Reevaluating the Epirote Coinage of Michael II Komnenos Doukas: Oxford Byzantine Studies Epirus Workshop

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

Hello, everyone! In case you are interested, I will presenting a seminar titled “Reevaluating the Epirote Coinage of Michael II Komnenos Doukas”. 

Part of the Oxford Byzantine Studies “Epiros: The Other Western Rome” workshop, my slot is Saturday November 9th at 10:30 AM UK time! You can attend online via zoom.

Further information and the zoom link is below:

https://medieval.ox.ac.uk/2024/10/22/epiros-the-other-western-rome-virtual-workshop-8th-9th-november-2024-registration-and-programme/

Epiros Workshop Programme Final .pdf

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

 

For those who are interested, the seminar is on youtube. The paper is expected to be published in the Spring of 2025.

[Glebe]

In his podcast Cowell wants to re-assign some trachea of Michael II to Michael I on the basis of certain features of style, which he calls Style A (Michael II), and Style B (Michael I). (Surely it would been better the other way around).

Oddly though, he doesn’t mention one particularly obvious feature that shows up on the (relatively) common type Sear 2237 (Bendall 6, CLBC 16.2.2), which shows a castle on the obverse and one ruler being crowned by another on the reverse.

This type comes in two versions, one where the left-hand ruler wears a plain loros, and another where he wears a diamond patterned loros - see examples of the types below. 

Note that as far as I can see the plain loros types can be described as Style B and the fancy types as Style A, which is I think a bit of a problem as it attributes S.2237 to both Michael I and Michael II.

As well, we note that the anonymous trachy S.2225 (CLBC 16.1), which is evidently a Style A (Michael II) type, features the same diamond pattern loros as appears on S.2237. This type is shown as the bottom coin below.

Ross G.

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Glebe
Restore images

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

1 hour ago, Glebe said:

In his podcast Cowell wants to re-assign some trachea of Michael II to Michael I on the basis of certain features of style, which he calls Style A (Michael II), and Style B (Michael I). (Surely it would been better the other way around).

Oddly though, he doesn’t mention one particularly obvious feature that shows up on the (relatively) common type Sear 2237 (Bendall 6, CLBC 16.2.2), which shows a castle on the obverse and one ruler being crowned by another on the reverse.

This type comes in two versions, one where the left-hand ruler wears a plain loros, and another where he wears a diamond patterned loros - see examples of the types below. 

Note that as far as I can see the plain loros types can be described as Style B and the fancy types as Style A, which is I think a bit of a problem as it attributes S.2237 to both Michael I and Michael II.

As well, we note that the anonymous trachy S.2225 (CLBC 16.1), which is evidently a Style A (Michael II) type, features the same diamond pattern loros as appears on S.2237. This type is shown as the bottom coin below.

Ross G.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for engaging. I didn’t include the 2237 type both because it was not a named issue and also because I had very limited time. Each speaker was allotted a little over 20 minutes. The paper will discuss all topics in full length. (On the topic of 2237, it is actually connected via hoard analysis patterns to the coinage of Group A)

 

On the question of style, why would the later coinage be finer? On what evidence would the coinage of Michael II be of a significantly more refined style than those of his near predecessors? What about the AR obverse sigla connection of the style A AR trachy to the coinage of Theodore I Ducas? I would recommend revisiting my arguments for this section. 
 

It is infeasible, bordering on incredulous, that a celator(s) who cut AR trachy dies for Theodore I Ducas would stop his work for two decades and return to cut dies for Michael II. Hendy proposes that, this obverse sigla was cut by the same celator(s) via the following chronology:

• Theodore I Ducas

• Not used by Manuel, who minted significantly smaller amounts of AR coinage than Theodore

• Not used by John Ducas, who minted zero AR coinage

• Not used by Demetrios Ducas, who minted no coinage whatsoever

• Only for a very specific and shortly used Depot’s coinage at least two decades after its initial appearance.

 

Or, my proposed chronology:

• Michael I minted coins with this sigla

• His immediate successor, Theodore I Ducas, continued minting coins with the same sigla. 

 

How do you explain the dearth of AR coinage from Manuel I? The total lack of AR coinage for John and Demetrios Ducas? The general decrease in the quality and fabric of Epirote coinage? The total lack of any coinage under Demetrios, only for a fully fledged system with multiple metals and modules to return? The proposed theory by Hendy is not tenable, and the logicial conclusion from the evidence to follow the chronology that the sigla was used for contiguous reigns, not after a break of two decades. Connection of the Style type A’ sigla directly to the early coinage of Theodore is proof of style A belonging to a chronology of the period adjacent toTheodore, thus Michael I. This doesn’t bring up the rest of my arguments, but if chronology of the groups is in question, this evidence firmly places the AR coinage (and so the rest of the stylistically connected group) to before Theodore I Ducas, and thus being of Michael I.

 

Edited November 12, 2024 by TheTrachyEnjoyer

[Glebe]

I have no problem re-assigning the silver type S.2230 to Michael I, but I see no necessary connection between this coin and the bronze types.

As far as the two style types are concerned I see two die-cutters rather than two rulers.

Returning to the anonymous Style A trachy S.2225, note the unusual diamond panelled waistband.  This feature appears also on the trachy S.2235 (Bendall 5, CLBC 15.5.1), although on the ruler rather than the archangel - see top coin below for S.2235.

Now S.2235 clearly shows John III Vatatzes crowning Michael II, so this waistband corresponds to the period of Michael II, at least for this type.

But the diamond panelled waistband also appears on the rare type S.2232 (Bend. 4, CLBC 15.4.3), which is shown as the bottom coin below. This suggests that this “Style B” type belongs with Michael II, not Michael I as stated in the podcast. (Note that CLBC does not show the waistband for s.2232 correctly).

Ross G.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2024 by Glebe
Restore images

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

Style group A is intimately linked with the early Arta Coinage. The portrayal of the youthful Christ has small, finely executed hair. The proportions of the face are exact, and limited portions of the face are hollow. Compare 2231 to any of the early Arta coinage and you will find an identical style of engraving not seen on other coinage of this period. 2231 is unlike contemporary Thessalonican or nicaean portraiture, only similar to Arta. With the mint of arta not producing coinage for John I Ducas or Demetrios. Again, you are faced with the chronological sequence of:

• Engraving style A for Michael I Ducas at Arta (2227)
• Engraving style A for Theodore I Ducas at Arta (2228)
• Engraving style A for Manuel at Arta (2229)
• No coins from Arta for John I Ducas 
• No coins from Arta for Demetrios  
• Engraving style A for Michael II at Arta (2230, 2231, 2232)

Or

• Engraving style A for Michael I Ducas (2227, 2230, 2231, 2232)
• Engraving style A for Theodore I Ducas at Arta (2228)
• Engraving style A for Manuel at Arta (2229)
• No coins from Arta for John I Ducas
• No coins from Arta for Demetrios 
• No coins from Arta for Michael II with style A

A 20-30 gap in numismatic production with a resurrection of the exact or extremely similar style under a ruler with diminished power in different geopolitcal circumstances seems significantly less likely than contiguous production between three succeeding rulers who operated at one shared mint.

Style group A, Arta 2227

 

Nicaean busts of Christ, beardless

Thessalonican bust of Christ, beardless

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

 

2230 (left coin), 2231 (center coin), and LBC 470 (right coin). I do not see how it would be possible for 2230 to be attributed to Michael I yet 2231 to be attributed as being from the same mint and ruler as LBC 470. 

2230 should be attributed to Michael I based on the sigla evidence and style. It is directly linked via the control marks to the coinage of Theodore, and so must be of Michael I as I have laid out with the above chronologies. AR type 2230 is also directly stylistically connected to 2231, with the same engraving style being used on either coin.
 

When we then compare the obverse of 2231 to the different styles of Christ Emmanuel seen across the states of the period, we see it is also stylistically different than Thessalonica and Nicaea. It is stylistically similar  to the early Arta coinage of Michael I, Theodore, and Manuel. 
 

 

Edited November 12, 2024 by TheTrachyEnjoyer

[Zimm]

I believe Cowell makes some excellent points. I have had the pleasure of discussing the issue of attribution with him in great detail. While I do not agree with him on all of his points, in terms of general attributions, my views line up with his. I will not discuss the silver type as I believe agreement about it has been reached.

Firstly, I am unsure whether this has already been established, but it should be clear that Sear 2235 was minted in Thessalonica based on the style utilised. I won't take a stance on whether the issuer is Michael II (as a Nicaean vassal) or John III (issuing a propaganda piece), though I am more inclined to attribute it to the latter on stylistic grounds. I have no problems with the attribution of the type to John III and Michael II, as that is indeed the only possible attribution. However, the "diamond" pattern of the "waistband" part of the loros cannot, in my mind, be directly linked to Michael II. It remained in use after Michael II and is also seen on earlier "Thessalonican" (Thessalonican and Epirot) coins as well, and should rather, in my view, be linked to the general tendency of the "Thessalonican" mint(s) to add more details to make the coins as visually impressive as possible. Thus the argument of it being an indication of a type belonging to Michael II does not hold water in my mind.

As for Sear 2232, the diamond pattern on the "chest" part of the loros is a universal Byzantine design choice, which was in use both before the Fourth Crusade, and after it in both Nicaea and Thessalonica. Its presence or absence is of little importance and is likely nothing more than the result of a different die engraver engraving the die. Furthermore, despite the clear difference in engraving quality, both coins still clearly come from the same emission. It would not be unusual for a newly set up provincial mint to have differing die quality, and even at Constantinople it was not unusual to have different quality dies for the same emission (and often the trend tended to be that near the beginning of the emission die quality was superior and that it tended to deteriorate over the course of the emission). Thus the difference in die quality and slight variety in regalia doesn't exceed what you would expect from an issue such as this. The decision ought to be made about which emperor it's attributed to though. As for that, I am quite neutral on the matter since an example with clear and legible legends for the figure on the right has yet to be found. As for Sear 2231, it clearly belongs to the finer group of coins, which Cowell attributes to Michael I. In contrast, LBC 470 is of such abnormally low quality that it clearly does not belong to the same group, though I won't exclude the possibility of a secondary irregular mint under one of the two candidate rulers.

Sear 2225, which has been mentioned in this thread, is stylistically early Thessalonican as opposed to the style seen under John Komnenos Doukas or John III, and by extension Michael II, which would make him a very unlikely candidate. This also makes the traditional attribution to Demetrios Komnenos Doukas unlikely. A comparison of coins of the two Michaels with an anonymous type is unwarranted and unnecessary in general, though, given how it cannot be confidently attributed to one specific emperor. 

Thus, given how the coins attributed by Cowell are clearly stylistically connected, I believe the burden of proof lies with anyone wishing to group the coins using a different method than stylistic grouping. Byzantine numismatics still is a field in its infancy, and many old theories and attributions have since become outdated. I believe what Cowell is doing is giving the field a breath of fresh air by challenging views he sees as outdated and correcting errors made by authors in past decades. The late Byzantine field has historically received very little attention, so anyone willing to study and do active research in the field is a great benefit to the field and hobby as a whole.

Edited November 12, 2024 by Zimm

[Glebe]

8 hours ago, Zimm said:

I believe Cowell makes some excellent points. I have had the pleasure of discussing the issue of attribution with him in great detail. While I do not agree with him on all of his points, in terms of general attributions, my views line up with his. I will not discuss the silver type as I believe agreement about it has been reached.

Firstly, I am unsure whether this has already been established, but it should be clear that Sear 2235 was minted in Thessalonica based on the style utilised. I won't take a stance on whether the issuer is Michael II (as a Nicaean vassal) or John III (issuing a propaganda piece), though I am more inclined to attribute it to the latter on stylistic grounds. I have no problems with the attribution of the type to John III and Michael II, as that is indeed the only possible attribution. However, the "diamond" pattern of the "waistband" part of the loros cannot, in my mind, be directly linked to Michael II. It remained in use after Michael II and is also seen on earlier "Thessalonican" (Thessalonican and Epirot) coins as well, and should rather, in my view, be linked to the general tendency of the "Thessalonican" mint(s) to add more details to make the coins as visually impressive as possible. Thus the argument of it being an indication of a type belonging to Michael II does not hold water in my mind.

As for Sear 2232, the diamond pattern on the "chest" part of the loros is a universal Byzantine design choice, which was in use both before the Fourth Crusade, and after it in both Nicaea and Thessalonica. Its presence or absence is of little importance and is likely nothing more than the result of a different die engraver engraving the die. Furthermore, despite the clear difference in engraving quality, both coins still clearly come from the same emission. It would not be unusual for a newly set up provincial mint to have differing die quality, and even at Constantinople it was not unusual to have different quality dies for the same emission (and often the trend tended to be that near the beginning of the emission die quality was superior and that it tended to deteriorate over the course of the emission). Thus the difference in die quality and slight variety in regalia doesn't exceed what you would expect from an issue such as this. The decision ought to be made about which emperor it's attributed to though. As for that, I am quite neutral on the matter since an example with clear and legible legends for the figure on the right has yet to be found. As for Sear 2231, it clearly belongs to the finer group of coins, which Cowell attributes to Michael I. In contrast, LBC 470 is of such abnormally low quality that it clearly does not belong to the same group, though I won't exclude the possibility of a secondary irregular mint under one of the two candidate rulers.

Sear 2225, which has been mentioned in this thread, is stylistically early Thessalonican as opposed to the style seen under John Komnenos Doukas or John III, and by extension Michael II, which would make him a very unlikely candidate. This also makes the traditional attribution to Demetrios Komnenos Doukas unlikely. A comparison of coins of the two Michaels with an anonymous type is unwarranted and unnecessary in general, though, given how it cannot be confidently attributed to one specific emperor. 

Thus, given how the coins attributed by Cowell are clearly stylistically connected, I believe the burden of proof lies with anyone wishing to group the coins using a different method than stylistic grouping. Byzantine numismatics still is a field in its infancy, and many old theories and attributions have since become outdated. I believe what Cowell is doing is giving the field a breath of fresh air by challenging views he sees as outdated and correcting errors made by authors in past decades. The late Byzantine field has historically received very little attention, so anyone willing to study and do active research in the field is a great benefit to the field and hobby as a whole.

Hi Zimm,

You need to look more closely at the diamond pattern waistbands (on types S.2225, 2232, 2235 & 2236). These waistbands are clearly different from the standard waistband which shows a diagonal (St Andrew's) cross with 5 dots.

Although just what this tells us I'm not sure.

Ross G.

[Glebe]

10 hours ago, TheTrachyEnjoyer said:

 

2230 (left coin), 2231 (center coin), and LBC 470 (right coin). I do not see how it would be possible for 2230 to be attributed to Michael I yet 2231 to be attributed as being from the same mint and ruler as LBC 470. 

2230 should be attributed to Michael I based on the sigla evidence and style. It is directly linked via the control marks to the coinage of Theodore, and so must be of Michael I as I have laid out with the above chronologies. AR type 2230 is also directly stylistically connected to 2231, with the same engraving style being used on either coin.
 

When we then compare the obverse of 2231 to the different styles of Christ Emmanuel seen across the states of the period, we see it is also stylistically different than Thessalonica and Nicaea. It is stylistically similar  to the early Arta coinage of Michael I, Theodore, and Manuel. 
 

 

I'm not sure who wants to connect S.2231 with LBC 470, but anyway presumably everybody realises that LBC 470 is misdescribed, i.e, it is Bendall 9a, but not S.2232 (Bendall 4).

Ross G.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Glebe

[Glebe]

So what happened to the images in my earlier posts?

Ross G.

[Simon]

On 11/16/2024 at 2:37 PM, Glebe said:

So what happened to the images in my earlier posts?

Ross G.

Hi Ross, I have seen this before but on older posts. I would report it in the help section.  I thought it had to do with linked photos versus uploaded. I don't know that for fact, just a guess. 

@TheTrachyEnjoyer Sam I look forward to your catalog and I will happily buy a copy. My only suggestion is don't be rushed, I felt that was one of the problems CLBC had, it was rushed to publication and not properly proofed, it included many errors because of it. I will sign up on your page to get updates on when your work will be available. 

Good presentation and thank you for sharing. 

Simon

[Glebe]

Thanks Simon - I would report the problem if I could, but where?

The "Report" function doesn't seem to be relevant here.

Ross G.

[Simon]

14 hours ago, Glebe said:

Thanks Simon - I would report the problem if I could, but where?

The "Report" function doesn't seem to be relevant here.

Ross G

Your right Ross, lets try @Restitutor, he is the admin, perhaps he can send us the right place, if it is not him. 

Best,

Simon

 

 

[Restitutor]

5 hours ago, Simon said:

Your right Ross, lets try @Restitutor, he is the admin, perhaps he can send us the right place, if it is not him. 

Best,

Simon

 

 

Thanks for tagging me! @Glebe were these photos linked when put into the comment? Nothing abnormal is sticking out to me that would explain their absence. 

[Glebe]

6 hours ago, Restitutor said:

Thanks for tagging me! @Glebe were these photos linked when put into the comment? Nothing abnormal is sticking out to me that would explain their absence. 

They were simply copied from a file of .jpg images using choose files.

To begin with all was well, but after a few days they evaporated.

Ross G.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Glebe

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

On 11/18/2024 at 2:19 AM, Simon said:

Hi Ross, I have seen this before but on older posts. I would report it in the help section.  I thought it had to do with linked photos versus uploaded. I don't know that for fact, just a guess. 

@TheTrachyEnjoyer Sam I look forward to your catalog and I will happily buy a copy. My only suggestion is don't be rushed, I felt that was one of the problems CLBC had, it was rushed to publication and not properly proofed, it included many errors because of it. I will sign up on your page to get updates on when your work will be available. 

Good presentation and thank you for sharing. 

Simon

Hi, sorry for delayed responses. I have been quite busy.

No worry on the catalogue being rushed. I am taking my time and making sure accuracy is the foremost quality of the work. Real, quantified evidence will be provided for all theories and frank acknowledgment when something is uncertain, as is often the case for the period. Part of my emphasis will be the use of statistics for stylistic analysis, something that has not been done before for late byzantine numismatics and will hopefully help to create a common framework for future discussions.

At this point, the catalogue and commentary is probably at least a year out from printing with publishing partners, and likely closer to two or even three. It is hard to predict the time needed for a project like this. One step forward and two steps back…However, I will share that the catalogue (without commentary or analysis) will be in a working form with plates by Christmas. The hardest part that has taken over two years is almost done (in the form of a working rough draft). 

Some of the analysis work will be undertaken in the spring for my thesis as I am wrapping up master’s degree next semester.
 

It could also be that the catalogue and commentary will form the basis of an institutional project or doctorate post graduation. It may be that the publication of this and future volumes come with a partnership at a University. I will have a clearer picture come spring. 

Edited November 25, 2024 by TheTrachyEnjoyer

[Glebe]

Here's my take on (most of) the coins of Epirus, arranged by size (= date?) and style.

For easy viewing you may need to save the image off.

Ross G.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Glebe
B.3 text updated/ B.4 moved earlier/ B.7 moved later

[Glebe]

I've made a few changes to my chart.

Ross G.