tetarteron  that contained no silver. The Thessalonica issues seemed to keep a very distinctive design, normally , thick and octagon shaped. Other regional issue I believe were minted at various mints across the empire. The design was the same however the lack of consistency in weights and in some cases smaller dies have created a classification of third denomination.

Half Tetarteron. This coin was almost exclusively (1 exception of Alexius III rd. coin) were minted in regional mints. In most cases the dies were smaller, in some cases the classification was made based off the individual weight of the coin.

In all three cases the classifications were made by Michael Hendy, Michael divided them in 1969 solely based on weight ,Unfortunately most catalogs only list the denomination as two classifications Tetarteron and half Tetarteron , these were catalogs created after Hendy’s Money and Coinage was printed in 1969, however his cataloging of the Dumberton Oakes collection in 1984 changed his original findings after the analysis of Constantinople issues proved they were containing silver. His finding was further proven on a document that was brought to light that gave the denomination an example of its superior purchasing power to that of the regional issues. Several catalogs printed after Hendy’s catalog IV of Dumbarton Oakes have chosen to ignore the evidence of the Constantinople issues consistently containing silver.

Michael Hendy from the beginning had stated the denomination required additional review and perhaps would have needed to be further reclassified in smaller increments. Therefore, making the denomination much more complex. 

The problem with this idea is beyond weight, the coins we have no clear way to separate the coins, the dies sizes and designs match, as if they were officially approved. 

The denomination also was not used throughout the empire, areas of the empire site finds have proven that  Trachea was the main low end denomination with the Tetarteron rarely making appearance , and the areas that the Tetarteron was predominate the trachea is rarely found. This would indicate massive inflation in the areas of the trachea or some form of credit was being used in those areas until the bill became payable with a Trachy, the Tetarteron was a lower denomination that could satisfy any low end transaction such as a person’s lunch.

The other problems with classifying tetartera include who and where the coin was minted. These coins by Hendy were limited to just three mints where artistically and weights do not seem to support this. In more recent beliefs the coins of Alexius were minted in multiple mints to quickly fill the demand of the new coinage. It would answer some of the questions regarding the weight variations and the occasional design variation, any design variation is somewhat rare because the empire was always concerned by appearance, and variations would be considered signs of chaos and that would not be acceptable in an empire based on ritual and appearances.

By the time of his sons rule John II all variations either artistically or in weight seem to disappear, imitation tetartera of John II never seem to appear. During the reign f his son Manuel the variation in weights and artistic design seem to appear again.

Each ruler as they came to power would create this new denomination. Not only did it satisfy the need for everyday transactions it also was an ongoing political message . Keep in mind this is the only coinage in the empire that every man , woman and child would possess at one time in their lives. It was very simply a reminder of who was in charge much in the same way the western Romans used AE3 and AE 4 centuries before.

Many in the numismatic   community believe this to be a face value coin, being involuntary value, regardless of weight. I believe this to be a decision of convenience rather than being practical. This would eliminate the value of the metal itself and also would eliminate the half Tetarteron as a denomination.

Val and Robert Watcher writers of the Catalogue of Late Byzantine Coinage added a considerable amount of information in their catalog by presenting the idea the coins could be divided by die sizes of each type. The catalog stays true until the coinage of Andronicus and Isaac II in where the coins are clearly in three size dies leading us to believe the smaller dies are smaller fractions of the Tetarteron.

The other headaches in regards to tetartera on how to determine when a coin was minted, we know certain types of Alexius and Manuel were copied as late  as a century after their original issue dates., Normally these coins were the most  simple of designs but again how do we attribute those correctly? Without the knowledge on where a coin was found we are left a bit in the dark.

This collection is an attempt to add more information and solve some mystery's regarding a coin that almost every member of the empire would have used one time or another.