Value Unmoored
When considering the question of how the Latin Imitation of the Coin of Andronikos I creates its own value, we see that it employs many of the same strategies already discussed in our case study. Namely, the concept of appealing to a former ruler as a source of authority is shared between the Latin Imitation Coin and the Coins from Songo Mnara, in their usage of "immobilization" to evoke the authority of an especially powerful figure. Of course, Andronikos I does not carry the same sense of authority as the sultans who founded various Kilwa dynasties.
Perhaps more plausible is a value-creation strategy that the Imitation Coin shares with the Bronze Block for Paper: that of direct reference to a previously circulating currency, as a way of guaranteeing a continuing tradition and generating a practical assurance of value through the authority of the free market.
Interestingly, these two strategies are essentially one and the same- the distinction between them is impossible to make if one simply talks about creating an imitation. Rather, it is the choice to emphasize a "head" or "tail" valuation that distinguishes the interpretation of what is perhaps the same imitative instinct- with "head" corresponding to an imitation of Andronikos, and "tail" corresponding to an imitation of his (an established) coin.
However, we can draw one important distinction between the ways that Kilwa Kisiwani and the Yuan Dynasty employed the meaning created by their currency, vs. the method employed by the Latin Empire. We note that despite their differences, both the Kilwa Sultanate and the Yuan Dynasty mints made active efforts to identify themselves as the issuer of coin on their currency, and thereby tie their authority to an existing entity. Whether by drawing or erasing distinctions between themselves and their people, both civilizations make an active effort to relate themselves to the people to whom they were issuing coin.
In contrast, there is no reference to the Latin Empire on their Imitation coins- even the names on the coins are those of previous emperors. Thus, regardless of whether the imitative instinct behind this coin is related to "head" authority or "tail" authority, both fail to reference the new Latin Empire as the entity whose authority allows for the issue of coin, thereby only establishing a relationship between the public and the past.
Although Niketas Choniates fled the city of Constantinople when it was sacked in 1204, he returned in 1206- evidence suggests that he was exposed to the Latin imitation coins; three times in his De Statuis, he bemoans the melting down of beautifully crafted metal statues to make coins of very little value [1]. Tied solely to authorities of the past, and stuck referencing a failed emperor, Choniates's interpretation of these coins may have been another disguised barb aimed at unwelcome guests to Byzantium.
[1] Stahl, Alan M. "Coinage and money in the Latin Empire of Constantinople."